Insights into Non-believers' strategy in debate

[ThinkingSapien]

I guess I’ll just keep my Christian faith and wait for the conclusive evidence from the Atheist for the existence (coming of Jesus) or the nonexistent of God.

Sounds like a plan. Stick with it!

Question: Why is “Atheist” capitalized?

 

[hiramross]

The thing that perplexes me about atheists is their glaring discontinuity with their predecessors. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, et. Al. Have attempted to contrive ways that thing like morality, love, and human rights exist in a universe without God (which, of course, are always textbook examples of circular logic). This runs roughshod to atheists 50-100 years ago. Consider the thoughts of:

-Arthur Schopenhauer, a misanthrope with special hatred for children;
-Friedrich Nietzsche, who observed that morality is an invention of the weak to inhibit the strong (and therefore hinders the evolution of the human race);
-H.P. Lovecraft, whose cosmic horror stories shattered our race’s delusions of importance in a godless universe, given the size and age of the cosmos.
-Ayn Rand, the pathological narcissist who deemed altruism a vice and selfishness a virtue (of course, she has her own cultists, like Penn and Teller);

The one thing these atheists had in common that ones today don’t is that they weren’t gutless. They were fully aware that morality, rights, and basic decency were merely superstitions of a bygone era. They realized that such comfortable niceties had no place in the modern world if religion were not true.

New Atheism, meanwhile, is too afraid to stare into the abyss. Why? They know it will stare back. Why else would Stephen Hawking say that “philosophy is dead”? Why did Neil deGrasse Tyson say on Cosmos that philosophical questions are not worth our time? Because they know, and are too afraid to confront it, much less admit it.

 

[hiramross]

Sounds like a plan. Stick with it!

Question: Why is “Atheist” capitalized?

I wouldn’t want you to miss the point.

 

[MyNameIsDan]

I only read the first page.

But doesn’t the burden of proof fall on both the atheist and the person who believes in God?

I think of it as there being three positions:

1. God exists.
2. We don’t know whether God exists or not.
3. God doesn’t exist.

The difference between 2 and 3 is that 3 makes the positive assertion that God definitely does not exist, whereas 2 doesn’t.

Thus, the burden of proof is on both the atheist and the “religious” since the default position is 2, where you simply don’t know. This is because believing that God exists or believing that God doesn’t exist are both assertions in favour of a side that is not neutral.

I hope I explained that properly.

 

[JackVk]

I only read the first page.

But doesn’t the burden of proof fall on both the atheist and the person who believes in God?

I think of it as there being three positions:

1. God exists.
2. We don’t know whether God exists or not.
3. God doesn’t exist.

The difference between 2 and 3 is that 3 makes the positive assertion that God definitely does not exist, whereas 2 doesn’t.

Thus, the burden of proof is on both the atheist and the “religious” since the default position is 2, where you simply don’t know. This is because believing that God exists or believing that God doesn’t exist are both assertions in favour of a side that is not neutral.

I hope I explained that properly.

Yes, you did.

I agree, we do have some burden of proof for the existence of God. But I would say the atheist has a greater, almost impossible, burden of proof, since he has to prove a negative.

 

[MyNameIsDan]

Yes, you did.

I agree, we do have some burden of proof for the existence of God. But I would say the atheist has a greater, almost impossible, burden of proof, since he has to prove a negative.

That, I think I can agree with! I’ve been thinking about that for some time.

I just wanted to point it out since it seems to be that a number of atheists think their position is the default position when the fact of the matter is that it’s not.

 

[inocente]

Dr. Peter Kreeft has written some interesting comments in his article " The Challenge of Ontological Disproofs ( for the existence of God ) " for Strange Notions. strangenotions.com/

While all the posts on this thread are magnificently written by exceptionally fine human beings they all seem off-topic.

