Main Reason For Atheism

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

But then to do that you have to make them all out to be liars, don’t you? Not only the Evangelists, but the apostles who informed them (John certainly was an apostle and witness). Then you have to make out that Peter lied extravagantly to Mark, and that Jesus made false claims to all of them.

So? Some religious fanatics exaggerated the life story of their leader, happens every day. And Jesus made at least one false claim, the end of the world came not within one generation.

Faith is not a court of law. The same standards do not and cannot apply.

Chris W started it, I just jumped on it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

*Jesus made at least one false claim, the end of the world came not within one generation.
*
The end of the world known as Israel, the only world that mattered to the Jews, certainly came within one generation. So how did Jesus get that right when he died so long before the Dispersion of the Jews by the Romans?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

So? Some religious fanatics exaggerated the life story of their leader, happens every day.

So you think the Apostles, the Evangelists, and Paul were all a cabal of fanatics?

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

I cannot prove, that everything we observe came about by*** natural ***means.
But I can prove, that nearly everything we observe has a ***natural ***cause.
I still cannot prove, that anything came about by supernatural means.
Why should I introduce something new and unbased in my theory? Even if I admit, that there might be some unknown supernatural causes, why should I bother to believe in or even to worship them? Esp. when all that is said about those causes by other people looks illogical, impossible, weird, or unsound.

If you are admitting that supernatural causes might exist, then you do not need to build the case I was requesting. But then you cannot say God doesn’t exist…maybe He does. And the only reason for you to explore that possibility in depth would be if it was important to you to know the truth about the matter, or if some other need is discovered in your life that may cause you to consider it further.

From an intellectual perspective, I suppose it is sufficient to say “there might be supernatural causes” but that it is not of interest to you. You will have no argument from me outside of an exortation to consider it, due to my love of neighbor which causes me to wish for you the blessings I have experienced through faith in God.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

That has some merit, but doesn’t it take time to choose something? Doesn’t it take time to think and to actually do something?

not necessarily - not if he made the choice to act from all eternity.

of course, it’s difficult to have clear conversation about a timeless entity…

AnAtheist:

I suppose we agree, that there is no ***before ***the universe. So when is the decision made to create the universe?

asking “when” the decision to make the universe was made is equally as much of a category mistake as to ask what’s “before” the first moment of time.

AnAtheist:

As the beginning of the universe is the very first possibility of doing something, the beginning cannot have a cause. Which is still compatible with the proposition, the beginning has no beginning, it is the beginning, and thus need not to be caused.

why is the beginning of the universe the very first possibility of doing something?

and even if it was, that would simply entail that the cause of time and the universe occurred simultaneous with the beginning of both, not that neither had a cause.

 

[Chris_W]

Gilbert Keith:

Again, false analogy. Faith is not a court of law. The same standards do not and cannot apply.

Sorry to disagree with you here Gilbert (we agree on many things though). An Atheist is correct…it is heresay. And I think we CAN use the same standards. Heresay, if it is only one person or even a very few, if that all the evidence there is, may not be sufficient evidence to make a convincing case.

However, eye witness testimony is

worthy of consideration, even if it alone does not prove the case (even in a court of law). Fortunately there are many more evidences with which to build our case…eye witness testimony is just one of them. There are historical accounts which support those eye witness testimonies even from secular historians and the enemies of Jesus and the Apostles. There is the problem of miracles. There are questions about our universe and mankind that appear to be unanswerable by naturalistic means. There is the problem of the life if Jesus fulfilling over 300 prophesies written long before he lived by multiple people from multiple places, the fulfillment of which depended on the actions of others, even His enemies. There is the issue of the continued existence of the Catholic Church spread to billions of people all over the world maintaining a consistent message, having lasted over 2000 years, and outliving nearly every civilization known to man (is it reasonable to conclude this is the result fraud by a few Gallilean fisherman?). There is the question of why the followers of Jesus would engage in the fraud when the only thing to gain was persecution and death. There is the problem of so many saints who have literally given their lives suffering gruesome deaths for these truths. And on and on.

