How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[grannymh]

Would you, for instance, consider the statement “Atheists are more prone to evil” to be a demonstration of respect?

Thank you for your question. The answer is a bit complicated in addition to being long.

The statement that “Atheists are more prone to evil” has two distinct parts which must be considered. The first part “are more prone to evil” describes a possible action. While we could debate the issue that the atheistic position is truly more prone to evil, we would never get close to the “respect the person” issue.

The second part of the statement “Atheists are more prone to evil” is that real human persons are being addressed. A real human person is worthy of profound respect because of the person’s human nature. This may sound like I am going in circles; however, both ends of the circle are true.

Both of us have different world views. Still, we both can find sufficient reasons as to why human nature should be respected regardless of any actions. My bet is that both of us can find reasonable aspects of human nature which are why the human person is worthy of profound respect.

I would start by saying that human nature has a spiritual soul directly given by God and therefore the human person is worthy of profound respect. That statement is part of my world view. Even when you disagree with my world view, you can understand, not necessarily accept, how I base my respect for the human person.

As an atheist, you can find other reasons that a human person is worthy of profound respect. You do not have to include God because God is not part of your world view. You could check out the physical/material world. I hope you will consider this challenge.

 

[chris62]

Why do you think it was too difficult. My English is pretty good, even if I say so myself. And why wouldn’t you read it if you were an atheist? One can hardly discount something as abject nonsense without having first read it.

By the way, I loved the bit about people seeing groups of figures reflected in the eyes. I wonder if anything like that has happened before…

So, let me get this right. NASA scientists and several prestigious ophthalmologists and other doctors and Noble Prize winners in Chemistry and a biophysicist perform detailed analysis on site of the fabric, but don’t worry about what they have to say, there is an atheist on the other side of the world who I should believe instead.
One of your best.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This is the sort of thing that really grates me. I try not to consider people who believe in God as somehow being inferior and blind, and yet certain people seem quite happy to go around saying “I think atheists are damaged ignoramuses.” Christians here spend a good deal of time going on about how they’re mistreated by non-believers, how they’re put upon and insulted, but then immediately turn around and say the most patronizing and demeaning things in return.

This has nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with a profound respect for your Creator, which as an atheist you do not acknowledge.

 

[aclausen]

This has nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with a profound respect for your Creator, which as an atheist you do not acknowledge.

So seeing as I don’t share your world view, insulting and demeaning me is perfectly alright.

 

[JMartyr73340]

But many Atheists don’t not believe in a god only because of a lack of empirical evidence. Many look at the evidence that is presented–the non-empirical kind–and find what evidence that is there to be very weak.

That’s not my impression of the Atheists I have encountered. The “empirical evidence argument” really is at the heart of their refusal to believe in God. Most of them believe that God will be definitively disproved by science in the future. Some believe that has already happened. All of this is based on the skeptical principle that only empirically (scientifically) verifiable claims are true.

The Atheist believes in science, or more precisely, Scientism: the belief that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth.Their philosophical approach to determining truth can be summed up in one sentence:

“Any claim that cannot be empirically (scientifically) verified is false.”

But this claim cannot be empirically verified. Hence, we must assume that it too is false. But if the claim is false, then Scientism is done for. Their main reason for rejecting God (the lack of evidence) has been shown to be a logical absurdity. It’s very much like the sentence:

“All generalizations are false.”

If A= true, then A=false, because* it is *a generalization.

In any case, the original poster was asking how to undermine the “evidence argument”, and I think this is the best way. It forces the Atheist to admit that there are other ways of determining truth, such as logic.

 

[aclausen]

That’s not my impression of the Atheists I have encountered. The “empirical evidence argument” really is at the heart of their refusal to believe in God. Most of them believe that God will be definitively disproved by science in the future. Some believe that has already happened. All of this is based on the skeptical principle that only empirically (scientifically) verifiable claims are true.

I’m an atheist and I don’t hold that view. I hold no pretensions that atheism is scientific, and anyone who thinks an allegedly omnipotent being could be disproven doesn’t understand science.

