Atheism Issues

[ateista]

Occam’s razor is a practical and scientific principle, but it has no place in philosophy. The complicated things may very well be true.

Sure they may. So what? Philosophy is not much of a science, I agree. But basic principles are useful even there.

And God is not “unknowable,” not if he makes himself known.

Ho-hum. I heard this so many times. When convenient, belivers assert that God is unknowable - when they are cornered and there is no way out. Other times, God is knowable, maybe even “supremely” knowable.

To quote an old limerick:

They say that God is immutable,
and their reasoning is truly irrefutable.
When He acts as He should,
They say He is good.
When he does not, his ways are inscrutable!

Or is God ever blamed for a catastrophy? Never. It is always “Mother Nature” that gets the blame…

Atheism isn’t a religion, but it’s based on belief just as much as religion is.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief. Let’s be precise if possible.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Of course they do. But they just “are” what they are. There is no need to assume that they were “created”.

But then why does the universe follow these laws? It just makes more sense that a rational being made logical laws for the universe.

What is wrong with it? I am game to entertain a better one.

Moral code? I suppose it’s a little better. People behave according to a moral code as dictated by religion… I’m not sure of a good word for it.

I cannot speak for anyone else, only for myself. Personally, I enjoy living. I want to stay alive as long as I can, provided that my brain is in good working order, and my body can sustain itself. I take good care of both, exercise my brain and body and having a jolly good time while doing it. A few weeks ago my position in the company was “eliminated”, and I transformed it into a (somewhat) early retirement. What could be better?

Of course it would be wonderful if this life would not be the only one we have. I would be extremely happy to keep on living, maybe in another form… but it is so unlikely, that I am not going to waste time hoping for it. There is life before death, that we know. Let’s make the best of it.

Let me reiterate: I only speak for myself. My recipe may not be applicable to others. As the saying goes: “your milage may vary”.

So do you give to charity or anything like that, or are you your own sole concern?

If someone on the otehr side of the copuntry, say, robs a bank and kills eeryone in the bank at the time, does it affect you in any way? Do you see any reason to approve or disapprove of this person’s actions

 

[Exalt]

That view is simply unsupportable. Every single person who comes to know God will tell you that he seeks out all people, not just some. Those who move from unbelief to belief will tell you that they came to realize God was calling them the entire time they didn’t believe, only they weren’t listening. But let me ask you to explain your own view.

Yeah, of course they would say that. It’s called hindsight bias.

Why would God talk to half his children and ignore the other half? Defend your own assertion.

Well there are a few possibilities:

#1: God’s like a deadbeat dad who cares about some children more than others.
#2: God doesn’t really talk to the children who think he’s talking to them.
#3: God talks to all his children and half don’t really recognize it.

One is a possibility. But that God is not a Christian God by any means.

Two is also a possibility, especially considering the extremely elusive nature of the “conversations” between God and human beings. It’s whispers in the mind, it’s looking at situations where unlikely good things happen and seeing some sort of design in them, it’s believing in an ancient book with very little evidence to support it’s infallibility, etc. It’s extremely rare to have as real a conversaion with God as it is to have a conversation with your grocery store cashier.

Is three a possibility? Well, considering that God is all powerful, he has to *mean *for his communication to be interpretable as other things. He has to understand that when he does talk or intervene in people’s lives, it could just as easily been your imagination. So is God doing that on purpose? Well, would any good father do that? Talk in whispers and reveal himself on only very rare occassions, even in the midst of a great deal of sadness from his children? No good human father would, if he could help it. So my answer is no. The third isn’t a good possibility. I think we can rule it out.

BTW, you seem to think “more contact” is some magic formula to make everything better, but you ignore the reality that the angels were in the very presence of God and that didn’t stop 1/3 of them from turning away from him.

No, it’s not some magic formula.

 

[ateista]

So do you give to charity or anything like that, or are you your own sole concern?

No, I do not give to any organized charity. I give to individuals, even if I suspect that I am being conned. I simply cannot go by someone who asks to be helped and has a sign: “Hungry, please help”. It just makes me very sad to see someone to beg for help. It is so very demeaning.

But I admit, my first and foremost concern in myself and my family, my wife, my kid, his family, including my grandson. (Hopefully there will be more.) I see nothing wrong with this. Maybe it is selfish, but I am nor ashamed of it.