Which is upsetting as, for the first time in the history of the world, Kreeft actually makes a good point:

*"The basic form of these arguments [ontological disproofs] is something like this:

• If God exists, he must be like ‘X’. [Here ‘X’ = some attribute(s) of God, e.g., he must be good, loving, omnipotent, etc.].
• ‘X’ is actually impossible.
• Therefore, God cannot exist."*

Such arguments don’t disprove God, they only disprove that God is ‘X’, where ‘X’ is whatever someone thinks God is supposed to be. Which is fine, because God will always transcend ‘X’, because God isn’t limited by our puny definitions, God is beyond our understanding.

Yet some theist posters play the same game by insisting that God is completely knowable. Limiting God to a convenient consumable is what we Baptists call putting God in the back pocket. Whereas (for instance) God in Isaiah is without limit:

I am the Lord, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.

:twocents:

 

[Memaw]

And you have no proof that there is no Zeus or Flying Spaghetti Monster- it’s never someone else’s job to disprove the existence of something.

chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Does science have all of the answers at this point in time? No. Does that mean a book based on iron age oral traditions is equally authoritative? Certainly not- scientific theory makes conclusions about the observable world by observing it, and testing various possible explanations. Neither is 100% correct and complete, but the gap between them grows wider as science explains more and more.

It’s hardly surprising that the bible is not always wrong. When science finds pillars upon which the Earth is seated, I’ll pay some attention.

And pray tell me, what would those pillars be seated on??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Bahman]

Dr. Peter Kreeft has written some interesting comments in his article " The Challenge of Ontological Disproofs ( for the existence of God ) " for Strange Notions. strangenotions.com/ I have noticed this same trend at Catholic Answers more and more. The idea seems to be for the non-believer to construct a syllogistic argument which seems to prove that God cannot exist. But these always contain at least one error. But often times the error is not noticed and we water down something about God or his nature in an attempt to get the opponent to agree to a " lesser " God or a God who isn’t so perfect. The reason we do this is multiple, ranging from " we really don’t know what our faith and philosophy teaches about God " to just sloppy reasoning.

One thing that will never happen, the non-believer will absolutley never agree you are right. At least that has been my experience. And they will carry the debate on forever until everyone just gets tired of it and drops off.

The reason I bring this up is because this is happening right now on at perhaps 7-8 threads on this forum right at this moment. Think about it.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

God is an idea when it comes to reason and is real when it comes to love.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Well, no. That would have been a straw argument against stuff I never did nor would say.

My point is that many/most of the great rationalist, scientific thinkers who were also theists, saw a connection between a well-ordered universe, which was intelligible to the scientific mind, and the notion of teleology.

Now, I understand the argument about fine-tuning being in the eyes of the beholder and that if there were no “beholders” then there would be no anthropic perception.

BUT…we, just like the Isaac Newtons and Kurt Godels and John Lennoxes of this world, can tell the difference between sand-dunes and sand castles.

The most compelling aspect of the fine-tuning argument is not so much that we see stuff which theists like myself maintain is deliberate (teleology)

…but that we can **tell the difference **between the deliberate and the accidental.

Between this;
Sand Dune
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Dune_en.svg/500px-Dune_en.svg.png

And this:
Sand castle.
http://www.fotoblography.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/imgp5595-small-500x335.jpg

… You’re reading far too much into the fact that a collection of men living hundreds of years ago were religious. Nearly everyone living back then was religious. Perhaps you might also point out that they didn’t believe the universe was billions of years old, or that they (often) accepted leaches as a viable treatment for most ailments.

To my knowledge, mathematicians today are not any more religious than any other group of educated people. Even when I was religious, I don’t recall being impressed by the supposed hand of the designer in mathematical theory.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

And pray tell me, what would those pillars be seated on??? God Bless, Memaw

Good question- it’s almost as if the iron age culture that produced the early books of the bible didn’t know the world was round.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

That, I think I can agree with! I’ve been thinking about that for some time.

I just wanted to punt it out since it seems to be that a number of atheists think their position is the default position when the fact of the matter is that it’s not.

