Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

This is debatable, as Pplr pointed out. I have evidence there is a God. I can't share it with you, though, and have it be anything other than my word. That's the way personal experiences are. That's why repeatability is in the scientific method: so you don't have to rely on someone's word, you can do it yourself and see it yourself.

That is flat out a logical fallacy. As I have said repeatedly on these boards, a lack of evidence (even if assumed) is not evidence of a lack. For centuries, there was a lack of evidence to support the legends of giant primates in Africa. To say that, because there is no evidence, they must not exist, is foolish.

You're right, at least by your definition of atheism. It's a category that covers two ideas (at least). The first is that there are no gods (an idea). The second is that there is not enough evidence to coome to a decision (another idea).

That's true, but it also doesn't mean they don't exist.

Yes, that's a problem with religions: you inherrantly can't really disprove them. It is reality, though.

So you still stick with the "religions are all wrong and anyone who accepts reality knows it" bit? Despite all the scientists that are religious? Despite the ground-breaking research into understanding the nature of our reality that these people have done? Despite the fact that I'll bet money many (read: more than 3) religious people have more scientific insight into the fundamental nature of nature than you do?

Religion has contributed to suffering in this world, yes, but I'll give you a hint: it wasn't belief in gods that did it, but belief that they were right and everyone else was wrong. I'll give you another hint: you seem to have the same belief (i.e. you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong). That is the belief that has caused so much trouble.

 

NOG, for most of us, the word "evidence" implies A thing that is helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. In other words, for a thing to be evidence it must be tangible. No material evidence of God exists. What you have is personal experience.

No. Discounting the existence of God and flatly stating that God absolutely does not exist are two very different things. Most Atheists, myself and (not that I speak for him) T2 included, simply do not believe in God. "I don't believe in God" is a very different statement than "I believe there is no God." The former statement is a simple absence of belief in any deities. The latter is a positive assertion that God does not exist.*

There are indeed some atheists that believe that there is clearly and absolutely no God, and they would indeed be basing their conclusion on too little evidence. How they come to that conclusion, however, is what would determine whether they employed a logical fallacy or not. An argument based on a false assumption doesn't necessarily employ any fallacies, for example.

* Agnosticism and atheism tend to overlap. Looking at its etymology, and atheist would be most aptly defined as a non-theist. An agnostic, on the other hand, is a non-gnostic, or to use more modern language, someone who does not claim any esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters. It is possible to be both a theist and an agnostic, just as it is possible to be an agnostic atheist. With the exception of the there-is-clearly-and-absolutely-no-God atheists, agnostic atheists are the norm. If you wish to debate with a strong atheist who is 100% sure there is no God, you'll have to find one first. I don't believe any of the atheists posting in this thread thus far fall under that category.

 

Drew, there is no material evidence of most phenomena observed in nature. There is no material evidence of lightning of any kind, much less of ball lightning. Evidence in just about any setting must include eye-witness testamony (or ear-witness, or whatever the case may be). That evidence is more questionable on a basis of accuracy, but it's the only evidence we have for a lot of stuff. Again, that's why the scientific method requires repeatability, because it isn't always possible to take a piece of it with you.

Looking into it more closely, it does appear there are multiple definitions, so I'll accept your use of the word as valid. I misunderstood T2 (assuming he was using it in your way).

Agreed, however believing X does not exist because there is no evidence of X is a logical fallacy. It's not a problem with assumptions, but with the logical processing.

This is why I liked the term 'gnostic atheist' to refer to those who claimed there absolutely is no god. It's a claim of knowledge, so it's gnostic, but also a claim against (or lacking) gods, so it's atheism. It didn't seem to stick, though.

I'm not sure what the point of this was. As far as I can tell, there are pretty much only two groups of atheists: gnostic (the 'there-is-clearly-and-absolutely-no-god group) and agnostic (the there-is-not-enough-evidence-to-say-either-way,-but-I'll-bet-not group). To say that, except for the one, the other is the norm is, well, kinda given. Or do you see a third party in there somewhere?

 

Phenomena like lightning can be both observed tested. We can photograph it, take energy readings of it, record audio, record video, reproduce similar phenomena in controlled conditions, determine its root causes, figure out the minimum thresholds required for its occurrence, etc. God, however, cannot be observed or tested in such a manner. No such things exist where God is concerned.

Not really. An argument based on false evidence is not fallacious, but merely false. If an atheist claims to have found an evidenciary smoking gun that proves God does not exist, he's not necessarily employing a fallacy. He's usually just stupid.

I don't see any groups actually, but rather a range of viewpoints. You could make 2 groups out of that range, or 87 groups. I'd rather just call it a range and leave it alone, myself. Labeling atheists into their own specific little sub-categories is, in my opinion, rather a pointless waste of time.

 

Exactly. God isn't repeatable. Of course, strictly speaking, neither are most people. If you want evidence that a person said something, you'd better hope there was someone listening, because odds are no one was taping it (in msot conversations) and if it's something they don't want repeated, they aren't likely to repeat it again.