So I am fine with considering the testimony of the eye witnesses as heresay. The case is made on the convergence of evidences.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Again, false analogy. Faith is not a court of law. The same standards do not and cannot apply.

I’ll stand by my remarks. Any approach to Jesus cannot be made by applying the same standards of a court of law, just as any reason for believing in the existence of God cannot be made by applying the standards of science … for example, expecting to find God through a telescope floating on a cloud or lounging on a petri dish in a science lab. Implausible, for sure, and that is why the same standard cannot be used in either case, though the atheist will never stop demanding physical, rather than hearsay evidence.

Absurd demands, if that is the standard.

And by the way, wasn’t that the standard Herod applied when he demanded to see some miracles?

No wonder Jesus was found guilty by a jury of priests that wanted to find him guilty.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

The end of the world known as Israel, the only world that mattered to the Jews, certainly came within one generation.

He was not talking about the destruction of Israel but of all the world. Or do you think Christianity is for Jews only?

So how did Jesus get that right when he died so long before the Dispersion of the Jews by the Romans?

He didn’t. Those words (re the destruction of the temple eg) were written down, after the events occured.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

AnAtheist

So? Some religious fanatics exaggerated the life story of their leader, happens every day.

So you think the Apostles, the Evangelists, and Paul were all a cabal of fanatics?

When I read the letters of Paul, the impression occurs, that he certainly was one sexually frustated fanatic.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

not necessarily - not if he made the choice to act from all eternity.

of course, it’s difficult to have clear conversation about a timeless entity…

Yes. And verbs like to act, to choose, to do, to create by their very definition occur in time. The only escape route I see, is to claim, that the ways of how God acts, chooses, etc are totally different from the common definition, so the words do really describe what happened. But that implies that God’s mind works totally different than ours, which contradicts one essential point in Christian theory, namely that he has created us “in his image”, which is impossible. Basically he cannot think, do, talk, choose anything the way we do, he is lacking the necessary time for that.

Btw, Stephan Hawking has written some interesting stuff about how time is necessary for a mind in the first place.

So, if the supernatural cause you call God really existed (whatever existence might mean, when there is no time), it most certainly is not a person with a mind.

asking “when” the decision to make the universe was made is equally as much of a category mistake as to ask what’s “before” the first moment of time.

Might be. It is just that choosing implies two possibilites, universe or no universe, and creating implies “NOW we move from one state of affairs (no universe) to another state of affairs (universe)”. Time has be present for that move already.

that would simply entail that the cause of time and the universe occurred simultaneous with the beginning of both, not that neither had a cause.

From all we know, time is an intrinsic part of the universe. No universe - no time. There is no point in time, where a cause for the universe could have occured, except at the very creation itself. Therefore the cause and the beginning can either be declared to be identical, or the cause can be dropped out of the theory at all.

 

[JFT]

I think the main reason for atheism is their inherent “delusion” (and I use this word with extreme caution) of being godlike. I do not say this with any certainty, but from what I have seen and heard of them in recent years, this is the conclusion to which I have arrived.

Someone, please let me know if I be in error.

JFT

 

[SamCA]

Chris W:

No. A case to justify the faith that says there must be a naturalistic answer for everything. I presume this is your belief if you reject God, for what other alternative is there? Either everything we observe came about by natural means, or if you cannot prove that thesis, then you must admit the possibility of surpernatural causes.

Of course. Any rationalist will admit the possibility of supernatural causes, in the same way that he will admit the possibility that a pleisiosaur lives in Loch Ness. It’s just that until someone provides solid evidence for it, there’s no good reason to actually put much stock in the possibility.

That’s the problem with talking about “faith in naturalism.” It’s not a question of faith – or, at least, it’s not supposed to be. It’s a question of analysis of the evidence as best we can determine it. If the evidence shows a naturalistic universe as best as we can determine, you run with that assumption until you find some evidence that contradicts it, but you don’t have faith in naturalism. On the contrary, one of the core tenets of science is that any of these theories could be proven false tomorrow, if we happen to find evidence that contradicts it.

