Atheism: Cult or a religion?

[PJM]

=AnAtheist;5936162]So you think, that robotic type responses are a sign for cults and religions or do cults and religions lead to robotic type responses?
Either way, I somewhat like that approach.

Hi,

It seems to me that the answers I get in trying to understand atheism * are of the “canned” varity. I don’t see a lot of logic or common sense applied, nor do I find creditable evidence for you’re position of no [use your own term] God, gods, Supreme Being, Super Power, or what ever. But to deny an outside influence in both the Creation of this Universe, and maintaining it, seems TO ME to be completely void of intellectual intregity?

Pat*

 

[AntiTheist]

I had surgery recently and am trying to deal with the resulting pain and meds. SORRY I missed a few post.

That’s alright. Everyone is entitled to a mistake every now and again. But you shouldn’t make rash statements implying that no atheists are willing to discuss things unless you’re sure.

So what is the foundation for the atheist position? Is it only intelectual, or is there some other basis?

Most atheists, at least most of the ones you’ll meet online, have intellectual reasons for their atheism. For the most part, the argument runs like this:

The existence of any being is, by default, not accepted until there is evidence forthcoming. We don’'t go around believing in leprechauns or the loch ness monster until someone can disprove it – we only believe in the existence of beings that have evidence for their existence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, there is no good reason to believe that any of them exist.

There are, naturally, atheists who have less rational reasons for their conclusions – including some idiots who have “emotional” reasons. These reasons usually consist of whining about all the “suffering” in the world; generally, these kinds of “atheists” are really theists in disguise. They’ve become “mad at god” and, once their temper tantrums are over, they mostly go back to believing in whatever god they originally believed in. I don’t really consider them to be serious atheists, and thankfully it seems like there are less and less of these morons.

manualman:

I don’t follow. If you make the statement “there is no god” you have made a statement of your religious views.

Well, most atheists don’t actually claim “there is no god” as a positive belief. Most atheists simply say that there’s no reason to think that there’s a god, any more than there is reason to think that there are leprechauns.

In other words, atheism is a position that involves not accepting a claim.

I suppose one could argue that not accepting the claims of religions is itself a religious claim, but it seems to me that such an argument makes confusion out of the word “religious.” If “religious” means a “belief about gods or spirits,” then rejecting all religious claims seems like it should be considered something else.

I mean, if some nutjob rejects all scientific claims and lives in a hut by himself, we wouldn’t say that he’s got a “scientific position,” would we?

It seems a twisting of the language.

It is a positive statement of your belief that life is the result of accidental chemical and physical reactions rather than the gift of a Creator. Like or not, that is a statement of religious belief.

No, atheism is only a statement about whether gods exist or not. Atheism says nothing about whether life was created or what the “purpose” of life is.

For example, there are atheists who are Buddhists, who believe in some form of creationism (life as the wheel of samsara, death and rebirth), reincarnation, etc. There are atheists who are raeliens, who believe that aliens created life on earth. There are atheists who are the “spiritual” “New Age” types, who believe in astrology and ghosts and all manner of psychic “purpose” to life.

Now, granted, the majority of atheists probably don’t believe in any of those things; the majority seem to accept that humans simply don’t know all that much about the origins of life, but that the leading scientific idea (abiogenesis) seems likely.

That’s not religious, that’s not a position of faith, that’s not…even remotely what the word “religious” makes me think of.

 

[credoinunum]

Let me preface by saying that I stand strongly by my Catholic faith, but want to have an earnest discussion with brothers and sisters who do not share the same view which I hold to be fundemental.

It seems to me that Christians in general differ from Atheists in a basic epistemological principle, specifically, the nature of evidence. Based on conversations with atheists I have known, my understanding of the atheist view of evidence for existence could be summed up as that which can be perceived with one’s own senses, or which could be conceived of in terms of properties that could be perceived. Is that a fair assessment?

I would like this to be a part of a larger dialogue, so I will simply ask my Atheist fellow posters to comment prior to going any further. For my own part, I would not call it a religion or a cult. I am intellectually honest enough to admit that I do not know what to call it, but would certainly like to hear more of what individuals who would describe themselves as such would say.

 

[CatholicsCame1s]

That’s alright. Everyone is entitled to a mistake every now and again. But you shouldn’t make rash statements implying that no atheists are willing to discuss things unless you’re sure.

