The Absurdity of Atheism

[Lucretius]

So many scientists could be wrong. It’s not the numbers of people who believe something that makes it more likely. It is the weight of evidence.

Yes, this is true.

The difference between experimental science, and history (including evolution history), is that the first can be tested over and over again, and witnessed again and again. We can’t test historical events, include evolutionary events.

We know historical events because of witnesses. Evolutionary events, for the most part, haven’t been witnessed by people, and so we have to speculate by footprints: that is, by some clues nature left behind. But so many theories can explain these same clues, and so when multiple theories can explain, we are left in the dark, in a sense.

There is an explanation. After all, tens of thousands all reporting the same thing can’t be wrong. The papal residence in Cairo says the explanation is that Mary actually appeared. Many times. So the biggest event in world history since the Resurrection and…the most you will find out about it is on a few badly presented web sites.

Have you read the Papal report. Furthermore, I’m not sure I have to tell you this, but the Internet isn’t the best place to go to find information of this level. Most academic papers, for example, are not online (or you have to pay to read them).

So much for the reliability of tens of thousands of witnesses in recent memory. And for the Resurrection itself? A second hand account of 4 people two millennium ago. And you are astonished at my scepticism.

One of them isn’t second hand, because the author has told us so. Historically, GMatthew was consider first hand, but the author is ambiguous, and doesn’t come out and say this directly.

Furthermore, the Saints, most perfectly in their martyrdoms, and especially those at that time period of Christ’s lifetime, are trustworthy as well. The Church Fathers, and the traditions of the early Christians passed on in oral tradition or otherwise (in which the Gospels are a major part, and in which a paper trail exists all the way to the first century), all give us reasonable certitude on the truth of the Christian faith.

You keeping focusing on one miracle, but if you look at all of them at once, you might believe

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

In regard to Zeitoun, many hundreds of thousands of people saw what has been claimed as the Virgin Mary herself making multiple appearances over many months. This a few decades ago. Yet this event, which if true, and your argument is that if so many people claim it to be true then who are we to discredit so much evidence, is a non-event.

I don’t know the context of your debate, but if I take this at face value, it sounds like you are saying that an event has to be witnessed in order to have happened. You’re smart: I’m sure there is something here I’m missing

People didn’t actually see what they kept saying they could see. Thousands of them. Tens of thousands. Maybe even hundreds of thousands. A few years back. All wrong. At least, according to the Vatican (can you imagine their response if they thought it was true?).

Non sequitur, but I might have missed the context of the debate. Here’s a hint, stop looking at the evidence for on miracle event, and look at the evidence for all of them. They become much more convincing when you don’t view them in isolation.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is that from Trent Horn?

Dunno. I have a lot of files stored by topic on my hard drive, and while I try to document them all for just such an occasion, I do not have a source for that post.

I suspect that I added some of my own work to something that I found somewhere.

 

[Randy_Carson]

An issue on this thread has been definitions. I disagree with yours, which seem rather Catholic oriented.

Atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, rather it’s a lack of belief in any deities. Nor is it a synonym for naturalism or materialism. For instance many cultures are animist, they believe in souls or spirits but not in deities - they are atheist but believe that more than the natural world exists. I know two atheists who believe in angels.

Theism is not a belief in a personal God, it’s a belief in one or more deities. Nor is monotheism confined to your definition of God, for instance in Jainism there is no creator since the world has always existed. Indeed, some Christians would say, me included, that God cannot be defined, that He surpasses any definition other than his own (I AM WHO I AM).

But you and others will disagree with my definitions, particularly when it comes to their own beliefs.

There is a trend among atheists to avoid making a positive claim that God does not exist because this places the burden of proof on them to prove that claim.

Consequently, Atheists who are more experienced in apologetics debate studiously avoid putting themselves in this position and fall back on the “no belief in God” position which you noted. Well, that makes my dog an atheist, too, I suppose.

