Atheists More Irrational than Religious in U.S.A.

[anEvilAtheist]

I don’t believe the Euthyphro dilemma is fatal to Christianity in any way just as I cannot see the atheist case on the dilemma as being 100% full-proof of some falseness in Christianity. I always thought this particular dilemma had more bearing on Islam.

I never said that I thought it was fatal to Christianity. For example, someone could say that yes, goodness is just arbitrarily defined by whatever nature God happened to have. If God’s nature had liked murder, than murder would have been moral, and we would have considered it moral. So all we’d mean when we say that God is moral is that God’s nature is in accordance with God’s nature. One could certainly remain a Christian and just accept that it doesn’t really mean anything when people say that God is good.

You know as I do there are varying Christian approaches to the dilemma which, while not full-proof make a reasonable stand:

"Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn’t need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes.
This is precisely why the moral argument for God’s existence is such a good one. The awareness of morality leads to God much as the awareness of falling apples leads to gravity. Our moral intuitions recognize the effect, but what is the adequate cause? If God does not exist, then moral terms are actually incoherent and our moral intuitions are nonsense.
Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro’s dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God’s immutable nature.

God’s nature being unchanging doesn’t show that it’s not arbitrary. For example, if something is decided merely by chance, the decision is still arbitrary, regardless of how long the decision is preserved unchanged.

By the way, I don’t think that the moral argument for the existence of God is even close to being valid, for reasons I have given earlier, and which you haven’t yet responded to. But I’ll add another one; it’s basically an argument from ignorance. It says that the speaker doesn’t know of any way for morality to exist without God, therefore it cannot exist. But the one thing I somewhat agree with is that our moral intuitions are just based on whatever was evolutionarily beneficial, and therefore our moral intuitions are not reliable.

Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God’s laws express His character and–if our moral intuitions are intact–we immediately recognize those Laws as good.

If there’s no reason why God’s nature favored love and not murder, and morality is defined merely as that which is in accordance with God’s nature, then he certainly could have designed us so that our moral intuitions matched his nature. But our morality would be just as arbitrary as the source of that morality, God’s nature.

And while he could have designed us so that our intuitions matched his nature, I think it is pretty implausible to say that he did, if Catholicism is correct. People who are not taught Catholic morality end up believing very different things about morality, and even many Catholics see certain Catholic teachings, such as prohibiting married couples who have already had a lot of children from using condoms as pretty immoral.

This doesn’t mean Christianity is true, only that it’s is not handicapped by Plato’s challenge to Euthyphro."
str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236

And I strongly, but respectfully, disagree.

By the way, I want to take the time to read through the second link you gave me before responding to the sections of it that you quoted. I want to make sure I have a good understanding of their position before offering any objections. I might not be able to get to it right away because I think this week will be fairly busy, but I will make sure to post a response once I’ve had a chance to read it.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I never said that I thought it was fatal to Christianity. For example, someone could say that yes, goodness is just arbitrarily defined by whatever nature God happened to have. If God’s nature had liked murder, than murder would have been moral, and we would have considered it moral. So all we’d mean when we say that God is moral is that God’s nature is in accordance with God’s nature. One could certainly remain a Christian and just accept that it doesn’t really mean anything when people say that God is good.

God’s nature being unchanging doesn’t show that it’s not arbitrary. For example, if something is decided merely by chance, the decision is still arbitrary, regardless of how long the decision is preserved unchanged.

By the way, I don’t think that the moral argument for the existence of God is even close to being valid, for reasons I have given earlier, and which you haven’t yet responded to. But I’ll add another one; it’s basically an argument from ignorance. It says that the speaker doesn’t know of any way for morality to exist without God, therefore it cannot exist. But the one thing I somewhat agree with is that our moral intuitions are just based on whatever was evolutionarily beneficial, and therefore our moral intuitions are not reliable.

If there’s no reason why God’s nature favored love and not murder, and morality is defined merely as that which is in accordance with God’s nature, then he certainly could have designed us so that our moral intuitions matched his nature. But our morality would be just as arbitrary as the source of that morality, God’s nature.

