Who's freer athiest or Catholic?

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty
**
But all of these examples are pointless in this debate; just because many theists or atheists throughout history have been intellectuals, that says nothing about whether they were right.**

They are not pointless examples because they show that a great many great intellects found God to be be approachable by way of the human intellect, a position you denied in your previous post, quoted below:

I don’t expect to be able to know God with the intellect alone, but an intellectual basis for even thinking God exists is a prerequisite to knowing him with the heart.

You can dispute the conclusions of those cited, but you cannot dispute that they found an intellectual basis for thinking God exists. When you haughtily dismiss such an intellectual basis in the future please try to remember that men with greater intellects than your own were able to see something you could not or would not see.

By the way, Einstein did dismiss the Christian God, but he also dismissed atheism and was rather definite about that.

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” (Einstein, as cited in Clark 1973, 33).

 

[Planty_Business]

They are not pointless examples because they show that a great many great intellects found God to be be approachable by way of the human intellect, a position you denied in your previous post, quoted below:

I don’t expect to be able to know God with the intellect alone, but an intellectual basis for even thinking God exists is a prerequisite to knowing him with the heart.

When I said that I don’t expect to be able to know God with the intellect alone, I am agreeing with you here! To know intellectually that God exists is one thing, but to know God as a person is another.

The point that you seem to be missing here is that just because intellectuals believed in God, it does not mean that their reasons for believing in God were intellectual reasons. The same can be said for atheist and agnostic intellectuals. Based on your quotes, however, it seems that the reasons that many intellectuals had/have for believing in God were not intellectual reasons.

For example, George Wald, as you cited, claims that the debunking of spontaneous generation proves that special creation by God must have occurred. This is false; spontaneous generation is not the same as abiogenesis. In George Wald’s time, abiogenesis may not have been considered scientifically possible, but today, it is. There are numerous resources out there for learning about the science behind abiogenesis, such as talkorigins.org.

You can dispute the conclusions of those cited, but you cannot dispute that they found an intellectual basis for thinking God exists.

Yes I can, and I just did. I would not claim that the reasons for every intellectual atheist’s atheism are intellectual reasons. So why do you have the gall to make such a claim for theists?

When you haughtily dismiss such an intellectual basis in the future please try to remember that men with greater intellects than your own were able to see something you could not or would not see.

Fine then, and you ought to bear in mind the fact that men with greater intellects that your own were able to see a truth that you cannot see the next time you haughtily dismiss the intellectual basis for atheism, as you have done many times in this discussion.

By the way, Einstein did dismiss the Christian God, but he also dismissed atheism and was rather definite about that.

So? That doesn’t exactly help your case either, now does it? I wouldn’t care if Einstein were a scientologist, he was a brilliant man, and he had his own opinions about God that I do not share.

 

[Planty_Business]

Goedel believed in a personal God. He also came up with an ontological argument that he was reluctant to share because he was concerned with the negative reaction it might cause from his fellow scientists.

I can’t seem to find the actual argument on the page you cite. If it is basically the same as Anselm’s argument, it is based on pure sophistry. He confuses “God” with “the concept of God”. To say that a being must exist on the basis that it is the greatest conceivable being is fallacious. I could just as easily make this argument:

1. A perfect cookie is, by definition, the greatest conceivable cookie.
2. It is greater for something to exist than to not exist.
3. A cookie is something.
4. Therefore, a perfect cookie must exist.

So the opposite would be true (if you are going to deny the truth of this principle the opposite *must *be true) anything that begins to exists has no cause? You would advocate for a causeless world where anything could pop into existence at any moment without cause?

Not so. If the proposition “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is not true, that does not mean that the proposition “everything the begins to exists has no cause” is true. It means that “not everything that begins to exist has a cause”. By your logic, if the proposition “every animal is a mammal” is false, then “every animal is anything but a mammal” must be true. That is absurd.

The fact that things dont tend to pop into existence is in fact evidence for the fact that things dont begin to exists ex nihilo without a cause.

No, it is not. In this universe, governed by natural and physical laws, you’re right, nothing begins to exist ex nihilo without a cause. Nor does anything begin to exist ex nihilo with a cause, either.

However, this is not evidence that nothing could begin to exist ex nihilo without (or with) a cause pre-Big Bang. There is no evidence of which I am aware that these laws were binding before the Big Bang (if such a phrase is even coherent). If you are aware of such evidence, lay it on me.