While I understand that we cannot “define” God adequately, there are certain characteristics which we can safely attribute to Him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are completely missing the point. I’ll try again…

It has been claimed that the Resurrection must be true because we have eye witness accounts. Which is not true in the first instance. What we have are contradictory second hand reports written many decades after the event saying that 4 people possibly saw something as a one off event.

Well, this is incorrect. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, and Mark and Luke interviewed people who were. Then there is Paul.

As for the allegation that they are contradictory, well, there may be a few discrepancies and differences but nothing that we should not expect from human testimony. When police are investigating a crime, they suspect collusion when witnesses or suspects agree too closely on minor details. And if the gospels were in perfect agreement, atheists would claim that Christians manipulated the gospels to eliminate discrepancies. (I’ve seen these assertions made in atheist forums personally.)

As it is, atheists want to point to the presence of these differences as contradictions which are so glaring as to make the gospels unbelievable. It’s a no-win scenario when you have pre-determined that the NT is pure fan fiction.

No, Bradski, what we have is a clear picture of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus which is independently- and multiply-attested by eyewitnesses or their hearers as well as non-Christian historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny and others.

Beyond these written accounts, we have Five Minimal Facts which support the resurrection. The minimal facts include four that are so strongly evidenced that nearly every scholar (including skeptics) regards them as reliable facts. The fifth fact, the +1, is accepted by a significant number of scholars though not nearly as many as the first four.

The Five Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus’ disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus tomb was found to be empty

I have argued with atheists in atheist forums for months about these five facts, and I have yet to see any theory about what happened to Jesus of Nazareth that adequately addresses these five facts with more depth and scope than the idea that He was raised from the dead just as the gospels declare.

Give it a shot if you like.

 

[Bradski]

Non sequitur, but I might have missed the context of the debate. Here’s a hint, stop looking at the evidence for on miracle event, and look at the evidence for all of them. They become much more convincing when you don’t view them in isolation.

So not only should we consider the number of people for any given miracle, we should grant them veracity because…well, because there are a lot of them. Seems like Elvis is still alive and alien abductions are happening all around us.

It doesn’t work like that. Just because lots of people make lots of claims does not increase the validity of those individual claims by any amount whatsoever.

There were 4 witnesses for a one off event two thousand years ago with minimal second hand reports. It must have happened! There were hundreds of thousands of witnesses about fifty years ago for an event that happened multiple times with first hand reports ( and pictures for heaven’s sake). It must have happened!

If the second didn’t happen, are you really expecting me to accept that the first did based on the same criteria? That would be absurd.

Incidentally, have you noticed that the more evidence that is available for any given miracle, the less chance there is of anyone accepting it as valid.? Ever wondered why?

There is a problem with most people who claim miracles as being true. Well, two actually. The first is that they started with a belief in God and then accept anything that will justify their belief. The second is a complete lack of scepticism.

 

[Lucretius]

So not only should we consider the number of people for any given miracle, we should grant them veracity because…well, because there are a lot of them. Seems like Elvis is still alive and alien abductions are happening all around us.

The Elvis sightings have always been unserious…and I wouldn’t reject the alien abductions either, because the people who experience them tend to be serious. I’m not saying we should follow their interpretation, but we shouldn’t dismiss the “raw experience” either. But that’s another topic…

It doesn’t work like that. Just because lots of people make lots of claims does not increase the validity of those individual claims by any amount whatsoever.

Not necessarily, true, but it makes us serious question the dogmas of materialism, which are usually the motivating factors behind denial of miracles.

There were 4 witnesses for a one off event two thousand years ago with minimal second hand reports. It must have happened! There were hundreds of thousands of witnesses about fifty years ago for an event that happened multiple times with first hand reports ( and pictures for heaven’s sake). It must have happened!

We’ve discussed this: one (or two) claims to be an eyewitness account, and two others are second hand, plus all the other witnesses through the Church Fathers and their traditions, which we have a paper trail for. In fact, even if they were just “four second hand reports,” this is actually more than most events in history. I actually see you critique as one not only against the Resurrection, but against the attempt at studying history at all. I also accuse you of smuggling materialist assumptions into your critique.