And while he could have designed us so that our intuitions matched his nature, I think it is pretty implausible to say that he did, if Catholicism is correct. People who are not taught Catholic morality end up believing very different things about morality, and even many Catholics see certain Catholic teachings, such as prohibiting married couples who have already had a lot of children from using condoms as pretty immoral.

And I strongly, but respectfully, disagree.

By the way, I want to take the time to read through the second link you gave me before responding to the sections of it that you quoted. I want to make sure I have a good understanding of their position before offering any objections. I might not be able to get to it right away because I think this week will be fairly busy, but I will make sure to post a response once I’ve had a chance to read it.

Evil A, I strongly but respectfully disagree with some of the above, but please don’t rush. In all honesty, the second 20 pg. article you left on the E. dilemma I only got half-way through by yesterday but for some reason felt I needed to respond immediately when you posted yesterday with 3 consecutive posts. Believe me, I understand there are lives and debates out of CAF. I get too engaged in particular threads and I start feeling like I’m at work which slightly defeats the purpose I had in joining CAF. From the looks of it, looks like you have studied philosophy. Take care, Andrew

 

[anEvilAtheist]

From the looks of it, looks like you have studied philosophy. Take care, Andrew

Not formally. I did take some sort of philosophy class back in college, but most of what I know, I’ve learned since I started looking at the arguments for and against the existence of God.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Not formally. I did take some sort of philosophy class back in college, but most of what I know, I’ve learned since I started looking at the arguments for and against the existence of God.

Huh, I never took one course on religion in High School (didn’t go to Catholic high school - too far), neither did I in college. I gots just one philosophy course under my belt, Political Philosophy – that’s it So I guess You are arguing with a minor leaguer

 

[josie_L]

I never said that I thought it was fatal to Christianity. For example, someone could say that yes, goodness is just arbitrarily defined by whatever nature God happened to have. If God’s nature had liked murder, than murder would have been moral, and we would have considered it moral. So all we’d mean when we say that God is moral is that God’s nature is in accordance with God’s nature. One could certainly remain a Christian and just accept that it doesn’t really mean anything when people say that God is good.

Moral can only make sense if something outside of ourself, i.e., an objective standard is defining the moral, otherwise, it is left to our subjective understanding, i.e., it is not absolute but relative, thus rendering “moral” meaningless. And if God’s nature had liked murder then we ourselves would like murder, yet we don’t, because an essential characteristic of God is that He is good and we are created in his image (albeit with free will). Furthermore, how can you say that Christians just accept that God is good, when in actuality we have proof of his goodness, Jesus Christ, moreover read about the many Catholic saints who devoted their whole life to God and in the process became extremely holy and wrought great miracles (as catalogued by their biographers). Their actions bear the imprint of God.

God’s nature being unchanging doesn’t show that it’s not arbitrary. For example, if something is decided merely by chance, the decision is still arbitrary, regardless of how long the decision is preserved unchanged.

God is eternal therefore he is what he without concept of time applied to Him, He is the great “I am”.

By the way, I don’t think that the moral argument for the existence of God is even close to being valid, for reasons I have given earlier, and which you haven’t yet responded to. But I’ll add another one; it’s basically an argument from ignorance. It says that the speaker doesn’t know of any way for morality to exist without God, therefore it cannot exist. But the one thing I somewhat agree with is that our moral intuitions are just based on whatever was evolutionarily beneficial, and therefore our moral intuitions are not reliable.

But that leads to a “survival of the fittest” mentality which could hardly bring about morality, I mean just look at the animal kingdom, how is it that they do not contemplate matters of morality nor practice altruism as we do. Of what benefit is altruism to our evolutionary survival?

If there’s no reason why God’s nature favored love and not murder, and morality is defined merely as that which is in accordance with God’s nature, then he certainly could have designed us so that our moral intuitions matched his nature. But our morality would be just as arbitrary as the source of that morality, God’s nature.

Morality is based on God’s character which is holy and immutable, and he imparts that morality through us, in other words we can know goodness intuitively. I think that article Andrew gave you explains it very well,

**Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God, but through moral intuition. He didn’t need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in.[13]

Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn’t need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes.