To reject this premise is to reject causality. That is an extreme measure for the purpose of rejecting this argument. You would be undermining all of science since it would be unreliable due to the random popping into existence that surely must be taking place.

No, rejecting the premise “everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause” does not reject causality. In fact, we are not even sure that beginning to exist ex nihilo is even possible (perhaps matter and energy have always existed), much less that such coming into existence requires a cause. The only law of causality we observe in nature is the ex materia coming into existence; if something comes into existence from pre-existing parts, yes, a cause of some sort is necessary. But this is not applicable to ex nihilo coming into existence.

If annihilation was the choice people would still complain about that not being a free choice.

Who said anything about annihilation being the only option besides heaven or hell? Why can’t there be a more neutral eternal destiny, one that is neither paradise nor torture? How about a “new Eden” of sorts, a new perfect Earth? As far as the Genesis story tells us, God (in the story) doesn’t seem to care if Adam and Eve worship him; he just wants them to obey him, which makes sense to the extent that his commands are reasonable.

I just restate that it is unreasonable to expect a world without consequences for your choices.

Why in the world should the consequence for something as petty as, say, not believing in God be eternal torture? It is petty because if God really thinks that my knowing he exists is such a big deal, he should provide me with some decent reasons to think he exists, instead of damning me while rewarding murderers who just happen to “see the light”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

In George Wald’s time, abiogenesis may not have been considered scientifically possible, but today, it is. There are numerous resources out there for learning about the science behind abiogenesis, such as talkorigins.org.

You are confused here. Abiogenesis has not been proven. While almost anything is possible, the probability of abiogenesis as a an accident of nature is so improbable that it far outweighs the likelihood that it happened without being designed. You can point to all kinds of research but it’s all speculative … you know, like the existence of God.

Moreover, blind evolution is a useless concept unless you can first prove that abiogenesis is blind, which you cannot do and never will be able to do since you cannot recreate the exact conditions of the world prevailing at the time of the first appearance of life. And even if you could, you could only do so as the result of an intelligently designed experiment.

We can intelligently believe in atoms without seeing them or proof that they exist … and our belief can be justified later when we split the atom and see the proof.

Likewise, we can intelligently believe in God without seeing Him up close and personal … and our belief can be later justified if and when we deserve to see Him.

What you want is to see the proof first without the belief. With such a narrow-minded attitude, atoms would never have been discovered. And with such a narrow-minded attitude, God can never be discovered.

The opposition to God is not in the intellect, as the litany of scientists cited above proves. If it were in the intellect no man of intellect could believe in God, which is patently false. Opposition to God is always in the heart. Stop pretending you can dismiss God with cold, hard logic when you have already dismissed Him in your heart.

 

[exnihilo]

I can’t seem to find the actual argument on the page you cite. If it is basically the same as Anselm’s argument, it is based on pure sophistry. He confuses “God” with “the concept of God”.

The point was not that the argument was a good one but that Goedel made one.

Not so. If the proposition “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is not true, that does not mean that the proposition “everything the begins to exists has no cause” is true. It means that “not everything that begins to exist has a cause”. By your logic, if the proposition “every animal is a mammal” is false, then “every animal is anything but a mammal” must be true. That is absurd.

I agree. That was bad thinking which is what happens when you dont take the time you should. But it does mean that some things pop into existence uncaused. Why more things dont is left unexplained.

However, this is not evidence that nothing could begin to exist ex nihilo without (or with) a cause pre-Big Bang. There is no evidence of which I am aware that these laws were binding before the Big Bang (if such a phrase is even coherent). If you are aware of such evidence, lay it on me.

The Universe is all we have to go by. In it everything is caused. You agree that there could be, and really must be, a metaphysical cause. So do I. That cause is God.

No, rejecting the premise “everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause” does not reject causality. In fact, we are not even sure that beginning to exist ex nihilo is even possible (perhaps matter and energy have always existed), much less that such coming into existence requires a cause. The only law of causality we observe in nature is the ex materia coming into existence; if something comes into existence from pre-existing parts, yes, a cause of some sort is necessary. But this is not applicable to ex nihilo coming into existence.

Of course it rejects causality. It just makes a special, singular exception. But if things can happened uncaused before the beginning of the Universe there would be no reason to think that it can not happen now. The Universe popping into existence can not prevent other things from doing so. And it couldn’t prevent complex things from popping into existence. If basic matter and energy can pop into existence why not houses and mountains?