Most atheists, at least most of the ones you’ll meet online, have intellectual reasons for their atheism. For the most part, the argument runs like this:

The existence of any being is, by default, not accepted until there is evidence forthcoming. We don’'t go around believing in leprechauns or the loch ness monster until someone can disprove it – we only believe in the existence of beings that have evidence for their existence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, there is no good reason to believe that any of them exist.

There are, naturally, atheists who have less rational reasons for their conclusions – including some idiots who have “emotional” reasons. These reasons usually consist of whining about all the “suffering” in the world; generally, these kinds of “atheists” are really theists in disguise. They’ve become “mad at god” and, once their temper tantrums are over, they mostly go back to believing in whatever god they originally believed in. I don’t really consider them to be serious atheists, and thankfully it seems like there are less and less of these morons.

manualman:Well, most atheists don’t actually claim “there is no god” as a positive belief. Most atheists simply say that there’s no reason to think that there’s a god, any more than there is reason to think that there are leprechauns.

In other words, atheism is a position that involves not accepting a claim.

I suppose one could argue that not accepting the claims of religions is itself a religious claim, but it seems to me that such an argument makes confusion out of the word “religious.” If “religious” means a “belief about gods or spirits,” then rejecting all religious claims seems like it should be considered something else.

I mean, if some nutjob rejects all scientific claims and lives in a hut by himself, we wouldn’t say that he’s got a “scientific position,” would we?

It seems a twisting of the language.

No, atheism is only a statement about whether gods exist or not. Atheism says nothing about whether life was created or what the “purpose” of life is.

For example, there are atheists who are Buddhists, who believe in some form of creationism (life as the wheel of samsara, death and rebirth), reincarnation, etc. There are atheists who are raeliens, who believe that aliens created life on earth. There are atheists who are the “spiritual” “New Age” types, who believe in astrology and ghosts and all manner of psychic “purpose” to life.

Now, granted, the majority of atheists probably don’t believe in any of those things; the majority seem to accept that humans simply don’t know all that much about the origins of life, but that the leading scientific idea (abiogenesis) seems likely.

That’s not religious, that’s not a position of faith, that’s not…even remotely what the word “religious” makes me think of.

**If you ask me this is nothing more than a philosophical grudge match.
It is the hard evidence that seperates “the wheat from the chaff”.
Keep in mind that “evidence” is NOT the same as “proof”.

Evidence is help forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof of evolution, the theory of evolution wouldn’t be called a theory.
You people always try to debate Science vs. Religion, with Creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it’s the Creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.

**

 

[manualman]

manualman:Well, most atheists don’t actually claim “there is no god” as a positive belief. Most atheists simply say that there’s no reason to think that there’s a god, any more than there is reason to think that there are leprechauns.

I thought that was more the definition of “Agnosticism.”

 

[KindredSoul]

Just a quick point here: let’s be careful not to make the assumption that Christianity and atheism are the same kind of thing. They’re not.

…

Consequently, calling atheism a “religion” or even a “religious view” is a mighty big stretch at best – and an outright lie at worst. It’s not even a belief, let alone a religion or a view, religious or not.

I have to disagree here.

Atheism may not be a religion, but if not it is only because of a strict technicality. The nature of Atheism’s defining claim, “There is no God” or “There is more likely to be no God than to be One,” would appear to be a faith-based claim like any other. I have never, in my entire life, seen one shred of evidence that would make me lean, even slightly, in the direction of believing there was no God or that there was likely to be no God. If I were willing to have faith, and was somehow convinced that Atheism was the most worthy belief to put that faith in, maybe…but on strictly rationalist and evidential grounds, no.

Atheism’s appeal over the above is typically to the argument that, since we can never prove a negative, the negative should be believed by default. That is to say that the burden of proof is on the one who rejects the negative rather than on the one who asserts it, because the one who asserts it cannot be fairly expected to prove it. However, Christianity–along with other religions, I imagine–claims that there exists a transcendent God. Transcendent, in this sense, is “beyond the ordinary realm of perception.” I.e., imperceptible under ordinary circumstances (all circumstances outside of which God wills to reveal Himself to specific people). By definition, something Transcendent can be proven no more by human efforts than a negative. Since our religion extols faith, it would be inadequate even to respond: “Wouldn’t God give us proof?” It is, therefore, no more fair to put the burden of proof on one who believes in a God of the nature of the God in Christianity than it is to put the burden of proof on one claiming a negative. If the previous rule about believing a negative by default holds true, then only an arbitrary denial would lead us to deny that the same is true of the Transcendent: Since we can never prove a Transcendent, the Transcendent should be believed by default. Of course I do not believe that–but if it were true of the negative, it would indeed be true of the Transcendent as well.