This is precisely why the moral argument for God’s existence is such a good one. The awareness of morality leads to God much as the awareness of falling apples leads to gravity. Our moral intuitions recognize the effect, but what is the adequate cause? If God does not exist, then moral terms are actually incoherent and our moral intuitions are nonsense. **

And while he could have designed us so that our intuitions matched his nature, I think it is pretty implausible to say that he did, if Catholicism is correct. People who are not taught Catholic morality end up believing very different things about morality, and even many Catholics see certain Catholic teachings, such as prohibiting married couples who have already had a lot of children from using condoms as pretty immoral.

Although Catholic morality is different to an extent with respect to others, the essentials are the same, we are more similar then dissimilar. And any dissimilarities are in effect a result of how attuned one is to one’s conscience or moral intuition (there are factors which impinge upon it).

 

[AntiTheist]

Andrew:

Social Contract? Hobbes had one view of the “state of nature” and Locke and Rousseau another on the “state of nature”. Patriotism? Of what kind; should it include nationalism, integral nationalism? What measuring stick would you as an atheist use to determine when patriotism, an emotion, becomes extreme?

Different atheists will have different standards for measuring these things – just like you will find different Christians subscribing to different political philosophies.

Love? How does reason explain love?

“Reason” doesn’t, generally. What we call love is an emotion. We can study what goes on in the brain when a person experiences various emotions – and we have. Emotions are tied to physical brains and brain chemistry. What do you think love or hate or happiness or fear or anxiety are, exactly? Magic fairy dust from beyond the stars?

It might be tough to explain what any one of those emotions feels like – that’s why we need to resort to metaphors and poetry and talk of the “ineffable” and feelings that can’t be put into words and all that. But even though the subjective feeling is difficult to quantify, there’s no question as to what emotions actually are and that they are rooted in the physical body.

the difficulty an atheist may have in seeking standards to differentiate moral evil from moral good

Well, it’s not just atheists. People who believe in gods – all sorts of gods and all sorts of religions – wrestle with moral questions as well.

I certainly don’t believe in an “objective” morality, as in a kind of magic set of rules floating out in the cosmos. Rather, our behavior and our moral judgments are based on a lot of factors, including natural empathy, rational decisions, tradition, childhood training, socialization, etc.

Josie:

because neither you nor I can prove God’s existence, we’re on an equal footing

Well, no. No one can prove the existence of Bigfoot, but that doesn’t put Bigfoot believers and the rest of us on “equal footing” – if there’s no evidence of X at all, then the advantage is clearly for those who reject the claim that X exists.

Also, I personally don’t deny the “possibility” of a god or gods existing (nor do I deny the possibility of Bigfoot existing) – I just don’t see any evidence for any of these claims.

Speaking of evidence:

I think you’re being highly presumptious and at this point annoying by indicating there is no evidence.

Well, ok. Let’s review the “evidence” you’ve presented in your post:

1. “there must be a first cause, the Universe in and of itself cannot be eternal as it is mired in space and time” The universe, in its current form, is “mired in space and time.” The singularity that preceded the universe – that began to expand about 14 billion years ago – we can’t say anything about it, what its properties were like, or what happened to it (if anything) before the Big Bang. We can’t even be sure that “causality” as we understand it functioned before the Big Bang. It might make no sense to talk about time or causality before the Big Bang.
   There is no logical way to go from “we don’t know anything about this event” to “a supernatural being must have made it happen.”
2. “But there is evidence for God otherwise how could famous atheists like Anthony Flew (and there are many like him) become deists and/or theists?” That a senile atheist suddenly decided to become a Deist does not indicate that his decision was a good one or based on evidence.

And that’s it. If the best you can do is seriously, “A supernatural being must be the cause of something we hardly understand at all” and “this one guy has got to be right because I say so,” then that’s enough evidence to count on zero hands.

I never said that so you’re arguing against a strawman.

You specifically referred to liberal newspapers as “your” * newspapers and secular movies as “your” * movies.

If you are saying that you agree that these newspapers and movies cannot sensibly be described as “atheist,” then we have no disagreement on this point.**

 

[KyivAndrew]

I certainly don’t believe in an “objective” morality, as in a kind of magic set of rules floating out in the cosmos. Rather, our behavior and our moral judgments are based on a lot of factors, including natural empathy, rational decisions, tradition, childhood training, socialization, etc.
.