We don’t believe in naturalism in the way you believe in God. It just seems like the most accurate assessment of the facts available thus far. If we find new facts, we will revise our assessment.

 

[Chris_W]

SamCA:

Of course. Any rationalist will admit the possibility of supernatural causes…It’s just that until someone provides solid evidence for it, there’s no good reason to actually put much stock in the possibility.

This takes us right back to the distictions I mentioned earlier (if you have not read the previous emails). Lack of evidence results in a conclusion of “I don’t know”. But a conclusion of “there is no God” requires evidence supporting that claim…and a perceived lack of evidence for God does not suffice.

SamCA:

That’s the problem with talking about “faith in naturalism.” It’s not a question of faith – or, at least, it’s not supposed to be. It’s a question of analysis of the evidence as best we can determine it. If the evidence shows a naturalistic universe as best as we can determine, you run with that assumption until you find some evidence that contradicts it, but you don’t have faith in naturalism. On the contrary, one of the core tenets of science is that any of these theories could be proven false tomorrow, if we happen to find evidence that contradicts it.

I only talk of faith in Naturalism when a person concludes “there is not God”, when we all agree science cannot answer that question. If a person says “supernatural causes might exist” (i.e. they do not perceive enough evidence to support the belief, or perhaps they do not consider the question because they limit themselves to scientific evidences), then I do not speak of Naturalism as a faith.

But when a person says “there is no God” that is a statement of faith. I see no way around that logic. The question then becomes “which faith is more reasonable to believe?” And to answer that question one must leave the realm of science (at least exclusively) and look to other evidences.

SamCA:

We don’t believe in naturalism in the way you believe in God. It just seems like the most accurate assessment of the facts available thus far. If we find new facts, we will revise our assessment.

If you are speaking for yourself then fine. But any person who says “there is no God” thereby saying there does not exist the possibility of supernatural causes, then that person does indeed have faith in Naturalism, whether he realizes it or not. If a person admits the possibility exists for supernatural causes, then he should not say “there is no God” for he cannot back up that assertion.

Why do athesits object to this logic? Is there some reason to deny that atheists have a faith in Naturalism? What is the fear with that admition? Is it just that this gives the impression atheists are just like everyone else in taking some things of faith, instead of being able to claim some higher intellectual, more noble position? I don’t understand it.

 

[Chris_W]

SamCA:

It’s a question of analysis of the evidence as best we can determine it…
…We don’t believe in naturalism in the way you believe in God.

That, SamCA, though I am sure it was not intended, is an insult.

Do you really believe that all theists have arrived at their conclusions by any other means than “analysis of the evidence as best we can determine it”? I believe I have a rational well thought out logical and analytical reason for ALL of my fundamental beliefs, Sam. Read though the posts of John Doran, just as an example. Does he sound like a person who arrived at his conclusions by some other inferior “theistic” means?

I enjoy talking to people of other beliefs, many of whom are every bit as convinced of their beliefs as I am of mine, but we all need to be careful not to display intellectual arrogance.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Yes. And verbs like to act, to choose, to do, to create by their very definition occur in time.

i don’t think that’s true, especially if god is, as he is traditionally thought to be, pure act.

AnAtheist:

The only escape route I see, is to claim, that the ways of how God acts, chooses, etc are totally different from the common definition, so the words do really describe what happened.

well, the inner life of god is certainly mysterious, but i think there’s at least one other less traditional way out: to say that god was timelessly eternal prior to creation, and temporal therafter.

AnAtheist:

But that implies that God’s mind works totally different than ours, which contradicts one essential point in Christian theory, namely that he has created us “in his image”, which is impossible. Basically he cannot think, do, talk, choose anything the way we do, he is lacking the necessary time for that.

as different as we are from god, we are still like him in our having free choice. that is not impossible.

AnAtheist:

Might be. It is just that choosing implies two possibilites, universe or no universe, and creating implies “NOW we move from one state of affairs (no universe) to another state of affairs (universe)”. Time has be present for that move already.

see the response about god’s temporality, above.