The point of the above paragraph is that “Transcendent” and “Negative” are on completely equal grounds when it comes to which can be proven and therefore which should have the burden of proof. Thus, a person who was not going on faith in any way shape or form, presuming there were no other factors to convince him that God existed (there are arguments and reasons to believe in Christianity, so that it is not pulled from thin air; I do not mean otherwise when I admit there is no undeniable proof), would have to simply be 100% neutral. His position, if he only allowed empirical evidence to sway him, would have to be that there may be a God, there may not be a God, and neither was demonstrably more likely than the other.

I have found that Atheists almost always at least lean toward “There is not likely to be a God,” and I do not find that this is logically tenable on the strictly rationalist grounds on which Atheists often (perhaps not always) claim to stand. I would define someone who was completely neutral on the matter as an Agnostic, not as an Atheist–otherwise, the word Agnostic loses all its meaning. Anyway, I don’t suppose such a truly neutral agnostic would have strong opinions on the matter–as he would be limiting himself only to what he could find hard evidence for, he could not make either claim, nor have any certainty whatsoever that either claim was false or true. In fact, he may well admire those willing to take the plunge of faith in order to have a chance at finding the truth, since he would find himself realizing that one in his position never has any hope whatsoever of happening upon the truth.

Of course, Atheists might ask me why I don’t go around being merely neutral when it comes to all transcendent claims. Before answering, I have to make sure that the reader understands that in order for something to be Transcendent it must be, by nature, beyond the senses except maybe] under extraordinary circumstances–for instance, if God appeared visibly before a prophet. Many superstitions and legends simply don’t fit the bill of being truly Transcendent. As to the question, my answer is fourfold. One: I for one am convinced that, even if there is room for doubt (arguably, though I disagree, plenty of room for it), Christianity has the greatest chance of being true of all beliefs. Two: I am willing to admit that faith is what helps me take the leap to believing that firmly. Three: if Christianity is true, then a host of transcendent claims which contradict it are false. Four: It is thus by faith, not by logic, that I disbelieve in quite a few transcendent, unverifiable claims–if not for faith, logic could only leave me neutral about them.

In short, the only no-faith, science-based response, when asked if a Transcendent claim is true, is any equivalent of a neutral shrug. Saying “There is no scientific evidence of it” is both redundant and too irrelevant to be a response, since that’s the whole meaning of something being Transcendent, so that response is saying absolutely nothing about its existence or even its likelihood. It truly appears to me that, although Atheists often seem unconscious of this, Atheism must take a leap of faith in order to deny the Transcendent or to say it is more likely false than true, just as any other religion requires faith.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[PJM]

=AntiTheist;5938090]That’s alright. Everyone is entitled to a mistake every now and again. But you shouldn’t make rash statements implying that no atheists are willing to discuss things unless you’re sure.

Most atheists, at least most of the ones you’ll meet online, have intellectual reasons for their atheism. For the most part, the argument runs like this:

The existence of any being is, by default, not accepted until there is evidence forthcoming. We don’'t go around believing in leprechauns or the loch ness monster until someone can disprove it – we only believe in the existence of beings that have evidence for their existence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, there is no good reason to believe that any of them exist.

No, atheism is only a statement about whether gods exist or not. Atheism says nothing about whether life was created or what the “purpose” of life is.

That’s not religious, that’s not a position of faith, that’s not…even remotely what the word “religious” makes me think of.

Thanks:thumbsup:

I don’t see anything in your well expressed view different from I already knew.

Can we we agree on this?

What is
Is

What is not
Is Not

Something can only share or give what that something has
Something can’t give or share what it does not have

Humanity consist of both Physical matter [our bodies] and Spiritual things [mind, intellect, and freewill]. Our "physical things can be quantified, but despite evidence of there existence, our “Spiritual Things” cannot.

Let’s say I agree that our physical THINGS evolved through a prolonged period of time. * where and how do we get the Spiritual Things?