If someone on the otehr side of the copuntry, say, robs a bank and kills eeryone in the bank at the time, does it affect you in any way? Do you see any reason to approve or disapprove of this person’s actions

Directly, it does not affect me. How could it? But I certainly disapprove of such actions, since I consider the “inverse” golden rule as a great compass to lead my life. The inverse golden rule says: “Do NOT do unto others, that you do NOT want them to do unto you.” Observe, that it is a negative stance. Live and let live.

And I hope you know that the golden rule was not initiated by Jesus or the Bible… it is much more ancient than that.

 

[BlaineTog]

Sure they may. So what? Philosophy is not much of a science, I agree. But basic principles are useful even there.

Not when you’re looking for Truth in the absolute sense that Philosophy wants. There, it’s completely useless.

Ho-hum. I heard this so many times. When convenient, belivers assert that God is unknowable - when they are cornered and there is no way out. Other times, God is knowable, maybe even “supremely” knowable.

God as he actually is in his totality is unknowable, and many aspects of him are difficult or impossible to understand, but parts of God fall within the realm of human understanding, and those parts he can (and, Christians believe, does) make known to us. Thinks like his love (to a degree), his power (to a degree), his mercy (to a degree).

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief. Let’s be precise if possible.

By definition, agnosticism is the lack of belief, or the belief that we cannot know. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. It makes a positive affirmation of a statement which cannot be derived from an anterior source, and is thus a belief. By definition.

 

[Aleii]

By definition, agnosticism is the lack of belief, or the belief that we cannot know. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. It makes a positive affirmation of a statement which cannot be derived from an anterior source, and is thus a belief. By definition.

Close, but it is slightly different. There are different forms of atheists. Strong atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Weak atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God.

infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
Tim Kirchoff:

a) I have no sisters…

Tim, while you gave reasons that some of them may not be accurate (I was actually picturing a warmer climate to have that setting in, and I do have sisters, or you could say we are all brothers and sisters, so in my setting, it would be a valid possibility, not a blatant error), you did not give reasons for them all, and there are so many more possibilities that can be in that scenario. What I’m asking you to do is to see that things are not clear cut black and white for all. Many of the religions look extremely similar to agnostics and atheists. You can pop in your own alternative scenarios that would seem very plausible to you. For example, if your family eats in both the dining room and the kitchen, and sometimes the living room, it is a possibility that you are meeting up in any of these rooms.
ateistsa:

But it is fully subjective, and means nothing to those who do not trust any of them.

Exactly

VociMike:

It depends on the sincerity of your search. One of the surprising things I discovered in moving from cradle Catholic to unbeliever back to committed Catholic is that God is nowhere if you’re not looking for him, and everywhere if you are. Same world, just a new way of seeing. And you think it’s more logical to believe the universe just came into existence on its own? I’m sorry, I can’t fathom that anybody could consider that to be more logical. At best one might say that none of the possibilities are logical. In which case, since we know the universe does exist, then there’s a flaw in that person’s understanding of what is logical.

Besides, in your profile you ID yourself as agnostic. But if you can’t see the logic of God’s existence how can you claim to be agnostic?

Your experiences are not the same as everyone else’s. I spent many nights in agony calling out for God to no avail. I did the actions I was “supposed to”. It was a painful experience for me to come to an understanding that there either is no god, or there is a highly uninvolved one. My profile says that I was a Catholic now agnostic. That does not infer that I can’t see the logic of God’s existence, just that I can’t see the logic of how Catholicism is the correct religion among the bunch. I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that popping into existence like a cartoon or having it created by God being both considered illogical means that there is a flaw in a person’s understanding of logic. There are other possibilities of how the earth came to its present state. I simply understand that there is much unknown, still left to discover.
Tim Kirchoff:

Yes, it does add understanding. It makes more sense that a rational universe was created by a rational Being moreso than a rational universe just happens to exist.

Maybe to you, but not to everyone. Your view also poses the question of how God came into existence. Your answer will most likely be that He just happens to have always existed.

BlaineTog:

Relevant parts bolded.

I had read your post before I made mine. It doesn’t answer my question of why it erodes ability to choose when the choice has already been made to ask God to help you believe. The more information I have, the better choice I can make. I disagree that we require layers of gray, as God in his infinite wisdom could explain things to us in a way that would be understood to an astounding level.

BlaineTog:

However, I can ask for you a glass of water a million times, but if I hold my cup upside down, you can’t give me any. I can ask you to come into my house a thousand times a day, but if I’ve locked my doors and covered my windows, you can’t get in without breaking and entering.