AnAtheist:

From all we know, time is an intrinsic part of the universe. No universe - no time. There is no point in time, where a cause for the universe could have occured, except at the very creation itself. Therefore the cause and the beginning can either be declared to be identical, or the cause can be dropped out of the theory at all.

i don’t understand this. a “cause” is a thing, and a “beginning” is a moment; how can those things be identical? especially since a beginning needs a cause independent of it in order to begin in the first place…

 

[SamCA]

Chris W:

This takes us right back to the distictions I mentioned earlier (if you have not read the previous emails). Lack of evidence results in a conclusion of “I don’t know”. But a conclusion of “there is no God” requires evidence supporting that claim…and a perceived lack of evidence for God does not suffice.

True enough. I would argue that a lack of evidence can be enough to rationally conclude that certain specific views of God are false, though, for the same reason that I can say with reasonable certainty that there isn’t an alligator living in my basement – that’s the sort of thing that would leave all sorts of evidence, and the absence of that evidence does qualify as evidence of absence.

Similarly, I can’t say with any particular certainty that a non-interventionist God doesn’t exist, but I think it’s fair to argue that the total absence of evidence of God is sort of a hit to the idea of an involved God who performs specific enumerated miracles we’ve been told about. (For instance: Isn’t it a bit weird that none of the other cultures with writings that survive to this day recorded anything about the sun stopping mysteriously in the sky for a while? You’d think the folks in China would have been intrigued by that. From that absence of evidence, I think it’s fair to say that particular incident probably didn’t happen. And so on.)

Why do athesits object to this logic? Is there some reason to deny that atheists have a faith in Naturalism? What is the fear with that admition? Is it just that this gives the impression atheists are just like everyone else in taking some things of faith, instead of being able to claim some higher intellectual, more noble position? I don’t understand it.

Well, yeah. I don’t know about others here, but I reject faith on a pretty fundamental level as a valid way of determining truth. It’s pretty much my big stumbling block on the whole God thing. So being told that, no, I’m actually acting on faith is a little annoying.

 

[SamCA]

Chris W:

That, SamCA, though I am sure it was not intended, is an insult.

Sorry, didn’t mean to be insulting.

Do you really believe that all theists have arrived at their conclusions by any other means than “analysis of the evidence as best we can determine it”?

Sure. Entire books have been writting by lots of great Christian philosophers to just that effect – that Christians aren’t basing their belief on the evidence, they’re basing it on faith. This is, of course, presented as a good thing.

I believe I have a rational well thought out logical and analytical reason for ALL of my fundamental beliefs, Sam. Read though the posts of John Doran, just as an example. Does he sound like a person who arrived at his conclusions by some other inferior “theistic” means?

At the end of the day, yes, even John comes down to simple faith that God exists – especially that his God exists. (After all, even if you proved the universe was created by some form of intelligent being, it doesn’t at all follow that this being must be the Judeo-Christian God.) Which isn’t meant as an aspersion on his intellect. On the contrary, he seems rather smarter than I am.

But at the end of the day, you either accept faith as a valid means of determining the reality around you, or you don’t. You and John do. I don’t.

I enjoy talking to people of other beliefs, many of whom are every bit as convinced of their beliefs as I am of mine, but we all need to be careful not to display intellectual arrogance.

I’m not sure I agree that it’s arrogant to suggest that Christians base their views on faith and (at least some) atheists don’t. That said, if I offended you, I apologize.

 

[paulito]

New to forum, jumping in to the primordial slime of ths discussion.

Basically, all of our conclusions require faith, because none of us were there when life began.

The evolutionist (referring to the atheistic evolutionist) has a lot of intricate detail and design to explain, and he does so by faith; that is, that by adding billions of years to the equation, the seemingly impossible becomes possible. This takes a leap of faith.

