Atheists should step up

[Brian63]

...in the case of religious beliefs, at least of the type under discussion here, the dispute seems to be primarily factual, while the others (moral, political) center upon values that may have no easy reconciliation. How do you determine which moral or political views are faulty, when there is no disagreement about the facts but only about what to do concerning them?

That is not something that can be completely described on a single post here, but just briefly---

We find values that we do hold in common, and then strategize (using the tools of induction and deduction) which behaviors of ours will be most efficient at satisfying those goals.

If we both value gays having equal rights and to not suffer discrimination, we strategize and determine which behaviors we should engage in ourselves, that would be the most likely to achieve that value.

If 2 people, like a secularist and a Southern Baptist, do not share certain values on a particularly narrow topic (such as whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance), then they would start at a level where they do share a common value, and then build up from there. They may agree that they both do not want Catholicism and the Pope's authority explicitly endorsed in schools. They can converse and figure out *why* they do not want that. The Baptist would provide some justification for their position, such as they do not believe in Catholicism and thinks it would be a violation of their rights to have public schools giving it privilege. The secularist can make the same appeal, but now applying it to the "under God" in general, so the Baptist now may sympathize and understand and relate with them more. They likely would not change their position overnight (it is deeply ingrained into their mind), but it starts them down the path to discovering their underlying motivations, flawed thinking, and biases.

Basically though, if you agree on the facts, to get people to change their minds on values and symphathize with yours more requires that they also understand some deeper value that you both hold, and how that holding that value should lead them to adopt Behavior X over Behavior Y. Convince them that their current strategy has a flaw of some kind in it, then show it is in their own overall best-interest to do adopt this other strategy.

 

[steve_bank]

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Why? What possible benefit could come of that?

In the past debates on cretionism and evolution on scince forum a common theist approach was to try to validate cretioism be equating it to since.

They see both science and religion as both being faith driven, therefore ctretionism is just as scientificay valid as scince.

What lion fails to see if his faith is given a 'seat at the table' then why not

Wiccans-witches
Sun worshippers
Paranormal believers
Believers in Pyramid Power
Believers in magic powers of cryastals
Ancient alien theorists

Under our principle of equal protection were religion to be taught in public schools as scince, the Wicans may floow.

 

[steve_bank]

lion

Science is that which can be observed and mathematically quantified. The debate on creationism vs science and faith vs science is epistemology is it not? You b belie faith based knowledge is as objective and provable as physical science. Which it is not.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have always thought atheists should step up and meet their burden of persuasion.
You either believe there's no God(s) in which case you are a believer, (LOL. See what I did there?) or you have some sort of objective, empirical evidence to support your claim.
Bring it!

Fictional characters don’t actually exist. Done in one.

Still waiting. Was that it? We're all done here?

 

[steve_bank]

All theist claims have generally been refuted scientifically.

There is one alternative for theists. There was a 19th century idea that when god created Erath he, she, it it put the dinosaur fossils where we find them. Light from distant galaxies were created in flight.

God creted everything, even if science refutes it.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is one alternative for theists. There was a 19th century idea that when god created Erath he, she, it it put the dinosaur fossils where we find them. Light from distant galaxies were created in flight.

The 20th century iteration of this is "Last Tuesdayism" - god created everything exactly as we see it today, even our memories, last Tuesday.

Of course, splinter groups quickly sprang up, Last Thursdayism and Last Wednesdayism.

 

[Random Person]

It's much easier to make declarations against something if you have no argument.

Plus it saves time.

Oh wait. I should say it could save time if the people you're arguing against would agree with the premise that I don't need to substantiate my claims, that I didn't make, but really did.

 

[bilby]

There is one alternative for theists. There was a 19th century idea that when god created Erath he, she, it it put the dinosaur fossils where we find them. Light from distant galaxies were created in flight.

The 20th century iteration of this is "Last Tuesdayism" - god created everything exactly as we see it today, even our memories, last Tuesday.

Of course, splinter groups quickly sprang up, Last Thursdayism and Last Wednesdayism.

Last Wednesdayism is just a crazy splinter group - they are the Young Earth Last Thursdayists.

Splitters.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Why? What possible benefit could come of that?

In the past debates on cretionism and evolution on scince forum a common theist approach was to try to validate cretioism be equating it to since.

They see both science and religion as both being faith driven, therefore ctretionism is just as scientificay valid as scince.

What lion fails to see if his faith is given a 'seat at the table' then why not

Wiccans-witches
Sun worshippers
Paranormal believers
Believers in Pyramid Power
Believers in magic powers of cryastals
Ancient alien theorists

Under our principle of equal protection were religion to be taught in public schools as scince, the Wicans may floow.