I can give you some water by telling you first to turn your glass upright, or taking your hand and showing you. If I come to your house, I will ring the doorbell, knock on your door, and call your phone, I would not just stand outside. That is how God can easily fix things. Dialogue. Understanding. If I ask for something, God can show me/teach me how to achieve it. After all, I’ve already used my free will to choose to ask

cont’d

 

[Aleii]

cont’d

BlaineTog:

That’s what he’s doing. That’s what the world is.

That is quite an indirect way, very open to misinterpretation. God knows this.

BlaineTog:

Teaching takes time, and there’s virtue in taking time to learn something. If I read through a wikipedia article on ants, I’ll learn something, but if I take a two-semester intensive class on it, I’ll know ants a lot better.

And what would you learn in a class with a teacher who was giving you incorrect information, and emphasizing unimportant information, or misleading you entirely? I strongly think that the teacher makes a world of difference. With God as a direct teacher, the understanding can be immensely better, and immensely quicker, without having to bumble through life mostly on my own.

 

[ateista]

Not when you’re looking for Truth in the absolute sense that Philosophy wants. There, it’s completely useless.

There is no such thing as “Truth”. There are zillions of true statements.

God as he actually is in his totality is unknowable, and many aspects of him are difficult or impossible to understand, but parts of God fall within the realm of human understanding, and those parts he can (and, Christians believe, does) make known to us. Thinks like his love (to a degree), his power (to a degree), his mercy (to a degree).

Sorry, that makes no sense. The concept of a generic “god” is a human concept, just like millions of others. The concept of the Christian God is a convoluted one, full of nonsensical attributes, which also contradict each other.

By definition, agnosticism is the lack of belief, or the belief that we cannot know. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. It makes a positive affirmation of a statement which cannot be derived from an anterior source, and is thus a belief. By definition.

Incorrect. The word “theist” means someone who believes that there is a god, or gods. The word “atheist” means someone who lacks such belief. Both are metaphysical beliefs. Huxley coined the term “agnostic” as a third alternative, as a cop-out. It refers to an epistemological stance, can on “know” that a god exists? (Why do I have to explain this so many times?)

 

[VociMike]

This would be very insulting, if taken at face value. On what gounds do you accuse every skeptic that their inquiry is insincere?

You seem to have a reading perception problem, since I made no such accusation. But let’s take your case as an example. Are you sincerely open to the possibility of the existence of God, and sincerely searching for the truth regarding his existence?

That reminds me of the claims of Uri Geller. He insists that his sleight-of-hand magic is really attributable to paranormal events. If you are a skeptic, nothing points to that conclusion. But if you swallow his claim, then it will be a “proof” for the paranormal.

This is not how a proper experiment is conducted. One may make a hypothesis, and checks if the experiments will support or deny it. If they do not support it, the hypothesis is discarded or reworked.

A theologian (I cannot remember his name) once said: “The least thing you should do is to find evidence for God’s existence. You should accept God’s existence, and then you will be in the position for find evidence of God’s existence”.

I am not responsible for what my words remind you of. I have simply stated a fact. If you want to talk about experiments to prove the existence of God, you’re free to do so, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[VociMike]

That’s an astonishing attitude. The question “why is there something rather than nothing” should be a fundamental one that every human being ponders deeply.

 

[VociMike]

That reminds me of the claims of Uri Geller. He insists that his sleight-of-hand magic is really attributable to paranormal events. If you are a skeptic, nothing points to that conclusion. But if you swallow his claim, then it will be a “proof” for the paranormal.

BTW, your argument here implies that you have alternative explanations of the existence of the universe and the nature of everything therein. And yet in another post you said such explanations are not required. That strikes me as very inconsistent.

 

[VociMike]

There are two possibilities:

1. The universe simply exists.
2. The universe was created by god. God simply exists.

The second assumption does not add any understanding, therefore it sould be discarded as per Occam’s razor. As a matter of fact, it makes rational explanation impossible. The “goddidit” is not an explanation, it simply states that explanation is forever out of reach. Its translation: “an unknowable being, using unknowable means made it somehow happen”.

This is actually a very interesting question. I maintain, rather, that Occam’s razor is a strong argument for the existence of God. For God is completely simple. He has a very few properties which describe him. But the universe is highly complex, and according to the anthropic cosmological principle, it is extraordinarily fortuitious that out of the countless universes which could conceivably exist, the one that does happens to have all the necessary properties to lead to our existence and bring about our nature. So fortuitous, in fact, that people are reduced to postulating an infinite sequence of universes to explain this one universe. So, one completely simple God, or an infinite sequence of infinitely variable universes? Which one is Occam’s razor more likely to favor?