Incidentally, have you noticed that the more evidence that is available for any given miracle, the less chance there is of anyone accepting it as valid.? Ever wondered why?

I don’t see why you are saying this. I haven’t seen such a pattern, and rather I see the opposite?

There is a problem with most people who claim miracles as being true. Well, two actually. The first is that they started with a belief in God and then accept anything that will justify their belief. The second is a complete lack of scepticism.

Well, the belief in God is rational…

Second, scepticism is doublespeak. It means to be sceptical of whatever you decide to be sceptical of…have you ever doubted the dogmas of materialism, for example? I was like you once, and as soon as I studied the arguments (or the lack thereof), I realized how false and dogmatic and illogical the philosophy actually is.

Third, and probably most importantly, faith is an interpretation of everything, which is while it seems to you that people “accept anything that justifies their beliefs,” but this is the same to those who accept materialism: they are both “faiths” in the sense that they are interpretations of everything. That’s because faith is a choice primarily… because the facts of the world can fit both the Christian interpretation and the materialists interpretation. I interpret St. John as witnessing a miracle…and you interpret him as mistaken at best. Both of these follow from our choice in “faith.”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

Not necessarily, true, but it makes us serious question the dogmas of materialism, which are usually the motivating factors behind denial of miracles.

‘The dogmas of materialism’. It’s a farcical statement that needs to be put to rest. We are all materialists. We all defer to the real and natural world in almost everything we do. You simply switch it off when presented with something that appears to confirm your beliefs. ‘I can’t see how (or why) these people would be mistaken so there cannot be any answer except that which confirms my beliefs’. Oh for a genuinely sceptical Christian with some honest doubts.

You certainly get that with those who honestly declare their lack of belief. In fact, it’s doubt to which they actually admit. At least, in my case it certainly is. And almost all the atheists who post on this forum.

Does God exist? The answer is not ‘No’. The answer is ‘I have not been presented with any credible evidence for His existence. But He may do’. Do miracles occur? The answer is not ‘No’. The answer is ‘I have not been presented with any credible evidence that they do. But they may do’.

This surely must be the default position of any reasonable person. To say that you either believe or do not believe, but…‘I may be mitaken, but I will live my life based on the premise that I am not’. Apart from being the more honest approach, it also prevents you having to deny the undeniable or defend the indefensible.

There are aspects of Christianity, and indeed all other faiths, that ring true. Aspects of each faith that make sense. To which any reasonable person would agree. But it is beyond my understanding that people seem to think that if they declare themselves to be Christian, they have to accept the whole box and dice.

Yes, one doesn’t have to be a fundamentalist. You don’t have to accept a Garden of Eden and animals two by two. But, for example, 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection? They will bend over backwards to convince others (and themselves, surely), that a throw away line in one passage of a single gospel proves that this actually happened.

In fact, even if they were just “four second hand reports,” this is actually more than most events in history. I actually see you critique as one not only against the Resurrection, but against the attempt at studying history at all. I also accuse you of smuggling materialist assumptions into your critique.

For ‘materialist assumptions’ read ‘reasonable scepticism’. The same reasonable scepticism you would employ to all other claims made by any belief system other than your own.

I don’t see why you are saying this. I haven’t seen such a pattern, and rather I see the opposite?

Four witnesses two thousand years ago with just second hand reports? Cast iron certainty. Because there is no way to show that it isn’t true. Hundreds of thousands of witnesses, first hand accounts just a few decades ago but…photos, recordings, video, the opportunity to check the veracity of the claims. Hmmm, says the Vatican…maybe too much of an opportunity to be shown that so many people can be wrong. Maybe a little too much evidence methinks. Best say nothing.

Second, scepticism is doublespeak. It means to be sceptical of whatever you decide to be sceptical of…have you ever doubted the dogmas of materialism, for example? I was like you once, and as soon as I studied the arguments (or the lack thereof), I realized how false and dogmatic and illogical the philosophy actually is.

