Main Reason For Atheism

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

Right. My question is just worded differently. How does a person who only considers scientific evidence (which is neutral on God) arrive at any position other than neutrality?
…]
Therefore, I conclude that atheists must consider other types of evidence, since they have a position that is other than neutral.

There is enough scientific and logical evidence plus a lot of philosophical arguments against any god proposed by the major religions.
Practically “non-detectable” cannot be distinguished from “not-existing”.
Christians usually do not have a neutral stance towards other gods, they outright claim, those gods do not exist, though there is no evidence for their non-existence. You may now argue, if the Christian God exists, then all others must not. Well, atheists do the same, if our scientific worldview and logic is correct, then certain types of gods cannot exist.

 

[TTM]

AnAtheist:

if our scientific worldview and logic is correct, then certain types of gods cannot exist.

Right, so it’s a faith-based system afterall.

Cheers,
TTM

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

I have not heard any other reasonable alternative answers though, Cheddar. Nor have you offered any. You seem content to not know, which is your choice. What I would expect to hear from an objective tossing around of ideas would be something like “Yes, I suppose it is possible than God did what you say He did, but I don’t find that argument compelling enough to cause belief in God.” That is simple and objective. Wihtout a faith based reason to deny it, it is reasonable to believe. If you said that I missed it. My impression was that you are saying there is no reason to believe God did such, which is incorrect and different, albeit subtly.

**I have never denied that God is a possibility. The fact that I can understand why people who don’t accept God feel as they do, does not preclude the fact that I can also see where theists are coming from. I have never denied the possibility of God. Due to the nature of the discussion, and the point at which I jumped in, I was arguing the other side, because, if I remember correctly, you were unable to see any “non God” reasons.

For the sake of discussion, I was on the other side. You had already taken up the case for God. **

There is reason to believe God gave mankind our ability to reason, free will and conscience, because so far it is the ONLY answer to the question, not merely one possibility.

That is how you see it, and that is fine, others see other possibilities. Some have been offered here, but you don’t find them worthy. We have (several times now) agreed that we disagree on this point. Yes, I disagree that God is the ONLY answer, but that doesn’t mean I totally deny that God is a possible answer.

Since it is the only answer so far, it does justify consideration. In fact, even though this topic wouldn’t be up for consideration, isn’t that how the scientific process works? If a scientist poses a possible solution to a question, isn’t that solution considered and tested until such time as it is disproven? Why should our logic be different now? How far would science have advanced if when someone comes up with a theory, it is discarded out of hand because of philosophical dislike, and never put to real examination? That is how our understanding increases isn’t it?
**
It feels like you think I never considered God as a possibility. I am not just coming to my views on this subject as we discuss it here. I have been searching my whole life. I spent 20 yrs in the Catholic church, and another decade in other Christian churches, I have given the idea a fair shake.**

Objectivity does not justify playing devils advocate only against one point of view.

**No, but I don’t have the time to jump in and discuss every issue with every poster. In this particular discussion, I got caught up with you. Also, when someone presents their ideas as their personal belief, I usually don’t challenge it. People are entitled to their belief. When they pose it as an independant fact, or make statements concerning what other groups believe, I am more likely to jump in. I felt that you were presenting the idea as an idea to be tossed around, not just as your personal belief statement. As this progresses, I am seeing that it is more personal to you than that. I never intended for you to feel like I was discussing you rather than the issue. I have meant none of this as a personal attack.

This is a discussion board. Just a place to share ideas. I never claimed to be totally objective 100% of the time etc etc. Nor is this discussion all I’ve ever thought or said on this subject. This is a discussion, not the be all and end all on this topic.
**

Honestly, yes, I am always trying to convert others to my way of thinking…that is how I test my beliefs.

**We approach things very differently. But it has been interesting discussing with you.

cheddar**

.

 

[AnAtheist]

TTM:

Right, so it’s a faith-based system afterall.

Sort of, yes. But the unprovable assumptions of that system work in every day reality, so we have good reason to assume them.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Practically “non-detectable” cannot be distinguished from “not-existing”.

depends on what counts as “detecting” something.

facially, that places a lot of high-energy physics in jeopardy. for example.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Sort of, yes. But the unprovable assumptions of that system work in every day reality, so we have good reason to assume them.

well, to be fair, so do the unprovable assumptions of (at least some) theisms.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

depends on what counts as “detecting” something.

facially, that places a lot of high-energy physics in jeopardy. for example.

Can you give an example?

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

well, to be fair, so do the unprovable assumptions of (at least some) theisms.

Yes, the question is, what assumptions are regarded as “self-evident” and what not.
I still have to see unprovable assumptions for theism as simple as those one must make to justify logic.