 

[ateista]

You seem to have a reading perception problem, since I made no such accusation.

I merely said that your remark was ambiguous.

But let’s take your case as an example. Are you sincerely open to the possibility of the existence of God, and sincerely searching for the truth regarding his existence?

The answer is a resounding “yes”. I would be very glad and happy if this life would not be “all”. I enjoy life and would love to extend it. However, there is no indication that it is possible. But if anyone has a good argument, I am most definitely open to listen. It might even be less than a “proof”, just some indication…

But, you see, the arguments theists usually bring up, are not just inadequate, they are positively disturbing. To say that God is “pure love” is simply baloney. A good being would be helpful when seeing misfortune. There is no indication of that. The final cop-out is usually something like this: “the finite existence in this world is irrelevant, when compared to the eternal bliss later”. What a joke. Even if it were true, the misfortunes here and now are not “erased” by something better “later”.

Moereover, the theists just talk the talk, but never walk the walk. If you get sick, do you simply accept it as God’s inscrutable will, or do you seek professional help? You guys are not consistent in your behavior. You should seek death as soon as possible to get to God. Do you? Of course not. So you blow both cold and hot from the two sides of your mouth. And then you are surprised if atheists simply shrug and dismiss your arguments.

 

[ateista]

This is actually a very interesting question. I maintain, rather, that Occam’s razor is a strong argument for the existence of God. For God is completely simple. He has a very few properties which describe him. But the universe is highly complex, and according to the anthropic cosmological principle, it is extraordinarily fortuitious that out of the countless universes which could conceivably exist, the one that does happens to have all the necessary properties to lead to our existence and bring about our nature. So fortuitous, in fact, that people are reduced to postulating an infinite sequence of universes to explain this one universe. So, one completely simple God, or an infinite sequence of infinitely variable universes? Which one is Occam’s razor more likely to favor?

The concept of the razor is different. It does not speak of simplicity and complexity, it just speaks of fewer assumptions.

 

[ateista]

BTW, your argument here implies that you have alternative explanations of the existence of the universe and the nature of everything therein. And yet in another post you said such explanations are not required. That strikes me as very inconsistent.

I do not have any explanation. The concept of explanation simply cannot be applied to the universe. The word “universe” literally means everything that exists. To ask for an “external” cause is nonsense. It is exactly as nonsensical as to ask “what is the the north from the North Pole”.

If there is a God, it is part of the universe. May not be part of the physical universe, of course. If you want to argue that the physical universe needs explanation, I am here to listen. But please do not try any the “first something” arguments, because they are all fallacious. Either explicitly or implicitly they apply the “fallacy of compostion”. I am tired of refuting them over and over again.

 

[BlaineTog]

Close, but it is slightly different. There are different forms of atheists. Strong atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Weak atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God.

infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Huh. Well, I learned something today.

Though this isn’t actually relevant to the discussion, you understand. If we’re arguing about floogsnix, and it suddenly becomes clear that floogsnixes are actually called gortdalmnasases, the discussion doesn’t actually change based on this fact.

I had read your post before I made mine. It doesn’t answer my question of why it erodes ability to choose when the choice has already been made to ask God to help you believe. The more information I have, the better choice I can make. I disagree that we require layers of gray, as God in his infinite wisdom could explain things to us in a way that would be understood to an astounding level.

Let’s say you have a woman. She’s at a bar. She’s had a few drinks, but she’s still mostly in control of herself. Then, someone slips her a drug that makes her extremely amenable to suggestion. Would you say that she still has her free will completely intact? It isn’t impossible for her to say yes or no, but it’s much more difficult for her to say no. For my money, she’s been impaired.

Now, God’s presence is kinda like that drug. When you’re standing next to him, it’s nearly impossible to disobey him. You could still do it (the angels did), but it’s extremely unlikely. However, it’s false acquiescence, because of the strong compulsion pushing on your free will to love and obey him.

Obviously, though, in the absence of any push or pull, the choice becomes arbitrary. So, God carefully arranges things so that you have exactly the right amount of push.

I can give you some water by telling you first to turn your glass upright, or taking your hand and showing you.

And what if you refuse, and withdraw your hand?