Exactly. I really don't want to open this Pandoras Box. I mean... it's not like we haven't tried it. Science today prevailed despite the best efforts of the church to stop it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Why? What possible benefit could come of that?

Plenty of scientists explore theology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God

In the book proper, Davies briefly explores: the nature of reason, belief, and metaphysics; theories of the origin of the universe; the laws of nature; the relationship of mathematics to physics; a few arguments for the existence of God; the possibility that the universe shows evidence of a deity; and his opinion of the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, that "the search for a closed logical scheme that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation is doomed to failure."

 

[DrZoidberg]

Plenty of scientists explore theology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God

View attachment 20738

In the book proper, Davies briefly explores: the nature of reason, belief, and metaphysics; theories of the origin of the universe; the laws of nature; the relationship of mathematics to physics; a few arguments for the existence of God; the possibility that the universe shows evidence of a deity; and his opinion of the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, that "the search for a closed logical scheme that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation is doomed to failure."

I did a quick google. The book is widely regarded as nonsense, resting on circular reasoning. It seems to be pop-metaphysics by somebody who doesn't understand metaphysics. What's dangerous about letting people like that speak with the big boys and giving them equal time, we're also opening the door to:

Wiccans-witches
Sun worshippers
Paranormal believers
Believers in Pyramid Power
Believers in magic powers of cryastals
Ancient alien theorists

Not to mention Satanists. Are you really comfortable with us letting Satanists come and have a say in how we run things?

 

[funinspace]

Not to mention Satanists. Are you really comfortable with us letting Satanists come and have a say in how we run things?

Hey, some very fine people...so I've heard

 

[PyramidHead]

Not to mention Satanists. Are you really comfortable with us letting Satanists come and have a say in how we run things?

Hey, some very fine people...so I've heard

Unironically this. Satanists are miles beyond any other religion in terms of basic human decency.

 

[steve_bank]

Plenty of scientists explore theology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God

View attachment 20738

In the book proper, Davies briefly explores: the nature of reason, belief, and metaphysics; theories of the origin of the universe; the laws of nature; the relationship of mathematics to physics; a few arguments for the existence of God; the possibility that the universe shows evidence of a deity; and his opinion of the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, that "the search for a closed logical scheme that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation is doomed to failure."

The theorem says in an logically consistent axiomatic system, like geometry, there will be truths not provable within the system. Logically consistent in geometry means for a given problem there can only be one answer.

The theorem does not apply to cosmology. Cosmology is a math model that matches observation. Theoretically from quantum physic if we could characterize every particle in the universe we could predict the next state. There are reasons other than incompleteness why that is impossible to begin with.

Bible based Christianity can be thought of as animatic, but scripture is logically inconsistent. The same question can have multiple answers and interpretations.

 

[atrib]

I have always thought atheists should step up and meet their burden of persuasion.
You either believe there's no God(s) in which case you are a believer, (LOL. See what I did there?) or you have some sort of objective, empirical evidence to support your claim.
Bring it!

Atheism is a denial of religious beliefs. Atheism does not exist in a vacuum, but is a counter to the claims made by theists. It is impossible to disprove the existence of supernatural entities that create universes and intervene in human affairs. However, the probability of any particular religious claim being true is so vanishingly small, that such claims can safely be ignored. That is the atheist position.

Were you not aware of this? If I claimed the universe was created from Bantu's flatulence, and offered no evidence to support my claim, would it be your responsibility as an Abantuist to disprove Bantu's existence?

While the existence of gods cannot be absolutely disproved, it is not hard to demonstrate that many specific claims made in religious texts are false using objective, empirical evidence. For instance, the Bible makes specific claims about the age and shape of the Earth, the creation of humans and other life on the planet, the occurrence of a global extinction event caused by a flood, to name just a few. And you, personally have also made the claim that Biblegod has existed forever, which would make this entity a perpetual motion machine. These claims have been demonstrated as false using objective, empirical evidence in these very forums, in threads you have participated in. You have not attempted to rebut the objective, empirical evidence presented. Instead, here you are again, repeating nonsensical arguments that can be dismantled by a bright middle-school student. Why is that?

 

[atrib]

As a theoretical agnostic; functional atheist...whatever...



There are Christians who want to make homosexuality a capital crime, and then prosecute on that.

I'm not making this up;

PS Praise Loki!

You're agreeing that the God conclusion...confusion...delusion is no trivial matter right?
The implications of the God question almost demand that atheists do more than just NOT collect stamps.

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.

Not a seat at the table, but certainly as a topic of discussion, just like one would discuss any other dangerous pathogen. Religion is a disease that corrupts the human brain and often turns its followers into mindless drones bent on spreading the infection. Religion has far reaching implications, mostly negative, and as such deserves our full attention.