Who said anything about annihilation being the only option besides heaven or hell? Why can’t there be a more neutral eternal destiny, one that is neither paradise nor torture? How about a “new Eden” of sorts, a new perfect Earth? As far as the Genesis story tells us, God (in the story) doesn’t seem to care if Adam and Eve worship him; he just wants them to obey him, which makes sense to the extent that his commands are reasonable.

Because the complaint is that it is unfair to suffer because of a lack of faith or for actions in this world. Suffering is at the root of the complaint.

Obedience to God due to it making good sense does not itself make sense. God has the advantage of omniscience. His reasoning would produce the right justifications. It does not make sense to think that man would know better. That is like saying a child should only obey a parent if they have good reason. So the child would have to first touch a hot stove before knowing that the parents warning is reasonable.

Why in the world should the consequence for something as petty as, say, not believing in God be eternal torture? It is petty because if God really thinks that my knowing he exists is such a big deal, he should provide me with some decent reasons to think he exists, instead of damning me while rewarding murderers who just happen to “see the light”.

The complaint is that one should not have to suffer the consequences. As far as what is petty who are we to determine what God finds petty? The root of all sin is doing your will, not God’s. Not even recognizing God is a pretty significant thing. All I can say is I can understand why God would find this to be truly terrible.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Right; at the time that I described myself as an “agnostic atheist”, I was ignorant of the definition of “atheist”, as many self-proclaimed atheists are. I will change that.

If I may:

“Lack of a Belief in God” by QualiaSoup (youtube link).

You might not agree with all of his semantics, but still may find this helpful.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Planty

In George Wald’s time, abiogenesis may not have been considered scientifically possible, but today, it is. There are numerous resources out there for learning about the science behind abiogenesis, such as talkorigins.org.

You are confused here. Abiogenesis has not been proven. While almost anything is possible, the probability of abiogenesis as a an accident of nature is so improbable that it far outweighs the likelihood that it happened without being designed. You can point to all kinds of research but it’s all speculative … you know, like the existence of God.

Moreover, blind evolution is a useless concept unless you can first prove that abiogenesis is blind, which you cannot do and never will be able to do since you cannot recreate the exact conditions of the world prevailing at the time of the first appearance of life. And even if you could, you could only do so as the result of an intelligently designed experiment.

Your reasoning on this issue is objectionable. See my article:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Other than that, I value your contributions on this thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Your reasoning on this issue is objectionable. See my article:

I believe it would help if you could be more specific.

What has been proven about abiogenesis with any degree of certainty other than the very great likelihood that it happened by pure and highly improbable luck?

Has abiogenesis been engineered in a lab? Where? By whom? Using which intelligent design?

By evolution? Certainly not!

Good luck with your article.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Your reasoning on this issue is objectionable. See my article:

I believe it would help if you could be more specific.

What has been proven about abiogenesis with any degree of certainty other than the very great likelihood that it happened by pure and highly improbable luck?

Has abiogenesis been engineered in a lab? Where? By whom? Using which intelligent design?

By evolution? Certainly not!

Good luck with your article.

Why don’t you -]read/-] study the article?

Good luck with my article? If you google for origin of life, it pops up at number two just below the Wikipedia article. I got lucky already, I guess

 

[Charlemagne_II]

al

If you google for origin of life, it pops up at number two just below the Wikipedia article. I got lucky already, I guess.

If you google “advice to hell raisers” my article is at the top of the page. But I’ll never ask you to read it. Please do the same for me. Thanks.

If you want to make points here, make them here and I’ll answer. Thanks again!

 

[DCNBILL]

I can’t seem to find the actual argument on the page you cite. If it is basically the same as Anselm’s argument, it is based on pure sophistry. He confuses “God” with “the concept of God”. To say that a being must exist on the basis that it is the greatest conceivable being is fallacious. I could just as easily make this argument:

1. A perfect cookie is, by definition, the greatest conceivable cookie.
2. It is greater for something to exist than to not exist.
3. A cookie is something.
4. Therefore, a perfect cookie must exist.

Just a small point to this argument

4 would only follow 3 if 3 stated " It is necessary for something to exist than not to exist" which does not really make much sense.

As 3 is stated above the best one could do with 4 is “Therefore, it is better that a perfect cookie exist”

But if you ever do find that elusive cookie, I will have one! or at least a bite because there will be only one, well until I take a bite of it…darn.