Ah yes. Back to the ‘dogmas of materialsm’. Actually, maybe you just mean ‘evidence’. So maybe railing against the ol’ D of M you just mean we can skip the part where people ask reasonable questions as to whether something did actually happen or not.

Imagine me to be a Christian (I was once). I say: 'Reports of the sightings of Jesus after the Resurrection? Well, hardly convincing. Maybe it happened that way, maybe not. Impossible to tell, really. And miracles? Well, most of them are Mary on a Taco variety and spontaneous healings. I haven’t seen one that’s credible to be honest. That Zeitoun one? Farcical. Blobs of light. It’s a Rorschach test for those who want to believe it. But does that alter my belief in God? Am I less of a Christian because of that?

Well, you answer that, Lucretius.

 

[Lucretius]

‘The dogmas of materialism’. It’s a farcical statement that needs to be put to rest. We are all materialists. We all defer to the real and natural world in almost everything we do. You simply switch it off when presented with something that appears to confirm your beliefs. ‘I can’t see how (or why) these people would be mistaken so there cannot be any answer except that which confirms my beliefs’. Oh for a genuinely sceptical Christian with some honest doubts.

You certainly get that with those who honestly declare their lack of belief. In fact, it’s doubt to which they actually admit. At least, in my case it certainly is. And almost all the atheists who post on this forum.

Does God exist? The answer is not ‘No’. The answer is ‘I have not been presented with any credible evidence for His existence. But He may do’. Do miracles occur? The answer is not ‘No’. The answer is ‘I have not been presented with any credible evidence that they do. But they may do’.

This surely must be the default position of any reasonable person. To say that you either believe or do not believe, but…‘I may be mitaken, but I will live my life based on the premise that I am not’. Apart from being the more honest approach, it also prevents you having to deny the undeniable or defend the indefensible.

There are aspects of Christianity, and indeed all other faiths, that ring true. Aspects of each faith that make sense. To which any reasonable person would agree. But it is beyond my understanding that people seem to think that if they declare themselves to be Christian, they have to accept the whole box and dice.

Yes, one doesn’t have to be a fundamentalist. You don’t have to accept a Garden of Eden and animals two by two. But, for example, 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection? They will bend over backwards to convince others (and themselves, surely), that a throw away line in one passage of a single gospel proves that this actually happened.

For ‘materialist assumptions’ read ‘reasonable scepticism’. The same reasonable scepticism you would employ to all other claims made by any belief system other than your own.

Four witnesses two thousand years ago with just second hand reports? Cast iron certainty. Because there is no way to show that it isn’t true. Hundreds of thousands of witnesses, first hand accounts just a few decades ago but…photos, recordings, video, the opportunity to check the veracity of the claims. Hmmm, says the Vatican…maybe too much of an opportunity to be shown that so many people can be wrong. Maybe a little too much evidence methinks. Best say nothing.

Ah yes. Back to the ‘dogmas of materialsm’. Actually, maybe you just mean ‘evidence’. So maybe railing against the ol’ D of M you just mean we can skip the part where people ask reasonable questions as to whether something did actually happen or not.

Imagine me to be a Christian (I was once). I say: 'Reports of the sightings of Jesus after the Resurrection? Well, hardly convincing. Maybe it happened that way, maybe not. Impossible to tell, really. And miracles? Well, most of them are Mary on a Taco variety and spontaneous healings. I haven’t seen one that’s credible to be honest. That Zeitoun one? Farcical. Blobs of light. It’s a Rorschach test for those who want to believe it. But does that alter my belief in God? Am I less of a Christian because of that?

Well, you answer that, Lucretius.

:crying: I don’t think words can profit between us for now.

If I used malicious langauge, I apologize.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

:crying: I don’t think words can profit between us for now.

If I used malicious langauge, I apologize.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Far from it. It’s been a pleasure talking. I hope you had/are having a great Easter.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, Do you never tire of this same argument? There are many here among us who do not need a god to find meaning in this life. Therefore, your continued statements are false. It is really that simple.