My position, and that of must I atheists I think, is not that the existence of any particular deity is logically impossible, but that the evidence offered does not match the claims. Thus, the position is more or less an extension of “we don’t know.” I don’t claim to be able to disprove the existence of Zeus or the Aztec gods, but since there is no strong evidence for them, most of us seem fine with just assuming they don’t exist- not because we’ve proven that they don’t exist, but because the default is non-belief.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

While all the posts on this thread are magnificently written by exceptionally fine human beings they all seem off-topic.

Which is upsetting as, for the first time in the history of the world, Kreeft actually makes a good point:

*"The basic form of these arguments [ontological disproofs] is something like this:

• If God exists, he must be like ‘X’. [Here ‘X’ = some attribute(s) of God, e.g., he must be good, loving, omnipotent, etc.].
• ‘X’ is actually impossible.
• Therefore, God cannot exist."*

Such arguments don’t disprove God, they only disprove that God is ‘X’, where ‘X’ is whatever someone thinks God is supposed to be. Which is fine, because God will always transcend ‘X’, because God isn’t limited by our puny definitions, God is beyond our understanding.

Yet some theist posters play the same game by insisting that God is completely knowable. Limiting God to a convenient consumable is what we Baptists call putting God in the back pocket. Whereas (for instance) God in Isaiah is without limit:

I am the Lord, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.

:twocents:

One thing these posts show is that not many have read the link to the article :shrug. It also shows, I think, that it is hard for some to stick to the point. It did seem to hit a nerve some where though.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I only read the first page.

But doesn’t the burden of proof fall on both the atheist and the person who believes in God?

I think of it as there being three positions:

1. God exists.
2. We don’t know whether God exists or not.
3. God doesn’t exist.

The difference between 2 and 3 is that 3 makes the positive assertion that God definitely does not exist, whereas 2 doesn’t…]

I hope I explained that properly.

Yes, it sounds like you are highlighting the difference that people point out in the difference between an agnostic atheist and a strong atheist (or possibly even the strong agnostic).

 

[Bradski]

And pray tell me, what would those pillars be seated on??? God Bless, Memaw

Turtles. It’s turtles all the way down.

 

[hiramross]

Turtles. It’s turtles all the way down.

Not just turtles…the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turles!!!

 

[ngill09]

Dr. Peter Kreeft has written some interesting comments in his article " The Challenge of Ontological Disproofs ( for the existence of God ) " for Strange Notions. strangenotions.com/ I have noticed this same trend at Catholic Answers more and more. The idea seems to be for the non-believer to construct a syllogistic argument which seems to prove that God cannot exist. But these always contain at least one error. But often times the error is not noticed and we water down something about God or his nature in an attempt to get the opponent to agree to a " lesser " God or a God who isn’t so perfect. The reason we do this is multiple, ranging from " we really don’t know what our faith and philosophy teaches about God " to just sloppy reasoning.

One thing that will never happen, the non-believer will absolutley never agree you are right. At least that has been my experience. And they will carry the debate on forever until everyone just gets tired of it and drops off.

The reason I bring this up is because this is happening right now on at perhaps 7-8 threads on this forum right at this moment. Think about it.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd
C

That’s interesting, and as a non-Christian myself, I have to say my experience with Christians is somewhat different than your experience with non-Christians. I have had many Christians admit that I was right, and many of those are no longer Christians. I’m sure this says something about something.

 

[ngill09]

The thing that perplexes me about atheists is their glaring discontinuity with their predecessors. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, et. Al. Have attempted to contrive ways that thing like morality, love, and human rights exist in a universe without God (which, of course, are always textbook examples of circular logic). This runs roughshod to atheists 50-100 years ago. Consider the thoughts of:

-Arthur Schopenhauer, a misanthrope with special hatred for children;
-Friedrich Nietzsche, who observed that morality is an invention of the weak to inhibit the strong (and therefore hinders the evolution of the human race);
-H.P. Lovecraft, whose cosmic horror stories shattered our race’s delusions of importance in a godless universe, given the size and age of the cosmos.
-Ayn Rand, the pathological narcissist who deemed altruism a vice and selfishness a virtue (of course, she has her own cultists, like Penn and Teller);

The one thing these atheists had in common that ones today don’t is that they weren’t gutless. They were fully aware that morality, rights, and basic decency were merely superstitions of a bygone era. They realized that such comfortable niceties had no place in the modern world if religion were not true.