 

[Planty_Business]

To Thinking Sapien:

Unfortunately, the video you cite is incompatible with my mobile web browser, so I cannot view it.

Perhaps we could all save each other a lot of pointless semantics babble if we would refrain from describing ourselves as “atheists” or “agnostics” at all, since those words don’t really tell us much about one’s world view; they are simply too vague. If atheism is defined as “a lack of belief in god(s)”, then infants and even children could be considered de facto atheists just because they are not intelligent enough to make judgments one way or the other about whether God exists.

When most people talk about atheists, they do not refer to infants or children. They refer to people who have consciously considered the claims of religious and nonreligious people about the nature of the universe, and who have decided that gods almost certainly do not exist. These people could almost universally be described as metaphysical naturalists. Those atheists who reject metaphysical naturalism (some Buddhists or “spiritual” atheists like Steve Pavlina) are scarcely called atheists at all, because most self-described atheists these days support skepticism and metaphysical naturalism anyway. Technically, by any definition, non-naturalist atheists could be called atheists, but they are in as much a minority as theists who do not believe in miracles, and as such most people do not call them atheists, even themselves.

For this reason, I think it would be prudent for me to henceforth describe my world view as “metaphysical naturalism”, as opposed to the less descriptive terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, which, even if they did not have the problem of being too vague, are terms whose meanings are debated too much to be useful. I would not care to have to explain my view about God’s existence in depth every time someone asks me what my religious views are. Often this just leads to arguments about what “atheism” and “agnosticism” really mean.

So, for future reference, I am a metaphysical naturalist, meaning I believe that, as far as our human experience can tell us (and has told us), all that exists is that which can be studied through the natural sciences, and which exists in the natural realm. To be clear, this is, in fact, a belief. I cannot hope to prove metaphysical naturalism any more than I can prove my positive belief that gods do not exist. Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy, a system of presuppositions about the nature of reality that I hold. Certainly, these presuppositions can be tested, just as those of any philosophy. It is falsifiable. But I currently see no reason to think that it has been falsified by any arguments on the part of believers in the supernatural. Metaphysical naturalism seems to explain all occurrences in the universe that we observe, better than any philosophy that includes supernatural explanations.

I hope this cleared some things up about my beliefs.

 

[Al_Moritz]

When most people talk about atheists, they do not refer to infants or children. They refer to people who have consciously considered the claims of religious and nonreligious people about the nature of the universe, and who have decided that gods almost certainly do not exist. These people could almost universally be described as metaphysical naturalists. Those atheists who reject metaphysical naturalism (some Buddhists or “spiritual” atheists like Steve Pavlina) are scarcely called atheists at all, because most self-described atheists these days support skepticism and metaphysical naturalism anyway. Technically, by any definition, non-naturalist atheists could be called atheists, but they are in as much a minority as theists who do not believe in miracles, and as such most people do not call them atheists, even themselves.

For this reason, I think it would be prudent for me to henceforth describe my world view as “metaphysical naturalism”, as opposed to the less descriptive terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, which, even if they did not have the problem of being too vague, are terms whose meanings are debated too much to be useful. I would not care to have to explain my view about God’s existence in depth every time someone asks me what my religious views are. Often this just leads to arguments about what “atheism” and “agnosticism” really mean.

Right on, this is a clear statement of view. Metaphysical naturalism is a positive worldview just like theism, and carries the burden of proof just as much. I am glad that there is finally an atheist who does not hide behind the phony “lack of belief” stance.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, he does. I do not grant respect to any being simply because that being happens to be my creator. That would be the same ridiculous reasoning that allowed feudalistic monarchs to enjoy priveleges that other people did not enjoy simply because they were not born into royalty.

Now that is beyond absurd and arrogant. That’s like the Core i7 microchip telling its developers and creators at Intel “ I will not show you respect until you’ve proven that you measure up to my standards!!! ”.

Ad hominem: A logical fallacy in which one participant in a debate attacks the character of the other participant - rather than that participant’s arguments - and acts as if, by succeeding in an attack on his opponent’s character, he has succeeded in discrediting his opponent’s arguments.

By this definition, yes, you were committing an ad hominem by calling my statement stupid and arrogant - and by extension, offending my intellectual standing - rather than actually addressing my arguments on logical grounds. If you did not think that such a remark added to the merits of your arguments - and detracted from those of mine - you would not have made the remark. Hence, ad hominem.

Ad Hominem - is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.