O.K. by “tradition” I’m sure you will take the high-road and discount any Christian Tradition,________Forbid.

Please read post 156 by me directed to you where I quoted specifically from Bertrand Russel whom you had brought up.

AntiT, do you agree with Bertrand Russell where he avers there may be no objective criterion outside feeling then for condemning the conduct of the Commandant of Belsen?

It is easy to come on in and take right away to lecturing us beknighted Catholics because you “have pretty well figured out” so let’s not deal in banalities then: was Russell right in arguing no objective moral condemnation could come from the behaviour of a Nazi Concentration Camp Warden even though Russell writes the circumstance must surely have been most “unpleasant”. What a keen eye this atheist had evil, unpleasant indeed.

He sees judging on the Nazi Regime as requiring the same type of differentiation one uses with colours? You hold this view AntiT and why not if you don’t. On what “objective” ground could you object to Russell. But then again from you in post #139 In other words, it’s not “unreasonable” to think that humans could have evolved a capacity to think and conceptualize, along with a pattern recognition mechanism that continues to work even when there are no patterns to be found. In fact, it’s precisely what the evidence would have us believe. and this explains our ability to deal with the higher issues of existence.

Yes, certainly “not unreasonable” - a strong point indeed in dealing with the Moral Question of the deaths of millions. Well, let’s see what our evolved pattern recogniton tells us. Hmmm

 

[AntiTheist]

O.K. by “tradition” I’m sure you will take the high-road and discount any Christian Tradition,________Forbid.

No. Obviously, Christians derive their moral behavior partially from Christian tradition. Tradition is one source of the behavior we call moral. Whether it’s the codification of natural behaviors, cultural taboos, or something utterly different is another conversation altogether.

AntiT, do you agree with Bertrand Russell where he avers there may be no objective criterion outside feeling then for condemning the conduct of the Commandant of Belsen?

Sorry if this wasn’t clear from my earlier post in which I denied the existence of “objective morality” in the sense of magical rules: yes, I agree that there may in fact be no objective criterion outside feeling [although, I would say, “values” – see below] for condemning anything at all, including the actions of the Nazis.

You’re missing the point here – just because there aren’t magical rules floating in the cosmos doesn’t mean that a human has no values. You seem to be dismissing values as mere “feeling,” and while they may be subjective, values are also transpersonal to an extent, deriving from biological and sociological forces beyond the individual – they derive partially from natural evolved empathy (I, like most people who aren’t sociopaths, actively do not wish to see others suffer and try to prevent it if I can), rational decisions (I can make decisions that some kinds of unpleasant situations – like forcing myself to study material for an exam – serve a “greater good” in line with some goal that I have; further, I can rationally decide that some actions that might be temporarily pleasant, like gossip, would be detrimental to my overall goals), tradition and social values (some of my behavior comes from ideas I’ve internalized from my relatives, culture, etc.), and various other sources that we might not know much about.

The fact that there is likely no “objective morality” doesn’t mean that I can’t despise certain actions because I see that they’re harmful. And, I hope it’s clear, I despise the actions of the Nazis.

Edit: Oh, I should hasten to add that none of this talk of “morality” has anything to do with the question of whether a god or gods exists. You will certainly find atheists who would disagree with what I’ve said above and atheists who would agree.

 

[KyivAndrew]

You responding to Josie"

No one can prove the existence of Bigfoot, but that doesn’t put Bigfoot believers and the rest of us on “equal footing” – if there’s no evidence of X at all, then the advantage is clearly for those who reject the claim that X exists.

Speaking of evidence: Well, ok. Let’s review the “evidence” you’ve presented in your post:

1. “there must be a first cause, the Universe in and of itself cannot be eternal as it is mired in space and time” The universe, in its current form, is “mired in space and time.” The singularity that preceded the universe – that began to expand about 14 billion years ago – we can’t say anything about it, what its properties were like, or what happened to it (if anything) before the Big Bang. We can’t even be sure that “causality” as we understand it functioned before the Big Bang. It might make no sense to talk about time or causality before the Big Bang.
   There is no logical way to go from “we don’t know anything about this event” to “a supernatural being must have made it happen.”