New Atheism, meanwhile, is too afraid to stare into the abyss. Why? They know it will stare back. Why else would Stephen Hawking say that “philosophy is dead”? Why did Neil deGrasse Tyson say on Cosmos that philosophical questions are not worth our time? Because they know, and are too afraid to confront it, much less admit it.

Well this is a great bit of cherrypicking, isn’t it?

What about people like Robert Ingersoll and the rest of the humanists? More fiery than the New Atheists, and at the same time extremely moral.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

My position, and that of must I atheists I think, is not that the existence of any particular deity is logically impossible, but that the evidence offered does not match the claims. Thus, the position is more or less an extension of “we don’t know.” I don’t claim to be able to disprove the existence of Zeus or the Aztec gods, but since there is no strong evidence for them, most of us seem fine with just assuming they don’t exist- not because we’ve proven that they don’t exist, but because the default is non-belief.

As I think Dan already pointed out, what you describe here is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism, the sillier of the two, illogically claims that there *cannot *be a God, not “we don’t know.”

But you’re correct; the logical default is non-belief. (This contrasts bizarrely with the fact that over 95% of the world is religious, but that’s another discussion…)
Why, then, do you believe that North Korea is real? You’ve probably never been there. But you still believe it exists* because you have good reason to*.
Christians have many very good reasons for believing in God, one of which is the fact that he is logically necessary. It took a bit of digging to find this post, but I’ve never heard this put better or more clearly. Please read with an open mind; don’t start with the pre-judgment that Mr. Peter Plato must be wrong…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12541617&postcount=117

Thanks, Peter Plato, if you see this… I hope you don’t mind me distributing your brilliant posts among us smaller-brained folk.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

As I think Dan already pointed out, what you describe here is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism, the sillier of the two, illogically claims that there *cannot *be a God, not “we don’t know.”

That’s one definition of atheism, but it isn’t at all universal. Otherwise nobody would identify as an agnostic atheist, but plenty of people do. First two sentences of the wiki on atheism: “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.”

I don’t think it’s productive to get hung up on imprecise terms- if you want to know what someone thinks then ask. If I’m “agnostic” with respect to a christian god, then I’m also agnostic with respect to faeries, unicorns, and innumerable other things- including any and all things which have not yet been conceived, now that I think about it. A creature with exactly 342543564342 wings and 500 eyes? I’m agnostic- no evidence for or against.

But you’re correct; the logical default is non-belief. (This contrasts bizarrely with the fact that over 95% of the world is religious, but that’s another discussion…)
Why, then, do you believe that North Korea is real? You’ve probably never been there. But you still believe it exists* because you have good reason to*.
Christians have many very good reasons for believing in God, one of which is the fact that he is logically necessary. It took a bit of digging to find this post, but I’ve never heard this put better or more clearly. Please read with an open mind; don’t start with the pre-judgment that Mr. Peter Plato must be wrong…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12541617&postcount=117

Thanks, Peter Plato, if you see this… I hope you don’t mind me distributing your brilliant posts among us smaller-brained folk.

His post, while well formulated, is not anything new. He observes, correctly, that our current understanding cannot answer some fundamental questions (and perhaps the most fundamental question of all- where did it all come from?). But that’s all we know- there’s a gap in our understanding. He’s right that there must be something we don’t understand, but potential explanations still have be supported by evidence. It is quite literally a god of the gaps argument- an argument from ignorance. There’s a gap, but Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster, and my multi-winged multi-eyed creature fill it just as well. At one time, the origin of the sun and species were gaps to- but folks far smarter than I were willing to put in time and effort to fill the gap based on observable evidence, rather than being content to insert the supernatural.