But that doesn’t let theists off the hook. Since such a being is compatible with all possible observations, as an explanation of observable phenomena, such a being lacks no utility. You won’t find any scientific papers using God to explain the mineral content in deep sea vent waters, energy released by supernovae, or yes, even explaining Big Bang cosmology.

Science is most certainly not atheistic, but it is a-theistic. It is agnostic, and what good would asserting “God did it”? You might as well shut down the particle accelerators and tell all the physicists and mathematicians working on the earliest moments of the Big Bang to go home.

And for the record, I don’t deny the existence of your’s or anyone else’s god. I simply see no necessity for such a being, and thus lack belief. It may seem to be splitting hairs to many Christians here, but to my there’s a world of difference between actively claiming God does not exist (a completely unverifiable statement) on the one hand, and on the other simply having no belief (which I view as an application of the Null Hypothesis).

 

[aclausen]

So, let me get this right. NASA scientists and several prestigious ophthalmologists and other doctors and Noble Prize winners in Chemistry and a biophysicist perform detailed analysis on site of the fabric, but don’t worry about what they have to say, there is an atheist on the other side of the world who I should believe instead.
One of your best.

Do you have some citations in actual peer reviewed or primary literature? I’m seeing links to blogs and web pages, but darned little evidence of that any actual scientists have said “Yup this is a bona fide miracle.” I’m not saying it is wrong, but this has a Paluxy footprint feel to it.

 

[JMartyr73340]

I’m an atheist and I don’t hold that view. I hold no pretensions that atheism is scientific, and anyone who thinks an allegedly omnipotent being could be disproven doesn’t understand science.

Science is most certainly not atheistic, but it is a-theistic. It is agnostic, and what good would asserting “God did it”? You might as well shut down the particle accelerators and tell all the physicists and mathematicians working on the earliest moments of the Big Bang to go home.

And for the record, I don’t deny the existence of your’s or anyone else’s god. I simply see no necessity for such a being, and thus lack belief. It may seem to be splitting hairs to many Christians here, but to my there’s a world of difference between actively claiming God does not exist (a completely unverifiable statement) on the one hand, and on the other simply having no belief (which I view as an application of the Null Hypothesis).

I’m a little confused. You say you’re an Atheist but you sound more like an Agnostic, Or perhaps you’re a skeptic? So, I think your philosophy (correct me if I’m wrong) is that claims that cannot be empirically verified are “unknowable” or “unimportant” or “unnecessary” or “unworthy of belief”? Is that correct?

 

[Bradski]

So, let me get this right. NASA scientists and several prestigious ophthalmologists and other doctors and Noble Prize winners in Chemistry and a biophysicist perform detailed analysis on site of the fabric, but don’t worry about what they have to say, there is an atheist on the other side of the world who I should believe instead.
One of your best.

You seem to have a very low threshold when it comes to skepticism, Chris. I was actually watching this TED talk at lunchtime: youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o

Have a look if you get the time, then let me know if you think it has any bearing on those figures in the Madonna’s eye.

In the meantime, if I get the chance, I’ll poke around again on that web site you gave and get back to you. Unless you want to meet up in the Bondi Hotel for a cold one and we can chat about it there as I’ve just noticed that you’re a Sydney-sider. Going to the cricket tomorrow night? I’ve got a spare ticket…

 

[aclausen]

I’m a little confused. You say you’re an Atheist but you sound more like an Agnostic, Or perhaps you’re a skeptic? So, I think your philosophy (correct me if I’m wrong) is that claims that cannot be empirically verified are “unknowable” or “unimportant” or “unnecessary” or “unworthy of belief”? Is that correct?

Not really. First of all, I don’t automatically assume unevidenced claims are unworthy of belief. I may not accept those claims, but there may be value in them even if I don’t accept them.

As it concerns God, it’s not a value judgment about whether it is good or bad to believe in such a being, it’s simply that I don’t see the necessity. And that doesn’t apply just to a Judaeo-Christian formulation, the same applies to a Deistic view of God. I certainly don’t have an allergic reaction to the idea of God (which I readily admit some other atheists do), and I can certainly conceive as to why someone might assert the need of a Prime Mover.