Thanks, Pat*

 

[AntiTheist]

The nature of Atheism’s defining claim, “There is no God” or “There is more likely to be no God than to be One,” would appear to be a faith-based claim like any other.

Question: does the claim that “There are more likely to be no leprechauns than to be leprechauns” require faith?

From where I stand, it’s trivially easy to determine that there are (very likely) no leprechauns. It’s not a statement of faith – it’s a rational conclusion stemming from the fact that there is absolutely no convincing evidence at all for the existence of leprechauns.

Even if someone came along and claimed that leprechauns were “transcendent,” it wouldn’t make transcendent leprechauns any more likely to exist or equate the positions; if anything, it would demonstrate that the term “transcendent” is, in practice, no different than the term “non-existent” – i.e. not manifesting or affecting the physical world in any detectable way.

Manualman:

I thought that was more the definition of “Agnosticism.”

Agnostic and atheist aren’t mutually exclusive. They’re subsets of each other.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods; an agnostic is someone who does not know that there are gods (or claims that it is probably impossible to know for sure).

You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.

The labels are really confusing, though, and they tend to clutter up the issue because everyone seems to use them a little differently. The main thing is this: “Do you believe in a god?” If you answer yes, you’re a theist. If you answer anything else – including “I don’t know” or “There’s no good reason for me to conclude that there is a god” – you’re an atheist.

credoinunum:

my understanding of the atheist view of evidence for existence could be summed up as that which can be perceived with one’s own senses, or which could be conceived of in terms of properties that could be perceived. Is that a fair assessment?

Well, I define the word “existence” to mean “manifesting in some way.” To exist means to manifest in a way that is measurable.

Evidence for existence would be any kind of evidence that could be measured by any independent observer, regardless of belief. Evidence, when there’s enough of it, compels belief.

If by “existence” you mean things that don’t manifest in any way, then the question would be: how does your definition of “existence” differ from things that are non-existent?

PJM:

Humanity consist of both Physical matter [our bodies] and Spiritual things [mind, intellect, and freewill]. Our "physical things can be quantified, but despite evidence of there existence, our “Spiritual Things” cannot.

I would prefer the label “mental” instead of “spiritual” since it’s more accurate.

And I would disagree that mental things cannot be quantified. It might be hard to describe what mental things subjectively feel like (hence the need for poetry), but it’s not hard to quantify them as activity in a physical brain – there’s a lot of interesting science being done on this very subject.

Let’s say I agree that our physical THINGS evolved through a prolonged period of time. ** Well, that’s unfortunate for your position, as the evidence pointing to the evolution of the diversity of life from common ancestors is so vast and overwhelming that there is no way for a thinking person to deny it.

where and how do we get the Spiritual Things?

Mental things are of the mind, and the mind seems to be dependent on brains. We’ve never encountered a mind without a brain, and in every case, when we do things to brains, it affects the mind attached to it.

The evidence points to minds being emergent properties of brains, which are the result of a natural process of biological evolution.

 

[CatholicsCame1s]

Question: does the claim that “There are more likely to be no leprechauns than to be leprechauns” require faith?

From where I stand, it’s trivially easy to determine that there are (very likely) no leprechauns. It’s not a statement of faith – it’s a rational conclusion stemming from the fact that there is absolutely no convincing evidence at all for the existence of leprechauns.

Even if someone came along and claimed that leprechauns were “transcendent,” it wouldn’t make transcendent leprechauns any more likely to exist or equate the positions; if anything, it would demonstrate that the term “transcendent” is, in practice, no different than the term “non-existent” – i.e. not manifesting or affecting the physical world in any detectable way.

Manualman: Agnostic and atheist aren’t mutually exclusive. They’re subsets of each other.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods; an agnostic is someone who does not know that there are gods (or claims that it is probably impossible to know for sure).

You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.

The labels are really confusing, though, and they tend to clutter up the issue because everyone seems to use them a little differently. The main thing is this: “Do you believe in a god?” If you answer yes, you’re a theist. If you answer anything else – including “I don’t know” or “There’s no good reason for me to conclude that there is a god” – you’re an atheist.

credoinunum:Well, I define the word “existence” to mean “manifesting in some way.” To exist means to manifest in a way that is measurable.

Evidence for existence would be any kind of evidence that could be measured by any independent observer, regardless of belief. Evidence, when there’s enough of it, compels belief.