And that’s it. If the best you can do is seriously, “A supernatural being must be the cause of something we hardly understand at all” and “this one guy has got to be right because I say so,” then that’s enough evidence to count on zero hands.

That last point is intellectually dishonest and uses reductio ad absurdum to describe Josie’s or my postion. We use reason just as much you do, and we do not share your fundamentally materialist monistic view of humans which by reducing all to empirical reality is supremely reductionist.

On the Big Bang, well certainly one can find evidence of what the circumstance were. The balance of matter to antimatter had to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to even arise. There would have been no universe capable of sustaining life if the expansion rate of the Big Bang had been one billionth of a percentage point bigger or smaller.

Furthermore, the chance of possibilities of life arriving spontaneously through mere chance has been calculated by Cambridge astronomer Fred Doyle as being 1x10 to the power of 40. Incredible. The harmony of these features cannot be explained by mere chance, says Paul Davies, theoretical physicist at Harvard: It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been carefully thought out…the seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical of these numerical designs reamin the most compelling EVIDENCE for cosmic design.

Statistically speaking, it seems likelier to believe in a Creator from these figures than it is to stick with blind belief that these one in trillion accidental chances just happened at some point to create the universe and life. AntiTheist or Paul Davies for reasoned arguments on this, I go with the latter. No talk of irrational fairy tales here.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Sorry if this wasn’t clear from my earlier post in which I denied the existence of “objective morality” in the sense of magical rules: yes, I agree that there may in fact be no objective criterion outside feeling [although, I would say, “values” – see below] for condemning anything at all, including the actions of the Nazis.

The fact that there is likely no “objective morality” doesn’t mean that I can’t despise certain actions because I see that they’re harmful. And, I hope it’s clear, I despise the actions of the Nazis.

Any time an atheist has to emphasize twice even, that he hopes it clear he despises the actions of the Nazis really says something of the precarious foundation of his belief in proper morality. You don’t believe in objective morality “in the sense of magical rules” (what do you mean card trick morality and the Amazing Kreskin) but then state there is likely no “objective morality” and that “feelings” like Bertrand Russell’s are adequate to condemn the “unpleasantness” in Russell’s words of the Nazis. Russell sees judging the evil of Nazism as equal to judging the color of a ball. Yes, a very strong case for morality that.

The only magic being articulated on this thread is by you and your shaky grounding for morality. You’ve magically made objective morality and God disappear in your head which leads you to assume Christianity is just magic when it fundamentally understands objective morality and doesn’t rely on “feelings” as to what is right and wrong.

 

[KyivAndrew]

You to Josie:

You’re missing the point here – just because there aren’t magical rules floating in the cosmos doesn’t mean that a human has no values.

Again, paint the opponent with a brush and reduce her position to a caricature. Where did Josie or I observe magical rules floating in the Cosmos. Indeed, we believe there is design in the Cosmos as the scientists above averred pointing to a Creator God. Are you going to say that these scientists in studying design suggestive of a Designer are just pure magicians. What hogwash.

The incredible near-impossibility of the elements and quantities and temperatures needed for the Big Bang surely make the case stronger for a Designer than the one in trillion trillion chances of this occurring. You stick with your one in trillion trillion odds and chance to explain everything because you have chosen not to believe in God and an argument for chance against-the-odds creation is all that’s left. Convenient too because God doesn’t have to show up. Maybe convenient, but less rational IMHO than a belief in a Creator God.

In any event your stubborn reductionist view of humanity to “smart” material objects without a soul makes it most unlikely of you seeking other explanations beyond mere materialism. When somebody 100% dismisses metaphysics as “irrational” it is hard to see anything changing your view. As you’ve said, you got it all figured out. Well, congratulations, you’re only the second person on earth to have done that.

 

[AntiTheist]

There would have been no universe capable of sustaining life if the expansion rate of the Big Bang had been one billionth of a percentage point bigger or smaller.

Yes, this is true.

Of course, if the expansion rate had been different, we might have had a different universe – perhaps one with life, perhaps one without life.