I liked the illustration of the alligator in the basement. There are certain conclusions that we can almost certainly state, that requre very little faith. Living in Florida, I am much more likely to see an alligator come into my yard that you are, but in the city that would basically never happen if you don’t live by a canal, etc. So I can state with reasonable certainty that there is no alligator in our front yard, because I was there about an hour ago.

In similar fashion, I realize that I am aware that I exist. I am something that is not explained simply by the molecules that make up DNA, muscle, bone, or even brain tissue. For example, I would assume that a rock has no such self-consciousness, because it does not communicate, but would be hard pressed to absolutely prove it.

And so I see myself as a person who simply inhabits a body (the molcules of which are constantly changing). Realizing this, I conclude, logically, that my Creator also, since He made the ear, the vocal chords, and the eye, has a desire to communicate. And since He had the wisdom to create me, it is logical to assume that He took the initiative and actually DID communicate.

Then you will argue with me about the multitude of different religions. But, again logically, a God of such wisdom would not send mixed messages. He wouldn’t leave us with the whole confusing maze of religions that are out there and ask us to take the best of each one. And so it is logical that such a God not only has spoken, but has spoken clearly. (see 1st chapter of Romans)

Obviously, we are made with freedom of choice, which is why some people choose to strap bombs to themselves and kill both themselves and many others with them. Their “religion” has apparently promised them heaven for such an action!

I decided I would take my freedom of choice and believe the Bible. It’s the only one that really deals with the sin problem, and this is truly a sin-sick world in which we live. In Christianity we see God coming to us, in the person of His Son, to pay the sin debt for any who care to turn from their sins and receive his forgiveness and salvation.

I literally do not see the evidence to believe in the religion of atheism. It would for me be not only a leap of faith but a leap of reason. It would be like trying to “leap” so far as to believe that
3 + 8 = 694,221. It just doesn’t compute. It’s like believing I would find the alligator in my front yard in North Pole, Alaska.

What is faith, then? The children’s song says it well: “Faith is just believing what God says he will do.” That’s the kind of faith Abraham had. And Jesus taught us that if we hope to make it to heaven, we had better become like children.

God is Spirit, and so I only know him by faith. But, like the wind which I cannot see, but which has the power to strip the roofs off of buildings or suspend a 747 in flight, I see God’s work in the lives of those who believe in Jesus Christ. I see a totally different quality in them (though they are not perfect by any means). And so, you see, I have my evidence.

 

[Chris_W]

SamCA:

I don’t know about others here, but I reject faith on a pretty fundamental level as a valid way of determining truth. It’s pretty much my big stumbling block on the whole God thing. So being told that, no, I’m actually acting on faith is a little annoying.

Sorry I have to be quick (I’m running late): You’re missing the point (deliberately?) Who said faith determines truth? I realize you may think theists do this, but that is utter ignorance, if that is what you think. For many of us (including many atheists) faith is the result of conclusions drawn from what can be known, realizing that not everything can be known.

If you are a person who makes no assertions that you cannot prove, then you are justified in saying you personally are without faith. If however, you make assertions which you cannot prove (i.e. there is no God) then you indeed have faith in something you cannot prove…unless of course you would like to prove there must be naturalistic answers to the questions raised about how the observable world came about.

 

[AnAtheist]

JFT:

I think the main reason for atheism is their inherent “delusion” (and I use this word with extreme caution) of being godlike. I do not say this with any certainty, but from what I have seen and heard of them in recent years, this is the conclusion to which I have arrived.

Someone, please let me know if I be in error.

JFT

There are surely a lot of delusional people out there, but imo the notion of atheist, declaring themselves to be godlike is a simple category error.
world. I guess it’s safe to say that for Theists of any kind, their god is the most important thing in their life. Thus “God” and “most important thing” is somewhat identical and synonymous. Now God does appear in the list of things that are important to atheists, thus the place of the most important thing is occupied by something else. It is psychological understable that someone, who cannot think of a life without God, imagines that something replacing the place of God is treated like a god by the atheist.
I guess I make the same category error, when I treat the Creator as just another Big-Bang theory. That works in my mind, but not in the mind of a theist.