John

What you mean, John, is that people invent meaning in a world which would be valueless, purposeless and meaningless if it exists for no reason whatsoever. Plucking reason out of an absurd universe is a metaphysical conjuring trick! Things just happen and that is the end of the matter without imposing any artificial superstructure. In that respect Marx was correct…

Happy Easter nevertheless.

 

[oldcelt]

What you mean, John, is that people invent meaning in a world which would be valueless, purposeless and meaningless if it exists for no reason whatsoever. Plucking reason out of an absurd universe is a metaphysical conjuring trick! Things just happen and that is the end of the matter without imposing any artificial superstructure. In that respect Marx was correct…

Happy Easter nevertheless.

Or, do they invent religions? Trying to bring some sense to what they see as a fearful, unfulfilled existence by worshiping a deity that never shows itself and allows almost unspeakable events to occur in its creation…yet somehow loves us and watches over us.
If I am inventing reasons for this life, I have certainly taken the shortcut.

Happy Easter to you and yours,

John

 

[Lucretius]

Or, do they invent religions? Trying to bring some sense to what they see as a fearful, unfulfilled existence by worshiping a deity that never shows itself and allows almost unspeakable events to occur in its creation…yet somehow loves us and watches over us.
If I am inventing reasons for this life, I have certainly taken the shortcut.

Happy Easter to you and yours,

John

I think I agree with you somewhat, but I would prefer to use the term mythology, or story, rather than religion, since religion doesn’t really have a good definition in this context.

Humans create narratives about the world to make sense of it. Even scientific theories are a kind of story However, I think our disagreement is that I think humans create stories because they sense a poetic or personal dimension in the world, and are trying to make sense of it, while you think they are trying to create embellishment to cope with existence. I think mythology is an attempt to understand the meaningfulness of it all, and you think it’s all a fantasy to hide the meaninglessness of it all. I think human desire will be fulfilled, while you think it can’t.

But Nietzsche was right: atheists too make fantasies. From his point of view, the theist (and the unreflective atheist) is a man in need of fantasies he thinks are real, the “true” atheist is a man in need of fantasies he knows are fantasies, and the Superman one who transcends the need for fantasies (of course, the irony is that the Superman is itself a mythology).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[oldcelt]

I think I agree with you somewhat, but I would prefer to use the term mythology, or story, rather than religion, since religion doesn’t really have a good definition in this context.

Humans create narratives about the world to make sense of it. Even scientific theories are a kind of story However, I think our disagreement is that I think humans create stories because they sense a poetic or personal dimension in the world, and are trying to make sense of it, while you think they are trying to create embellishment to cope with existence. I think mythology is an attempt to understand the meaningfulness of it all, and you think it’s all a fantasy to hide the meaninglessness of it all. I think human desire will be fulfilled, while you think it can’t.

But Nietzsche was right: atheists too make fantasies. From his point of view, the theist (and the unreflective atheist) is a man in need of fantasies he thinks are real, the “true” atheist is a man in need of fantasies he knows are fantasies, and the Superman one who transcends the need for fantasies (of course, the irony is that the Superman is itself a mythology).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Very close, except I do believe that human desire can be satisfied with no need for outside intervention. I don’t create mythology, just try my best to make a better world, and accept its limitations…including our ultimate death. In the final analysis, IMHO, it doesn’t even matter if science is right.

John

 

[Lucretius]

Very close, except I do believe that human desire can be satisfied with no need for outside intervention.

I don’t think an atheist has such an option, because temporal goods are, well temporary, and so they can’t ultimately fulfil us. We need a timeless Good of some sort…(this is all Plato, BTW).

I don’t create mythology, just try my best to make a better world, and accept its limitations…including our ultimate death.

Everyone tells stories to themselves. It’s called having hopes and dreams And “trying my best to make a better world” sounds like a narrative to me

In the final analysis, IMHO, it doesn’t even matter if science is right.