If by “existence” you mean things that don’t manifest in any way, then the question would be: how does your definition of “existence” differ from things that are non-existent?

PJM:I would prefer the label “mental” instead of “spiritual” since it’s more accurate.

And I would disagree that mental things cannot be quantified. It might be hard to describe what mental things subjectively feel like (hence the need for poetry), but it’s not hard to quantify them as activity in a physical brain – there’s a lot of interesting science being done on this very subject.

Well, that’s unfortunate for your position, as the evidence pointing to the evolution of the diversity of life from common ancestors is so vast and overwhelming that there is no way for a thinking person to deny it.

Mental things are of the mind, and the mind seems to be dependent on brains. We’ve never encountered a mind without a brain, and in every case, when we do things to brains, it affects the mind attached to it.

The evidence points to minds being emergent properties of brains, which are the result of a natural process of biological evolution.

Are you willing to comment on my post #24?

 

[AntiTheist]

Are you willing to comment on my post #24?

I don’t mean to offend, but I couldn’t really make much of that post, which is why I overlooked it. I’ll try to have a go at it:

If you ask me this is nothing more than a philosophical grudge match.
It is the hard evidence that seperates “the wheat from the chaff”.
Keep in mind that “evidence” is NOT the same as “proof”.

Evidence is help forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof of evolution, the theory of evolution wouldn’t be called a theory.
You people always try to debate Science vs. Religion, with Creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it’s the Creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.

Well, I agree that evidence is different than proof. I don’t require conclusive proof of a god – just any evidence at all would be fine.

I don’t agree, obviously, that creationists have “a solid empirical basis for their theory” – what a ridiculous statement. There’s absolutely no evidence for creationism.

Evolution, however, has a great deal of evidence underpinning it. Aside from the fact that we’ve observed evolution and speciation, the theory of common ancestry is very well supported by the phylogenetic tree, which branches into nesting hierarchies of distributed traits that we would expect to see from such an evolutionary process.

That right there might be enough evidence, but there is additional evidence provided by the fossil record, geology, comparative anatomy…just so many different branches of science providing different kinds of evidence that fit together so perfectly that to somehow suggest that the diversity of life did not evolve from such a process is patently absurd.

 

[KindredSoul]

Question: does the claim that “There are more likely to be no leprechauns than to be leprechauns” require faith?

Leprechauns aren’t transcendent. If someone came along and suddenly said they were, this person would be redefining what a leprechaun has been believed to be up until this person claimed otherwise. Leprechauns, as we currently know them, do not fit the bill.

If Leprechauns had always been described so as to be transcendent (which currently seems incompatible with how leprechauns are typically described), then indeed, it would be irrational to feel so certain that they didn’t exist or were unlikely to, at least without faith to aid you; that is, it would be irrational to say that the evidence and rationality had caused you to disbelieve in them as opposed to remaining strictly neutral. Of course, this sounds ludicrous, but that’s because few people ever stop to think how ludicrous it is to disbelieve the Transcendent on terms that aren’t even supposed to apply to it in the first place.

the term “transcendent” is, in practice, no different than the term “non-existent” – i.e. not manifesting or affecting the physical world in any detectable way.

Why should “Not manifesting or affecting the physical world in any detectable way” mean non-existent? This is an assumption, and it is actually quite a significant one. Only based on that assumption can one possibly conclude that “transcendent” is no different than “non-existent.” Yet I have seen no proof whatsoever that this assumption is true. Seems to be a faith-based assumption in itself, even if unconsciously so, even if it is one bordering on universal. And of course an unfounded assumption is an unfounded assumption, no matter how popular it may be.

Of course, this is all aside from the fact that empirical evidence and “what can be precedented in the here and now” are not the only legitimate, logical reasons to believe in something. As I said before, there are reasons that one can truly be convinced that Christianity is true/likely, and there are much better reasons to believe in Christianity than in Leprechauns, but for now we are speaking of the strictly empirical and the experiences of the present-day senses, which is why I am keeping myself within those bounds at the moment.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[KindredSoul]

Oh, just to be sure this is understood, of course Catholics believe God has interfered in detectable ways in our physical universe, and I am not implying that God has never in all of time detectably influenced anything in our universe–obviously, we believe in many incidents where He has, in ways obvious to anyone who witnessed it. However, none of those events would have left a permanently identifiable and detectable mark, scientifically speaking, at least not that couldn’t possibly be explained in some other way (whether easily or by a stretch). Likewise, God isn’t interfering in a constantly detectable way. His past interferences and our reasons for believing in them are a big part of why we believe that our faith is not blind, but based in logical motives and leanings…that said, his lack of interfering in a manner that would render science able to detect Him conclusively is compatible with His mandate that we have faith, something there would be little or no room for if He provided the sort of detectable evidence that Atheists often want.