It’s hard to put into words, because there is that fine line between atheism (a lack of belief) and agnosticism (the unknowability of the existence of God), and I suppose I sit on that fine line. I espouse the two tenets in somewhat equal measure. I’m a fence sitter sitting on top of other fence sitters

I guess the best way to describe my view is that if a theist or deist asserts that the Universe must have a Prime Mover, however such a being is defined and whatever other attributes are attached to it, I see that as only pushing the problem back. If the Universe requires a creator, then how can one logically assert that that creator does not in turn require a creator. To claim that that Creator is infinite and thus exempt from the logic that creates the necessity of its existence seems to me to create a situation in which one could reasonably invoke Occam’s razor, remove the entities that I cannot verify, and simply apply that attribute (infinite existence) to the one entity that I can say with some degree of certainty does exist; the Universe itself.

I don’t know. Maybe I am just a deluded agnostic. I just don’t feel much kinship to the atheists who go around mocking religion. Even if I think it’s all invented, I don’t think that it lacks value, and even if I don’t think it is empirically valid, that’s not to say that it doesn’t express some fundamental truths about the civilization in which it exists. I may regard Christianity as fundamentally mythical, but don’t all myths serve to unite a people, to give them a sense of where they came from and what they stand for? Christianity may not be true, as in claims like Original Sin, Jesus as the divine, and so on so forth, but one would have to be blind not to see how Christianity did not produce the Western world, and that it produced a considerable amount of good (and yes, some bad too, but the good outweighs the bad).

Or to put it simply, I think Hitchens and Dawkins missed the point, even if I share their lack of belief.

 

[JMartyr73340]

And I would never say “All claims that there is no evidence for are false.” I might say they were provisionally false, in that I won’t accept them based solely on someone’s say-so, but an open mind requires that I leave them on the desk, so to say, until some evidence does falsify them.

Sorry, I didn’t see this reply. Ok, so you seem to be saying here that “Claims which lack empirical evidence need be left on the desk”.

This is what you said, correct? Now, this agnostic approach to truth suffer from exactly the same problem as the atheist approach. It has no evidence to support it, so it needs to be **left on the desk **as well. I won’t accept it based solely on your say-so, and I assume you have an open-mind. You need to put your agnosticism on the desk, right beside God.

 

[aclausen]

Sorry, I didn’t see this reply. Ok, so you seem to be saying here that “Claims which lack empirical evidence need be left on the desk”.

This is what you said, correct? Now, this agnostic approach to truth suffer from exactly the same problem as the atheist approach. It has no evidence to support it, so it needs to be **left on the desk **as well. I won’t accept it based solely on your say-so, and I assume you have an open-mind. You need to put your agnosticism on the desk, right beside God.

And I do. I never claimed my view was scientific, though I do assert that I believe it is rational.

 

[JMartyr73340]

And I do. I never claimed my view was scientific, though I do assert that I believe it is rational.

If it’s not scientific then it’s not rational to assert your belief in it. It needs to be “put on the desk” to use your words. Is not that what you said here:

“And I would never say “All claims that there is no evidence for are false.” I might say they were provisionally false, in that I won’t accept them based solely on someone’s say-so, but an open mind requires that I leave them on the desk, so to say, until some evidence does falsify them.”

• aclausen

 

[aclausen]

If it’s not scientific then it’s not rational to assert your belief in it. It needs to be “put on the desk” to use your words. Is not that what you said here:

“And I would never say “All claims that there is no evidence for are false.” I might say they were provisionally false, in that I won’t accept them based solely on someone’s say-so, but an open mind requires that I leave them on the desk, so to say, until some evidence does falsify them.”

• aclausen

Hence the word “provisional”.

And oi wonder how many here would so willingly place their belief in God on the desk. I seem to be singled out as irrational.

 

[JMartyr73340]

Hence the word “provisional”.

And oi wonder how many here would so willingly place their belief in God on the desk. I seem to be singled out as irrational.