 

[john_doran]

Can you give an example?

sure: string theory, brane theory, loop quantum gravity…

anything that deals with the planck domain is currently (and possibly will always be) beyond our experimental reach.

not to mention the cosmology of the big bang, which cannot be tested or repeated experimentally.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Yes, the question is, what assumptions are regarded as “self-evident” and what not.
I still have to see unprovable assumptions for theism as simple as those one must make to justify logic.

perhaps. can you give examples? personally, i can think of no particularly complicated axioms to which i adhere…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

*There is enough scientific and logical evidence plus a lot of philosophical arguments against any god proposed by the major religions.
*
Give us one shred of scientific evidence as opposed to philosophical.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

sure: string theory, brane theory, loop quantum gravity…

anything that deals with the planck domain is currently (and possibly will always be) beyond our experimental reach.

not to mention the cosmology of the big bang, which cannot be tested or repeated experimentally.

Effects of those theories within the experimental reach can be measured, thus those theories can be proven indirectly. If there is absolutely no experimental reach, those theories are merely hypotheses.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

perhaps. can you give examples? personally, i can think of no particularly complicated axioms to which i adhere…

There is one and only one god, who is somehow divided into three parts [insert strange explanation here].
That god has created the entire universe.
There is an afterlife.
What kind of afterlife one enters when dead is decided by that god.
There is a certain similarity between that god and humans.
etc etc

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

But the unprovable assumptions of that system work in every day reality, so we have good reason to assume them.

Do they? There are several cases I can think of where the assumption that there must be a natural cause fall short and leave the person of that naturalistic faith without an answer. And what happens to the viability of the unproven assumptions of that system when something occurs which contradicts what is scientifically known? You are then forced to ignore the situation are you not? How does that qualify as a system that works in every day reality? The reality is your system only works most of the time.

A theism that does not contradict science works ALL of the time…with no exceptions.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

AnAtheist

There is enough scientific and logical evidence plus a lot of philosophical arguments against any god proposed by the major religions.

Give us one shred of scientific evidence as opposed to philosophical.

Long term observations of Mount Olympus did not show any council of gods.
Insects have six legs.
Rainbows do not lead to Asgard, nor have they an end, where a pot of gold could be found, nor are they a no-more-floods sign.

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

And what happens to the viability of the unproven assumptions of that system when something occurs which contradicts what is scientifically known? You are then forced to ignore the situation are you not?

On the contrary, scientists rethink and refine their theories, when contradicting data shows up.

A theism that does not contradict science works ALL of the time…with no exceptions.

Yes, if that theism does not make any falsifiable or testable statement. But then the truthfullness of those statements cannot be established.

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

I still have to see unprovable assumptions for theism as simple as those one must make to justify logic.

I don’t understand this, AnAtheist. Perhaps you could reword this in another way.

Are you saying the unprovable assumptions of theism are illogical? Or are you saying the assumptions of naturalism are more simple or more logical than theism? What do mean by “as simple as one must make to justify logic”? Why would logic need to be justified?

I just want to understand what your saying.

Thx,
Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

On the contrary, scientists rethink and refine their theories, when contradicting data shows up.

I am speaking of miracles, like the miracle of the Eucharist at Lanciano Italy. The coagulated blood which is nearly 800 years old, when water is added, (last tested in 1988 I think) still contains the proteins and other minerals as does fresh blood. From my understanding this is something contrary to what is scientifically known, for blood more than a few days old loses these things…but not in this case.

My belief system allows me to say it is the work of God. The Naturalistic belief system forces it’s followers to ignore it. Certainly the scientific community is not going to revise what is scientifically accepted about the proteins and minerals deteriorating over time in blood. This is merely an isolated, unexplained case in which the laws of science seem to contradict what we observe. The assumptions of naturalism do not work in this case.

AnAtheist:

Yes, if that theism does not make any falsifiable or testable statement. But then the truthfullness of those statements cannot be established.

The truthfullness of those statements is not what I was responding to, An Atheist. You said your assumptions create a system that works in day to day reality, inferring theism does not. I rebutted that statement saying the reverse is true. Do you retract your statement?

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Effects of those theories within the experimental reach can be measured, thus those theories can be proven indirectly. If there is absolutely no experimental reach, those theories are merely hypotheses.

i agree: they are merely hypotheses.

but i like the indirect proof approach. that’s what all arguments for god are: indirect proofs of god’s existence. i mean, it’s no different from observing tracks in a cloud chamber and reasoning to the existence and properties of the entities that made them.

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

Long term observations of Mount Olympus did not show any council of gods.
Insects have six legs.
Rainbows do not lead to Asgard, nor have they an end, where a pot of gold could be found, nor are they a no-more-floods sign.

Ah so you have reason to reject the gods which would assert such things. Have you any scientific or phylisophical arguments against the God of Catholicism specifically? Just because you can rebut the cliams of some gods or fairy tales (as atheists like to relate religion to in an attempt to trivialize the discussion) does not necessarily mean you can rebut “any god”.