“Final analysis” sounds like a hint to a narrative to me…

But I want to mention what I hate about science (not science per se, but science as often practiced). I don’t like a lot of the speculations built on speculations built on speculations, but the worse thing is when, say, a biologist gives a theory about how this or that evolved and it is accepted so openly. I can spin 100 stories about how an elephant’s trunk evolved, but all these theories are “pure speculation” unless someone makes a time machine. One good quality in the Intelligent Design movement, even though I very often disagree with them, is that they tend to get this: that just because a theory is naturalistic doesn’t make it less of a fantasy. The real question is what haaappppeeeeeennnneeedddddd, not what theory best fits our naturalistic metaphysics: did the elephant’s trunk evolve because of a random mutation made it so some elephants could reach water easier than other elephants without long trucks, or because Ganesha formed them from the clay in his own image? The correct answer is that we don’t know!!!

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

And their tusks are getting smaller because, well maybe Ganesh (or God) thought it might protect them from poachers.

“Perhaps the most dramatic example is the shrinking of tusks in elephants, or even their complete loss. In eastern Zambia, the proportion of tuskless female elephants shot up from 10 per cent in 1969 to nearly 40 per cent in 1989 as a result of poaching (African Journal of Ecology, vol 33, p 230). Less dramatic rises in tusklessness have been reported in many other parts of Africa, with some bull elephants losing tusks too.”

newscientist.com/article/mg21028101-900-unnatural-selection-hunting-down-elephants-tusks/

Kinda weird that all the attributes of all creates seem to suit the environment in which they live. Like they were designed exactly like that. Or that maybe they adapted (can I say ‘evolved’?) to the conditions. I wonder which it could be…

 

[Lucretius]

And their tusks are getting smaller because, well maybe Ganesh (or God) thought it might protect them from poachers.

“Perhaps the most dramatic example is the shrinking of tusks in elephants, or even their complete loss. In eastern Zambia, the proportion of tuskless female elephants shot up from 10 per cent in 1969 to nearly 40 per cent in 1989 as a result of poaching (African Journal of Ecology, vol 33, p 230). Less dramatic rises in tusklessness have been reported in many other parts of Africa, with some bull elephants losing tusks too.”

newscientist.com/article/mg21028101-900-unnatural-selection-hunting-down-elephants-tusks/

Kinda weird that all the attributes of all creates seem to suit the environment in which they live. Like they were designed exactly like that. Or that maybe they adapted (can I say ‘evolved’?) to the conditions. I wonder which it could be…

It is possible for some things to develop due to natural selection, and others due to Ganesh (or even more likely: there is other “mechanisms” in evolution we don’t have the insight to see). What I’m attacking is neither the facts of evolution, nor even natural selection in itself, but rather this idea that natural selection has basically accounted for most species, or will. Both are based in ignorance.

Natural selection has explained some things, but natural selection hasn’t explained all things.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

Natural selection doesn’t explain all things because natural selection is only one aspect of the theory. There ARE other mechanisms and none of them involve Ganesh or anyone else. I’d be very careful about claiming that the science is based on ignorance if you yourself are ignorant of the facts.

This is a banned topic and for good reason. Most Christians in my experience are woefully ill informed about it. If they weren’t then they wouldn’t be arguing against it.

I shan’t comment again because I’d rather not get banned.

 

[Lucretius]

Natural selection doesn’t explain all things because natural selection is only one aspect of the theory.

This is a banned topic and for good reason. Most Christians in my experience are woefully ill informed about it. If they weren’t then they wouldn’t be arguing against it.

:bigyikes: Opps Sorry! (Thank you ). And yes I do know of the other aspects of the theory of evolution, and I find most people period are ignorant of it…as am I, in some of the more complex parts of it (especially the genetic drift parts). Not everyone has time to read biology books, I guess…especially when distracted by TV and computers…

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[antunesaa]

I never understood the need for “fine tuned”. Billy Lane Craig uses it a lot.

It has been noticed for decades that the thing we call universe does not seem incredibly robust to slight changes in constants inherent to the laws of physics. But I prefer to equate fine tuning to beauty, or, even better, to love. It just seems that things have an aestethic appeal. And beauty - or love - seems outlandish enough to persuade me that brute force mechanisms to generate love are unappealing.