It’s not a problem for me at all, because I don’t believe in Agnosticism. The problem only arises when you assert that your agnostic philosophy is the truth or “the most rational approach”. You can do that. A true Agnostic has to withhold belief on everything that lacks evidence, including Agnosticism.

If you don’t have empirical evidence then you must rely on logic to evaluate the believability of a claim. For example, I just used logic to show that Agnosticism is self-contradicting. There is no laboratory experiment or empirical observation that can prove Inter-species evolution. It takes millions of years to occur. But I believe in it based on the logical arguments for the theory. The logical arguments for God (Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Soren Kierkegaard, Chesterton) are much more compelling.

I have to go to bed. It’s 2 a.m. up here in Canada

 

[Bradski]

And re Guadaloupe:

Adolfo Orozco investigated it in 1979. But can we trust him to be an unbiased investigator? After all, he has issued such papers as: ‘The Guadalupan Tilma as a Means for the Evangelization of the New World’. It seems he’s an evangelist as well as a scientist.

It says that Richard Kuhn investigated it in the 20’s but that is unsubstantiated. Let me know if you can find anything at all that isn’t a quote from a site that doesn’t have some skin in the game.

It says that Jose Tonsmann is the guy who ‘discovered’ the people in the eyes and that he is an ophthalmologist. He’s actually a civil engineer. mariancongress.org/en/bios/dr_jose.html. He is also a member of the Marion Congress which is an organisation which exists to convince anyone that this portrait is miraculous. Again, hardly an unbiased observer.

And check his piccies of the ‘figures’. And then Google the term ‘pareidolia’. And watch that link I gave you earlier again.

 

[chris62]

And re Guadaloupe:

Adolfo Orozco investigated it in 1979. But can we trust him to be an unbiased investigator? After all, he has issued such papers as: ‘The Guadalupan Tilma as a Means for the Evangelization of the New World’. It seems he’s an evangelist as well as a scientist.

It says that Richard Kuhn investigated it in the 20’s but that is unsubstantiated. Let me know if you can find anything at all that isn’t a quote from a site that doesn’t have some skin in the game.

It says that Jose Tonsmann is the guy who ‘discovered’ the people in the eyes and that he is an ophthalmologist. He’s actually a civil engineer. mariancongress.org/en/bios/dr_jose.html. He is also a member of the Marion Congress which is an organisation which exists to convince anyone that this portrait is miraculous. Again, hardly an unbiased observer.

And check his piccies of the ‘figures’. And then Google the term ‘pareidolia’. And watch that link I gave you earlier again.

No! Now there’s a shock. I couldn’t find one atheist who admitted that it was a miracle. Fancy that.
But apparently, all these professionals are biased.
Grow up!

 

[PRmerger]

“I am not religious because there is no evidence for it and it’s completely unreasonable. It also limits my freedom.”

I would say that it only “limits” one’s freedom in the same way that spelling “freedom” F-R-E-E-D-O-M limits one’s freedom.

Or that saying this is worth 25 cents and not worth 25 dollars limits one’s freedom:



Or saying that Washington DC is the capital of the US, and not NYC limits one’s freedom.

Or that driving on the right hand of the road limits one’s freedom.

Or saying that 1000 meters equals a kilometer limits one’s freedom…

 

[aclausen]

It’s not a problem for me at all, because I don’t believe in Agnosticism. The problem only arises when you assert that your agnostic philosophy is the truth or “the most rational approach”. You can do that. A true Agnostic has to withhold belief on everything that lacks evidence, including Agnosticism.

If you don’t have empirical evidence then you must rely on logic to evaluate the believability of a claim. For example, I just used logic to show that Agnosticism is self-contradicting. There is no laboratory experiment or empirical observation that can prove Inter-species evolution. It takes millions of years to occur. But I believe in it based on the logical arguments for the theory. The logical arguments for God (Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Soren Kierkegaard, Chesterton) are much more compelling.

I have to go to bed. It’s 2 a.m. up here in Canada

Since when did science require laboratory confirmation?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So seeing as I don’t share your world view, insulting and demeaning me is perfectly alright.

How am I insulting?