Example: If I had said your argument is false because you are an atheist then that is an ad hominem.

But if I said your statement is stupid. That is not ad hominem.

If I said that you are exhibiting profound ignorance with regards Christianity, then that is not ad hominem.

If I had said that you are an atheist therefore your arguments are false, then that is ad hominem.

In all cases where you have applied the fallacy to me, you applied them wrongly.

You are only proving my point that you are childish for using petty insults rather than actually demonstrating why my statement was “arrogant and stupid”. Clearly it was not either of the two.

You said: As a member of the jury of humanity, I find God to be not guilty of existing until proven guilty.

Arrogant: because you think that somehow you decide on behalf of humanity

Stupid: “I find God to be not guilty of existing until proven guilty”? You may be using theatrical language here but you fall again into the error you made before, you are assuming there is a God not guilty of existing. So as I said, stupid. Similar to your "God is in my court statement.

My opinion matters more because it is an educated opinion. The opinions of the majority of human beings regarding the existence of God are uninformed opinions, based on nothing more than faith and tradition.

And here is another arrogant and stupid statement.

Arrogant - Just because you are educated does not mean your opinion matters more.

Stupid - Because you think your opinion (which is based on materialism) carries weight in the field of spirituality. That would be like a a nobel laureate poet - who is totally clueless about mathematics - demanding that his opinion on thermodynamics be given more validity than those who have been immersed in the discipline for most of their life.

Yes, some theists have better reasons for their opinions, but they are not the majority either.

But whether they are in the majority is beside the point. All it means is that there are highly intelligent and brilliantly logical people who have been able to explain the belief of the great majority of people.

 

[benedictus2]

You are acting as if most theists believe in God for intellectual reasons - as apologists do - when that is not the case at all.

Not quite.

Most Christians, if I were to ask them what they think about the KCA, would just give me a puzzled stare.

That would include me. I do not even know that it is called KCA. Catholics only refer to it as First Cause. Which of course is neither here nor there.
If there are 5 billion theists and only 500 can expound lucidly and convincingly about the faith, then that is all that is required – that the faith can be expounded lucidly and convincingly.

Their pastors and nuns never told them about apologetics. And that is a shame.

Back, then they never had need to defend their faith. One thing about faith, the headwork though important is not paramount. It is the heart that is important because it is with the heart that one truly sees God.

Of course I do! Don’t you have intellectual confidence in your beliefs? Would not you say that my verdict is false, even though you cannot prove that?

Yes, that is true. Okay. So I say you verdict is false.

“Resounding” does not mean “unanimous”, which is necessary in a jury’s final, collective verdict. Ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Clearly almost everybody was ready to hang Tom Robinson high, but did that mean that he was guilty? No. Atticus Finch proved him innocent. And many atheists have offered proofs of God’s innocence of existing.

Who says we are looking for unanimous. You are being ridiculous here again. As if we could ever have a unanimous verdict on either theism or atheism. The most one can say is what does the great majority say?
Same thing with science. There are many who propose this and that theory but until there is convincing proof that makes this theory into law, then we say, where’s the consensus going?

I do not, but it seems as if you do.

You just said above “ Of course I do”.

 

[benedictus2]

Um…no, to the latter question. The multiverse hypothesis explains fine-tuning because, if there is a vast number of universes, the existence of a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life (at least in one very small fraction of that universe) is pretty much inevitable.

How is that so? How does having many universes make a teeny weeny part of it able to sustain life, inevitable?

If this is the only universe, then fine-tuning is more of a difficult problem, for both the theist and the atheist, as I explained given the fact that “God did it” is an unfalsifiable, untestable hypothesis, and it is nothing short of “magic!”.

But just saying that it is inevitable does not make it inevitable. So again, how does it make it inevitable? You must have some logical deduction for this statement.
Another thing is where did the multiverse come from?

I do not know; probably that it is nothing more than an untestable hypothesis at this point. Rather like the God hypothesis.

I think the belief in the multiverse is in the minority.

This is a strawman because I do not subscribe to “scientism”, nor do I feel the need to insult theists on the grounds that they are intellectually inferior.

I will hold you to that.

More insulting ad hominem and condescension, but I digress. Does not Jesus instruct Christians (according to the Bible) to evangelize Christianity, not deism? How would proving a generic creator god to me do anything to help your case, as a Christian? “The Great Debate” by NonStampCollector illustrates this point well.