Either way, you’re taking the current state of the universe and evaluating the evidence under the assumption that the current state of the universe was a goal. That assumption is not justified. It doesn’t matter who’s convinced by starting from that assumption – it just doesn’t cut it.

Think of it this way: what are the odds of getting dealt a bridge hand that is perfect, i.e. 2 through Ace of all one single suit? The odds are astronomically small, somewhere in the realm of 1 in several million or so, if I’m remembering correctly. But what are the odds of getting any old hand, say, King of Clubs, Jack of Diamonds, Two of Hearts, Five of Clubs, etc.? The odds of any other hand are exactly the same. It’s just that we regard one as special because we attach a value to it.

But being dealt a bridge hand – even a really good one – in no way demonstrates that there was an intelligence arranging the cards, even though the odds might be astronomically small.

The only magic being articulated on this thread is by you and your shaky grounding for morality.

I don’t think you carefully read my post – I don’t accept the existence of objective morality (I say that it’s not “likely” to exist because I could always be wrong and we might discover evidence of such a thing tomorrow).

I’m not trying to provide a “grounding for morality” – I was explaining why humans behave in the way that they label “moral.”

You’ve magically made objective morality and God disappear in your head which leads you to assume Christianity is just magic when it fundamentally understands objective morality and doesn’t rely on on “feelings” as to what is right and wrong.

I haven’t made anything “disappear” – there’s no evidence for any gods and any “objective” moral laws that somehow precede the universe.

Christianity claims to “understand objective morality,” like all religions do, but its moral codes are not consistent from denomination to denomination, nor do all the world religions agree on what’s “moral.” Simultaneously, many religions endorse ideas that a lot of other people would describe as immoral – such as the concept of eternal torture for thought crimes.

You’re in a pretty tough position if you’re claiming that any religion “understands objective morality.”

 

[KyivAndrew]

I don’t think you carefully read my post – I don’t accept the existence of objective morality (I say that it’s not “likely” to exist because I could always be wrong and we might discover evidence of such a thing tomorrow).
"

So let me get this straight, you believe Rape, Murder, the Holocaust, the crimes and genocides committed by the Communists are not morally objectively wrong because we could always be wrong about Communist atrocities, the Holocaust, or rapes.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Atheism is a religion; Christianity is a religion: An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support.
I know there is a God, when I pray I always listen; if someone else replied it wouldn’t be prayer, it would be correspondence.

 

[AntiTheist]

So let me get this straight, you believe Rape, Murder, the Holocaust, the crimes and genocides committed by the Communists are not morally objectively wrong because we could always be wrong about Communist atrocities, the Holocaust, or rapes.

No, that’s incorrect.

I’ll try to explain my position as simply as possible. I don’t think the phrase “morally objectively wrong” has any real meaning whatsoever. It’s nothing more than a rhetorically strong way of expressing actions that you don’t like people doing.

It so happens that the vast, vast majority of people don’t like people murdering and raping. That’s part of the reason that those actions also tend to be pretty disruptive to society – so it’s not a surprise that nearly every civilization that has ever existed has banned them.

Let’s be very clear: “not morally objectively wrong” doesn’t mean “could be morally right.” I’m saying that all objective moral statements, from “X is right” to “X is wrong” do not disclose any content other than “I personally do (or do not) like people doing X.” It’s an expression of values.

That’s the precise reason why moral codes – including moral codes that have been supposedly “divinely revealed” – disagree in a lot of places (i.e. because different people and cultures have different values…I doubt that many people in Western culture think that eating a cow is “evil,” for instance).

What I was trying to do in my previous post was to explain where those values come from, since the inevitable objection from the religious is, “Oh, our values come from the transcendent!” They don’t. They come from biology, reason, culture, tradition, and learned behaviors, among other likely sources.

Since there’s a high chance of this post being misunderstood, let me reiterate: I don’t think that rape and murder are “good” – I think that they’re facts of life, facts that I don’t particularly like, and I’m glad that I live in a society that prohibits them.