If I come to your house, I will ring the doorbell, knock on your door, and call your phone, I would not just stand outside. That is how God can easily fix things. Dialogue. Understanding. If I ask for something, God can show me/teach me how to achieve it. After all, I’ve already used my free will to choose to ask

No, you’ve used your free will to demand. Demand implies right to knowledge, and you have no such right.

That is quite an indirect way, very open to misinterpretation. God knows this.

Correct.

And what would you learn in a class with a teacher who was giving you incorrect information, and emphasizing unimportant information, or misleading you entirely? I strongly think that the teacher makes a world of difference. With God as a direct teacher, the understanding can be immensely better, and immensely quicker, without having to bumble through life mostly on my own.

More like there are ten teachers each trying to tell you something different, because God wants you to choose your indoctrination rather than have it forced upon you.

There is no such thing as “Truth”. There are zillions of true statements.

If there is even one true statement, one objectively true statement, then there is Truth.

*Sorry, that makes no sense. The concept of a generic “god” is a human concept, just like millions of others. The concept of the Christian God is a convoluted one, full of nonsensical attributes, which also contradict each other. *

There are no contradictions, only the illusion of contradictions.

That’s an astonishing attitude. The question “why is there something rather than nothing” should be a fundamental one that every human being ponders deeply.

Actually, not necessarily. The question of whether God exists or not is only important a) if God exists, or b) if you don’t know whether God exists or not. If you don’t think he exists, then he’s not really all that important to you (this is practically a direct quote from Satre).

Oh, and the proofs for the existence of God are all fallacious.

 

[ateista]

There are no contradictions, only the illusion of contradictions.

What do you mean? A contradiction is two different attributes which cannot be applied at the same time in the same environment.

A very simple example is “justice” and “mercy”. A sentence is “just” if there is a mathematical equivalence between the punishment and the deed. A sentence is “merciful” if the punishment is less than the deed should require. A sentence is “too harsh” if the punishment is too much when compared to the deed.

A sentence cannot be both merciful and just at the same time in the same instance. That is a clear contradiction. Nothing “illusionary” about it.

Now you may say that God is sometimes just and sometimes merciful, and then there is no contradiction. But that is just a wishy-washy cop-out.

 

[BlaineTog]

What do you mean? A contradiction is two different attributes which cannot be applied at the same time in the same environment.

A very simple example is “justice” and “mercy”. A sentence is “just” if there is a mathematical equivalence between the punishment and the deed. A sentence is “merciful” if the punishment is less than the deed should require. A sentence is “too harsh” if the punishment is too much when compared to the deed.

A sentence cannot be both merciful and just at the same time in the same instance. That is a clear contradiction. Nothing “illusionary” about it.

Now you may say that God is sometimes just and sometimes merciful, and then there is no contradiction. But that is just a wishy-washy cop-out.

Justice isn’t getting what you deserve, it’s getting at least what you deserve. Justice and mercy overlap, not contradict.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

ateista:

There are two possibilities:

1. The universe simply exists.
2. The universe was created by god. God simply exists.

The second assumption does not add any understanding, therefore it should be discarded as per Occam’s razor.

This is a misuse of Occam’s razor. Normally it is correct to exclude supernatural explanations if a natural one would suffice, but not here. The reason is that the hypothesis space spanned by natural explanations is identical to that spanned by supernatural ones. With planetary motion, God (or angels) could move the planets any way they chose, while physics gives specific predictions. That’s why Occam’s razor is correct to use there. However, saying a universe “simply exists” gives no prediction whatsoever about the specific universe that actually exists. God could create any universe, but that universe could also “simply exist” (assuming for the sake of argument that explanation is tenable). Neither gives more explanatory power about the actually existing universe.

As a matter of fact, it makes rational explanation impossible. The “goddidit” is not an explanation, it simply states that explanation is forever out of reach. Its translation: “an unknowable being, using unknowable means made it somehow happen”.

Saying something “simply exists” is also not an explanation and also puts rational explanation forever out of reach.

Put another way: I have no idea why God created this universe, in preference to some other one. But you have no idea why this particular universe “just exists”, in preference to some other one.

This line of argumentation ends in a draw.

 

[ateista]

Justice isn’t getting what you deserve, it’s getting at least what you deserve. Justice and mercy overlap, not contradict.

Your definition is not mine. But, even if your definition would be correct, mercy is getting less than you deserve… so there can be no overlap.