Anyway, I've agreed that there is a significant difference between material evidence and personal evidence. The fact remains, though, that both of them are evidence. You can't completely discount everyone's experiences of everything that doesn't leave a tangible trace in your hands. That discounts 99% of life and much of science.

But my example wasn't a claim that there was evidence gods didn't exist, but rather claiming that a lack of evidence is proof of non-existence. That's not a problem with assumptions or evidence. That's a problem with the logic.

I can see that in some cases, but I don't see it here. What is there other than the "there are no gods" and the "we're not sure" categories? I mean, sure, you could subdivide infinitely, but that doesn't remove the validity of the initial divisions. The same can be said for Christianity, but that doesn't mean Catholicism vs Baptist vs Whatever is pointless.

 

The myriad of value judgments that lie in between. There is probably no god, God as we understand it probably doesn't exist, the existence and non-existence of God are equi-probable, the existence and non-existence of God are unquantifiable, the question of God is a completely irrelevant waste of time because there is no way to be sure one way or the other in this life, and even if there were, we still wouldn't be sure about God's nature, the purpose of our existence, God's plan for humanity, our place in the cosmos, etc.

 

See, those are all types of "we're not sure". Like I said, you can sub-divide infinitely, but everything seems to fall into either "we're not sure" or "we're sure, and it doesn't exist".

 

Not necessarily. There's are big differences between "there is probably no God" and "there is absolutely no God" and the simple "I don't believe in God." I find your desire to simplify everything into a neat little labels positively mystifying. Labeling leads to over-simplification, over-simplification leads to generalities and stereotyping, and generalities? They are the dark side, my friend.

More succinctly (and less humorously), there is a whole range of value judgements ranging from "were not sure" to "we're really not sure" to "we're pretty damn sure." People who hold beliefs within this range have really given it a lot of though, and tend not to take it kindly when words are placed into their mouths by people trying to label them.

 

I'm not trying to simplify, but to categorize. It's like you're saying that Soda isn't a category, because there are all different types and flavors. Everything you've mentioned is still either "I'm not sure" or "I am sure". Yes, there are sub-distinctions within that, such as how unsure you are, why you're unsure, what you consider evidence, whether or not you share your beliefs readily, etc. That doesn't invalidate the major groups, though. Likewise, just because there are a slew of different Christian denominations doesn't mean there is no Christianity. Please don't think I'm trying to over-simplify or derogate the groups. Classification is part of my nature. I think it's an engineering thing.

 

NOG, almost but no dice. The only thing I am certain of is that you are other believers are wrong. My own position is one big "I do not know" spiced up with some guesswork and reasonable sounding science. I am not convinced that I have the answer to life, the universe and everything I am only convinced that no one else does either. Religion is "I do not know" so I am going to believe what this long dead dude in the desert thought up about how the universe works as the truth of life, the universe and everything.

Religion is dangerous because not only are you convinced that you are right (and generally that everyone who don't believe as you do is wrong) but that you have a divine mandate. That the ultimate authority is on your side. You can justify anything and do not even have to take personal responsibility if you believe that, after all you are only doing the divine task.

 

Joacqin, you are at least convinced that you are right about everyone else being wrong. Also, historically speaking, it doesn't really seem to make much difference whether the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" idiots believed they had a divine mandate or not. Stalin did just fine without one. So did the french. For most Americans (soldiers included), there wasn't really a divine mandate for Iraq, yet that still happened (torture and all).

 

NOG,
as for lack of a divine mandate, that appears to not apply to all US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. At least some appear to consider themselves armed missionaries hunting people for Jesus.

​

There is a reason why the US military had to burn unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan. They were written in, uh, Pashtu and Dari, and thus obviously not destined for the use by US troops. Or the instance of those approximately 100,000 and 500,000 Arabic Bibles were distributed in Iraq by US troops.

 

Here's some logic fallacy for you, NOG.

 

Coin

Not sure what the point of the video is in relation to NOG's comment.

I noted that the video even pointed out that some (most I suspect) religious scientists support the Theory of Evolution. Thus being religious doesn't require one to try to have it banned/stripped from school textbooks (an issue the video loosely tried to address).

One of the points the video did make was about people trying to shape reality around their opinion rather than seeing it for what it is. I would say that description in particular fits some atheists (especially a few of those on the other website I got into a discussion with). They promoted/subscribed to a description of religion that was excessively negative and inaccurate, because at that point they had opinions that are anti-religious. And then refused to acknowledge the real historical atrocities atheism related to in a manner similar to how they related some atrocities to religion.

Thus they tried to edit reality (historical rather than scientific in this case) to what they would agree with/prefer.

Ragusa

I'm sure there were some people that saw the war as a way to preach to others in a foreign land and try to get them to convert. But I think NOG's general point stands because when the US government sent troops to Iraq (and Afghanistan) it was not laid out (in the reasons given to Congress or the bulk of US citizens) as part of a campaign of religious conversion.

 

Ragusa, yes, some soldiers did feel they had a divine mandate, as did some American citizens, and possibly even some in gov't. I'm arguing that most didn't, though.