As a final note, I think that most other atheists would strongly disagree with my position, since most atheists that I know seem to believe morality is more or less “real” and consistent, which I obviously don’t.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with proving whether gods exist or not.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Relative versus ultimate truth:
Humanism versus Christianity.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Atheism is a religion; Christianity is a religion: An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support.
I know there is a God, when I pray I always listen; if someone else replied it wouldn’t be prayer, it would be correspondence.

If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Because as I mentioned the Universe is mired in space and time (i.e., it has a beginning), and therefore only an eternal first cause (outside space and time) could have created the Universe (or Universes).

To repeat myself, how do you know it has a beginning? Just because it is in space? How do you know that just because it is in space it must have a beginning? Did you see it begin? When astronomers talk about the ‘beginnings of time’ they mean the beginning of this universe. But before the big bang there might have been another universe that expanded (just like ours is doing), then came to a halt, and then contracted in a ‘big crunch’. And before that universe was another, etc. going back … forever. To me that makes far more ‘common sense’ than believing in a creator who had to start it all.

The reason I brought up Ockham’s razor was to show that of all the likely hypotheses available concerning creation, it is the God Hypothesis that is the simplest and most rational of responses (which is the rationale behind Ockham’s rule, it eliminates those hypotheses that are too complicated and/or unnecessary to the phenomenon being studied).

“Occam’s razor or Ockham’s razor[1], attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham is the principle that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily” or, popularly applied, “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”[2] The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.”

And the theory that makes the fewest assumptions is the one that says the universe has always existed. Adding God is unnecessary.

To repeat the last line from my earlier post:

Where earlier philosophers attempted to justify God’s existence with rational proof, Ockham declared religious belief to be incapable of such proof and a matter of faith.

 

[josie_L]

To repeat myself, how do you know it has a beginning? Just because it is in space? How do you know that just because it is in space it must have a beginning? Did you see it begin? When astronomers talk about the ‘beginnings of time’ they mean the beginning of this universe. But before the big bang there might have been another universe that expanded (just like ours is doing), then came to a halt, and then contracted in a ‘big crunch’. And before that universe was another, etc. going back … forever. To me that makes far more ‘common sense’ than believing in a creator who had to start it all.

Eternal essentially means outside of space and time, so how can you say the Universe or Universes are eternal when they are mired in space and time? So your question of whether there are other universes preceding ours only begs the question what created those universes, there has to be a first cause (which is eternal) to bring about space and time. This is why I state that the God hypothesis actually makes more sense and is more simplistic than the idea of an eternal universe or chain of universes.

To repeat the last line from my earlier post:

What you quoted states that you can’t PROVE God in this manner and that is indeed correct (you need faith), but I’m not trying to prove God exists, I am giving evidence however that God of all the hypotheses available seems the most plausible explanation for creation.

 

[wcknight]

EA, so you think all evidence of miracles are either frauds, lies, fabrications or otherwise figments of some folks imagination.

While it may be true that some so called miracles can be easily faked, others are impossible to replicate. The cloak of St. Juan Diego in particular can not be replicated even in this day and age.

IF you could somehow reproduce the image on the same exact materials (cactus fibers). The new image and cloak would deteriorate within 25 to 35 years. The actual cloak and its image has lasted over 400 years. So even if you could recreate it, it would not last.

We don’t worry about judgement before Hindu or Mayan or Roman or other such gods precisely because because there is no evidence that any of them exists or ever really existed, but there is a boatload of evidence that Jesus exists and still does in the miracles and interactions that He has with His Church.

There are no visions of Vishnu or Odin or Mohammed or whoever, BUT Christ and Mary and various saints have visited His people. Hundreds of miracle workers had proved to us that God is indeed who He claims to be. St. Padre Pio as recently as the 1960’s performed miracles even up to his death and even shortly after his death (the stigmata which he had suffered with for 50 years miraculously disappeared the died after he died.)

His body also is incorrupt more than 40 years later. St. Bernadette, and many others are still incorrupt even after hundreds of years after death. You can not fake these miracles. No amount of preservation will duplicate these miracles.

Is it more irrational to believe that these miracles exists and God exists or is it more irrational to deny that these miracles are from God and assume that all these things are frauds and just made up ?

God puts these things like this out there for folks just like you to examine and maybe spark some interest.

Could it be possible that maybe you are wrong ???