I said: “I never argue for the Christian God with atheists. That would be like expecting a primary school child to comprehend calculus”. That is not an ad hominem.

I don’t know what your profession is but suppose you are a brilliant cosmologist – suppose that as we say - you’re the ants pants in cosmology.

It would not be at all insulting to tell a brilliant English teacher (who knows zilch about physics) that to explain cosmology to her in depth would be like explaining calculus to a three year old, because in actual fact it would be like that. There is much that one needs to understand first like the basic of maths, algebra, etc.

Please, use ad hominem only when you are certain of it’s use.

Another thing, if you will stick to what I have written instead of making assumptions of what I think and what I believe, we will converse well.

One cannot argue about the Christian God with atheists because the first thing they need to accept is that there is a God – Creator first off. Once they get past that hurdle then you can start discussing attributes of this God.

With other theists I argue for the Christian God, with other Christians I argue for a more robust understanding of the truth of Christianity. In every instance there first has to be a common ground. I never use the Bible with non Christians. The Bible is only valid when you discuss religious beliefs with Christians.

As they say, horses for courses.

A lack of clarity on your part does not constitute a failure of comprehension on mine.

Yes, that is true. I may be quite unclear with my posts especially since I am hopeless at proof reading and end up with missing words, typos and wrong words altogether.

I will clarify if I find I am slipping into this terrible fault. My apologies.

You are a Christian, not a deist, so I assumed you wanted me to disprove your God, not a generic god.

As I said. Don’t make assumptions about what I think. Just stick to what I post.

I know I can’t disprove God, right, but theists cannot prove him! That is my point; Christians are the ones making a positive claim that God is real. They have to defend that claim rather than hide behind the “quantity over quality” fallacy. Same with strong atheists.

Since both of us can’t prove our positions (at least with the kind of proof that you require) then I say you have the burden of proof because theists came first. People have been theists from the beginning and it is only recently that atheism sprouted. More than that, there are a great number more theists than atheists.

So as I have said before, since you come late into the scene and are claiming something novel, then the burden of proof rests with you.

As I have explained, science follows the same pattern. All new theories are the ones that bear the burden of proof especially if they are hoping to unseat a long held theory and one held by more scientists.

 

[benedictus2]

** **1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Is this the case? That depends on if we are talking about “beginning to exist ex nihilo” or “beginning to exist ex materia”.

Nothing comes from nothing. “Begin to exist ex-nihilo” is as illogical as illogical can get.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

To Thinking Sapien:

Unfortunately, the video you cite is incompatible with my mobile web browser, so I cannot view it.

For the life of me I don’t know why YouTube won’t serve some videos to mobile devices.

Perhaps we could all save each other a lot of pointless semantics babble if we would refrain from describing ourselves as “atheists” or “agnostics” at all, since those words don’t really tell us much about one’s world view

Indeed, they don’t. They do invoke stereotypes and thoughts of other collections of attributes that a person has that may or may not be applicable to the person to which the label is applied.

If atheism is defined as “a lack of belief in god(s)”, then infants and even children could be considered de facto atheists just because they are not intelligent enough to make judgments one way or the other about whether God exists.

And that’s an argument that I frequently hear being made. The analogy that I hear most frequently in arguments against it has to do with assigning children to political views.

I hope this cleared some things up about my beliefs.

It does. Thanks for the detailed explanation.

 

[benedictus2]

And Hawkins says something like the universe would create itself.

Yes, this really baffles me. How can a mind as brilliant as his come up with something as stupid as that?

 

[benedictus2]

So, for future reference, I am a metaphysical naturalist, meaning I believe that, as far as our human experience can tell us (and has told us), all that exists is that which can be studied through the natural sciences, and which exists in the natural realm.

So therefore you believe to be true something that - even according to you - cannot be proven to be true.

And you are quite wrong about the “as far as our human experience can tell us” because a very large majority of humans experience God, so something that cannot be studied by science, is common human experience. Experience cannot be tied down to what can be physically sensed. Therefore as far as human experience can tell us and has told us, NOT all that exists is that which can be studied through the natural sciences.

To be clear, this is, in fact, a belief. I cannot hope to prove metaphysical naturalism any more than I can prove my positive belief that gods do not exist.

So therefore your belief in metaphysical naturalism is no more than the un-educated lot whose vote - you dismissively said - counted not for much for the fact that they are uneducated.

Therefore, your belief is as much a matter of faith as those uneducated members of humanity.