Also, to respond to another point brought up, and you may know this, but the theory of Evolution can be accepted by Catholics; the difference is that we believe that God was the originator of the process. So far as what should be scientifically discernable, this is thoroughly compatible with the scientific findings pointing to evolution.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[AntiTheist]

If Leprechauns had always been described so as to be transcendent (which currently seems incompatible with how leprechauns are typically described), then indeed, it would be irrational to feel so certain that they didn’t exist or were unlikely to, at least without faith to aid you

Ok, then let’s pick one of the gods of some other religion, a god who is deemed to be transcendent. How about Vishnu or Shiva? Those are transcendent gods. Is it an act of “faith” to observe that there is no evidence for their existence?

Why should “Not manifesting or affecting the physical world in any detectable way” mean non-existent?

Because my definition of existence is “manifesting in some way that is detectable.” That’s what it means to exist, to manifest in some capacity.

What is your definition of “existence”?

However, none of those events would have left a permanently identifiable and detectable mark, scientifically speaking, at least not that couldn’t possibly be explained in some other way (whether easily or by a stretch).

It sounds like you’re saying that a universe in which your god exists and a universe in which your god does not exist would be indistinguisable to an observer. So what differences would we observe between a universe in which your god exists and one in which he doesn’t exist?

 

[KindredSoul]

How about Vishnu or Shiva? Those are transcendent gods. Is it an act of “faith” to observe that there is no evidence for their existence?

If there is no evidence for their non-existence, absolutely yes. As a Christian, it’s no secret that I do not think faith is bad or unintelligent, so I’m not certain if this was supposed to corner me, an attempt that would only make sense if I claimed to believe or disbelieve only what I could empirically prove to be true or false–by the nature of the discussion, I am claiming no such thing. For me, it is no loss or embarassment at all if I should say I disbelieve in Vishnu and Shiva through faith.

Because my definition of existence is “manifesting in some way that is detectable.” That’s what it means to exist, to manifest in some capacity.

What is your definition of “existence”?

My definition of “existence” is simply something that is. It doesn’t matter if it’s detectable to me in any way, shape, or form. The word “detectable” loses its meaning if everything that exists must be detectable by default. Certainly, one can imagine that there are some things that an impaired person, having lost certain senses, cannot detect in any way shape or form without access to those senses. Creatures without eyes, for example, would have no way to distinguish certain phenomena that were strictly visual. It is certainly not impossible, or even unreasonable, that there would be things quite beyond the known senses altogether.

It sounds like you’re saying that a universe in which your god exists and a universe in which your god does not exist would be indistinguisable to an observer. So what differences would we observe between a universe in which your god exists and one in which he doesn’t exist?

If the answer was “none” then this would only mean exactly what I have been saying: One making a strictly empirical decision, based only upon what can be precedented in the here and now experience of the senses, would have to be neutral–since, in that case, the universe with God and without Him would be identical and thus there would be no way of knowing which was in fact true or even of legitimately leaning either way.

Of course, I also said “His past interferences and our reasons for believing in them are a big part of why we believe that our faith is not blind, but based in logical motives and leanings,” which is to say there are in fact reasons to believe in God and, although there may not be ways of detecting Him in our day-to-day empirical experience, there are ways to infer that He is real based in history, namely the circumstances, history, and events surrounding the Resurrection claims, such things as conceivably might not have existed even in a universe with Him, but which definitely wouldn’t have existed (in my opinion) in a universe without Him. Basically, in the Space v. Time element of our universe, perhaps the “Space” (the here and now, which empiricists often hold paramount) might [conceivably] look the same in a Godless universe, but Time (history, etc.) would have looked vastly different than the one we live in.