Coin, for the most part, I agree with your video. It presents a number of good points. Unfortunately, it seems to fall victim to them, as well. For example, when it's talking about the presentation of knowledge as evil, it also presents the classic image of man, a tree, a snake, and an eaten apple, obviously refering to the story of the Garden of Eden. What it omits, however, is that it wasn't scientific knowledge that was gained from the fruit of the tree. Despite how it's often worded, it wasn't the Tree of Knowledge, but rather the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. In fact, the Bible described Adam as having a deep and fundamental understanding of the universe around him before the Fall. If anything, the story argues that a scientific (at least in nature of the facts, if not the method of discovery) understanding of the universe was one of the things lost because of Original Sin, and that it was moral learning that caused the loss. Instead of recognizing that, the video presents it as a rejection of scientific learning.

At the same time, while it does a good job of presenting the process of understanding and learning, it also lumps all science together under one ruberic. It almost presents all scientific theories as equal. They are not. Scientific theory is a term that covers a wide range of any plausible and potentially testable ideas, whether there's any real evidence for them at the moment, or even if they're testable at the moment, or not. For an example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was a scientific theory from the moment he published it, but it was entirely beyond our realm of testing and confirmation for many decades, and mostly beyond that realm for even more. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's true, or even supported by facts. Many modern scientific theories go in and out of common acceptance over time based on nothing more than common perception. It's not that they've been disproven, just that other ideas people like more and are equally possible are more popular.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there's a huge difference between, for example, the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution. I'm not saying either is wrong, and I actually believe in both, but the amounts of testing and evidence between them don't even compare. Even further is the Higg's Field Theory, for which there's (to date) absolutely no evidence (though the Large Hadron Collider may change that soon), and many scientists in the field dismiss as, at best, unlikely (though, actually, it's become more popular of late).

On the contrary, something like M-Theory is, arguably, not even a scientific theory because, while it presents a mathematicaly supported and reasonable theory of reality, it's not likely to ever be testable at all. The kinds of predictions it makes are things that, odds are, we'll never be able to confirm or deny because any testing intrument must necessarily follow whatever the truth is (meaning, they'll yield the same data whether M-Theory is true or false).

On top of that, while the video doesn't specifically mention religion, it does seem to specifically target religious questioning of science, which is hardly the only kind. As pplr pointed out, many strong atheists are prone to revisionist history and ignoring evidence as well. Statements like 'religion is to blame for all (or most) evil in the world' is flatly contradicted by the evidence of history, archeology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology (though it does kind of depend on your definition of 'evil'). Yet I have heard the like many times, including on these boards.

At the same time, it seems that few if any of the atheists on here have actually looked into the scientific explanation of the Genesis account of creation that I've mentioned many times: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a nuclear physicist. This is no pseudo-science here. He uses General Relativity to match the current cosmological understanding of the Big Bang with the Genesis account of creation step by step. He even employs an impressive pseudo-double-blind method of ignoring any religious interpretation from the modern scientific era on the basis that it may have been twisted from the actual religious claims to conform to science (and thus not allow an accurate comparison). Instead, he uses interpretations of the Bible thousands of years old, and from the original language, to establish some astounding early, fundamental perceptions of the origins of the universe:
1.) The universe started as 'substance so thin it was insubstantial', not a finished form of stars and planets. Today, we call that energy, which the universe started as.
2.) The universe started in an area 'smaller than a mustard seed'. Today, I think we say it was about the size of an atom.
3.) There are 10 fundamental dimentions, 6 of which are in such a way that we don't percieve them. According to M-Theory, at least, you need a minimum of 10 dimensions to explain everything, and 6 get rolled up into microscopic balls so we don't percieve them.
4.) There was only one instance of true material creation (something from nothing). Today, we understand that the Big Bang was the only instance of the actual creation of matter/energy that we know of.
5.) It is impossible to know anything about anything from before the beginning (even though we claim God existed before then). Today, we accept that, even though the Big Bang must have had a cause, the nature of it necessarily destroyed any potential evidence that may have led to that cause. It's impossible to actually trace the process any further back than a few micro-seconds after the event itself.

 

OK, can we all agree then that the existence of God and pink unicorns are equiprobable?

 

No, because then you're talking about probability. I think we can say that they're both equally unprovable and undisprovable, maybe even equipossible, but not equiprobable.

 

Making a decision requires a transition from not wanting something, to wanting it. God couldn't have decided to create the universe, because time didn't exist before the Big Bang. The Bible also claims God created time, which is a contradiction right there.
Once we accept that no conscious decision could've been made to create the universe, we can move on to more meaningful questions. Like what is God/Allah/The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Perhaps it is energy, because energy has always existed, and wasn't created (as we know of yet).

 

Not really, it just means He isn't restricted to our time. My personal view is that the 'timeline' of God and the timeline of our universe are related in a way similar to the timeline of an author and the timeline of the universe that author pens. Tolkien existed 'before' anything in Middle Earth ever did, 'before' even it's time came into existence, yet he still experienced his own time, and made conscious decisions. Again, you limit your understanding too much. Even science accepts that there may be things beyond our universe, things which, in that sense, existed 'before' the beginning of our time and/or will exist 'after' it.

 

Does that mean I am just a character in a bigass book that some entity decided to drum up one day?

Boo, whatever happened to free will?