The circumstances surrounding Jesus’ life and Resurrection are such that I, for instance, am thoroughly convinced that if it were a hoax it would have to have been every bit as extraordinary–in my opinion more so–than what Christians believe happened. Instead, I believe that if it were a hoax, due to the fact that it revolved around a tangible person and tangible events that could have been easily debunked for a fraud at the time–there were certainly enough enemies if Christianity who would have wanted to–and it would never have gotten off the ground. Another difference is that Christianity’s first preachers were not claiming to speak of something that was strictly ethereal or that had happened long ago in some mythical age–they were claiming about something that had happened in the proverbial “last week”, so to speak, meaning it would have been all the easier for Christianity’s enemies to dig up embarrassing proofs to the contrary. Further, the circumstances surrounding Christianity’s origins are not only claimed to be extraordinary, but they happened in an age where the discipline of history had evolved, so as to not be so hopelessly lost that we cannot investigate it in any way; therefore it cannot be so easily chalked up to having evolved over centuries from original storytellers who didn’t even really believe what they were saying, but whose disbelief was lost with time, because we know roughly the precise origins of it and we know that the people who “started” the tale believed themselves to have witnessed these extremely extraordinary events (such as a dead-and-resurrected man rising to the Heavens) with their own eyes, and believed it with such conviction as to willingly be martyred for it when they could have chosen to recant. Again, if the Resurrection didn’t actually happen, I believe that it would have been easily debunked and the religion of Christianity would have been dead on arrival.

However, I have heard Atheists label arguments from history and exegesis with such terms as “circumstantial”, augmented with the attitude that only what can be empirically experienced or replicated in the here and now is a logical means of gathering information about such big questions, and that anything that cannot be empirically reproduced is to be viewed with assertive skepticism. My contention is that, if that were true, Atheism itself would be no more logical than the religions it rejects, since both the Existent Transcendent (in and of itself) and the Universal Negative are equally provable/unverifiable by strictly empirical means such as can be replicated in the present experience.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[KindredSoul]

AntiTheist:

How about Vishnu or Shiva? Those are transcendent gods. Is it an act of “faith” to observe that there is no evidence

for their existence? (underlining mine)
If there is no evidence for their non-existence, absolutely yes: While it may not be an act of faith to observe there is no evidence for their existence, it is 100% an act of faith to conclude that this of itself means [or even *probably means] they do not exist or even that they are less likely to exist–in their being Transcendent, your empirical method of drawing a conclusion about them simply isn’t a reliable test either way, and is rather misplaced.

As a Christian, it’s no secret that I do not think faith is bad or unintelligent, so I’m not certain if this was supposed to corner me, an attempt that would only make sense if I claimed to believe or disbelieve only what I could empirically prove to be true or false–by the nature of the discussion, I am claiming no such thing. For me, it is no loss or embarassment at all if I should say I disbelieve in Vishnu and Shiva through faith.

The words in blue are my addition. When I initially responded, I responded more to your most-likely intention of implying “they do not exist” as opposed to your actual words “no evidence.” However, as I am suspicious that you do indeed assume that “no evidence” is somehow synonymous with “they [probably] do not exist”, my main point, even without the addition, is still applicable to the discussion, for reasons simply clarified in the blue.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[PJM]

=AntiTheist;5938919]Question: does the claim that “There are more likely to be no leprechauns than to be leprechauns” require faith?

From where I stand, it’s trivially easy to determine that there are (very likely) no leprechauns. It’s not a statement of faith – it’s a rational conclusion stemming from the fact that there is absolutely no convincing evidence at all for the existence of leprechauns.

Even if someone came along and claimed that leprechauns were “transcendent,” it wouldn’t make transcendent leprechauns any more likely to exist or equate the positions; if anything, it would demonstrate that the term “transcendent” is, in practice, no different than the term “non-existent” – i.e. not manifesting or affecting the physical world in any detectable way.

Manualman: Agnostic and atheist aren’t mutually exclusive. They’re subsets of each other.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods; an agnostic is someone who does not know that there are gods (or claims that it is probably impossible to know for sure).

You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.

The labels are really confusing, though, and they tend to clutter up the issue because everyone seems to use them a little differently. The main thing is this: “Do you believe in a god?” If you answer yes, you’re a theist. If you answer anything else – including “I don’t know” or “There’s no good reason for me to conclude that there is a god” – you’re an atheist.

credoinunum:Well, I define the word “existence” to mean “manifesting in some way.” To exist means to manifest in a way that is measurable.

Evidence for existence would be any kind of evidence that could be measured by any independent observer, regardless of belief. Evidence, when there’s enough of it, compels belief.

If by “existence” you mean things that don’t manifest in any way, then the question would be: how does your definition of “existence” differ from things that are non-existent?

PJM:I would prefer the label “mental” instead of “spiritual” since it’s more accurate.

And I would disagree that mental things cannot be quantified. It might be hard to describe what mental things subjectively feel like (hence the need for poetry), but it’s not hard to quantify them as activity in a physical brain – there’s a lot of interesting science being done on this very subject.

Well, that’s unfortunate for your position, as the evidence pointing to the evolution of the diversity of life from common ancestors is so vast and overwhelming that there is no way for a thinking person to deny it.

Mental things are of the mind, and the mind seems to be dependent on brains. We’ve never encountered a mind without a brain, and in every case, when we do things to brains, it affects the mind attached to it.

The evidence points to minds being emergent properties of brains, which are the result of a natural process of biological evolution.

*Dear frind a signifiant question:

In you’re opinion is it sufficient that science can at times explain the “how’s” of something without bothering to even attempt to address the “WHY’s?”*

 

[PJM]

=AntiTheist;5939512]Ok, then let’s pick one of the gods of some other religion, a god who is deemed to be transcendent. How about Vishnu or Shiva? Those are transcendent gods. Is it an act of “faith” to observe that there is no evidence for their existence?

Because my definition of existence is “manifesting in some way that is detectable.” That’s what it means to exist, to manifest in some capacity.

What is your definition of “existence”?

It sounds like you’re saying that a universe in which your god exists and a universe in which your god does not exist would be indistinguisable to an observer. So what differences would we observe between a universe in which your god exists and one in which he doesn’t exist?

*Friend, another question.

How much weight [influence] does presumption have in you’re position that God does not exist?*

 

[PJM]

To the setero typlical Atheist,

How important is the ability [and one assumes a perceived right?] to assumptions in reaching your conclusions that there is no God?

 

[AntiTheist]

I am suspicious that you do indeed assume that “no evidence” is somehow synonymous with “they [probably] do not exist”

That’s precisely what “no evidence” means. We are not rationally justified to believe in things that we have no evidence of.

PJM:

In you’re opinion is it sufficient that science can at times explain the “how’s” of something without bothering to even attempt to address the “WHY’s?”

Well, in one sense, science certainly does address the “why’s.” Why is there such diversity of life? Because, we know from evidence, life evolved from common ancestors. Why do earthquakes occur? Because of plate tectonics, etc. That’s two “why’s” right there.

How much weight [influence] does presumption have in you’re position that God does not exist?

None. My position is based on evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that your god – or any other god, for that matter – exists. I therefore do not accept the claim that any god exists.

Now, I think presumption has a lot to do with your position. Look at the last question you asked me – about science not addressing the “why’s.” Well, what “why’s” are these, exactly? You mean nothing less than things that you assume to be true without evidence.

I’d say that you’re the one operating under presumption here.

 

[KindredSoul]

That’s precisely what “no evidence” means.

This is another bold assumption, and it is precisely the sort of faith-based claim I am speaking of when I say Atheists require faith as much as the next group. As for why it is merely an assumption:

We are not rationally justified to believe in things that we have no evidence of.

On the contrary, when we speak of rationality, we can only say that we are not [rationally] justified to believe in things that we have absolutely no rational basis for. Evidence, in the sense of “here and now” empirical experience–including the ability to reproduce something to the senses under ostensibly identical conditions–is not the only rational basis for believing in something. Christians do, as mentioned previously, have a rational basis for what they believe. It is not pulled out of thin air, nor do we just decide to believe it at random. As argued before, I believe it is equally unrealistic to expect that the first Christians pulled it out of thin air. Whatever you might say about hard evidence, there is a basis for believing in Christianity, and by default this means one can be rationally justified in believing in it.

By the way, if hard evidence were the only rational basis for believing anything (it simply isn’t), in that case I could never think of a rational basis for believing in Atheism, not even conceivably in a million years…completely neutral agnosticism, perhaps. But I have seen no hard evidence that there is no God, nor any hard evidence that even points to such a conclusion. There is a difference in believing only in what you can prove and in believing that only what you can prove is real or likely. The former would leave one neutral about all things one couldn’t prove (but couldn’t disprove either). The latter is an assumption which automatically goes beyond the hard evidence.