Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?

[Jobar]

Hermit, I don't see any circularity- can you re-state my position to make it clear?

I am saying that atheism is skepticism applied to religion, more precisely to theistic religions. You seem to be saying that theism is (or can be) skepticism applied to atheism- but that should indicate theists are able to state why their analysis of theism is more logical, more rational. Theism is the philosophical position in question here, and atheists are denying its validity. (I was going to say 'simply denying its validity', but many of the arguments are not at all simple...)

 

[Hermit]

Hermit, I don't see any circularity- can you re-state my position to make it clear?

In post #89 you postulate that sceptics are slightly more mentally flexible, and do change their minds a bit more often than do religious believers. In post #112 you say that that religious believers who de-convert are in fact sceptics- though perhaps they didn't realize it before. In post #116 you restate what you wrote in Post #112. Do I really need to spell out how your argument manages to be circular and incongruous at the same time?

 

[Underseer]

True, to an extent- but I think it also has much to do with the explosion of information via the internet, and also with the power of the arguments gainsaying religious belief. It is, after all, hard to believe the dogmas of most faiths if you aren't indoctrinated into them early in childhood, if you have any facility applying critical thought.

And I'd say that the ones who de-convert are in fact skeptics- though perhaps they didn't realize it before, or even resisted their doubtful thoughts for years before admitting their disbelief to themselves.

You seem to have missed my point, which was that you need to re-examine your assertion that "skeptics are *slightly* more mentally flexible, and do change their minds a bit more often than do religious believers", at least in regard to religion.

Are you saying that skepticism is synonymous with atheism or with changing minds?

New age spiritualists change their minds, but not because of the facts. That they change their conclusions does not prove that they are skeptics.

Yes, those changing their minds from theism to atheism are skeptics, but by the same token, you can't say atheists are less skeptical because we are not changing our minds.

I am also not changing my mind to believe that elves are real. Does that make me less of a skeptic?

I'm also not changing my mind to believe in the existence of goblins. Does that make me less of a skeptic?

 

[Hermit]

True, to an extent- but I think it also has much to do with the explosion of information via the internet, and also with the power of the arguments gainsaying religious belief. It is, after all, hard to believe the dogmas of most faiths if you aren't indoctrinated into them early in childhood, if you have any facility applying critical thought.

And I'd say that the ones who de-convert are in fact skeptics- though perhaps they didn't realize it before, or even resisted their doubtful thoughts for years before admitting their disbelief to themselves.

You seem to have missed my point, which was that you need to re-examine your assertion that "skeptics are *slightly* more mentally flexible, and do change their minds a bit more often than do religious believers", at least in regard to religion.

Are you saying that skepticism is synonymous with atheism or with changing minds?

Neither

 

[Jobar]

I want to go back to Ruth's remark, which others have commented on.

I can hear you asking now – so why do you believe in God? For me, it came down to one thing. Where did everything come from?

This is my favorite .gif.



Think about that carefully.

Although it's certainly true we don't understand the universe in its entirety, its existence is plain to all. But try though we might to find it, we atheists see not one drop of evidence for any god or gods, nor any argument which reasonably and consistently explains why such a being would hide from us.

Ruth, for many years- longer than the internet has existed- I have called myself an atheist/pantheist. If you want to use the word 'God' as a synonym for 'universe', I won't argue against you. But pantheism is a Catholic heresy, and only a few mystics from any Abrahamic faith will admit to it. (Dawkins comments on that in The God Delusion, and I've written extensively on the topic.)

 

[Lion IRC]

If/since the universe is not past-eternal then a prior first cause isnt superfluous - it is necessary

 

[Lion IRC]

...and given the increasing spookiness of cosmology/physics these days, I would suggest caution when referring to things as 'supernatural'.

 

[Copernicus]

If/since the universe is not past-eternal then a prior first cause isnt superfluous - it is necessary

...and given the increasing spookiness of cosmology/physics these days, I would suggest caution when referring to things as 'supernatural'.

What do you mean by "universe", Lion? Physical reality that we can observe, or physical reality in general? It is far from clear that physical reality itself is not past-eternal, but the observable universe does seem to be. And what does "past-eternal" mean, if time itself ceases to be meaningful a the point of initiation?

 

[ruby sparks]

...and given the increasing spookiness of cosmology/physics these days, I would suggest caution when referring to things as 'supernatural'.

If you mean elves, I completely agree, caution is warranted before dismissing them.

 

[Jobar]

If/since the universe is not past-eternal then a prior first cause isn't superfluous - it is necessary.

Even if that were so, positing a god as that first cause is just trying to solve a mystery (the origin of the universe) with an even greater and unevidenced mystery. Until we have some reason to doubt that the universe is itself uncaused, the First Cause argument is unparsimonious, and the Razor carves it away.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If/since the universe is not past-eternal then a prior first cause isn't superfluous - it is necessary.

Even if that were so, positing a god as that first cause is just trying to solve a mystery (the origin of the universe) with an even greater and unevidenced mystery. Until we have some reason to doubt that the universe is itself uncaused, the First Cause argument is unparsimonious, and the Razor carves it away.

This has always been the great intellectual flaw of theism, the sophomoric invocation of mysterious beings to explain natural events, the assertion that behind everything we witness is nothing less than a childishly satisfying magical world of woo.

 

[Lion IRC]

If theists are wrong to assert that something caused the universe, why aren't atheists also wrong to assert the opposite - that nothing caused the universe?

An uncaused, past-eternal universe is either your belief or a fact claim.

If it's a fact claim, then step up and meet the burden of persuasion you owe us.

If it's a belief - well then take your great intellectual flaw and shove it up your tu quoque

 

[Lion IRC]

What do you mean by "universe", Lion? Physical reality that we can observe, or physical reality in general?

What do you mean by "physical reality"?
What do you mean by "observe"?
What do you mean by "in general"?

(I'm content to use your definition of universe for the sake of the discussion if you like)

...It is far from clear that physical reality itself is not past-eternal, but the observable universe does seem to be.

OK

And what does "past-eternal" mean, if time itself ceases to be meaningful at the point of initiation?

LOL
Stuff can have existed forever notwithstanding our ability to find it meaningful.

 

[Juma]

If theists are wrong to assert that something caused the universe, why aren't atheists also wrong to assert the opposite - that nothing caused the universe?

An uncaused, past-eternal universe is either your belief or a fact claim.

If it's a fact claim, then step up and meet the burden of persuasion you owe us.

If it's a belief - well then take your great intellectual flaw and shove it up your tu quoque

Science is all about learning what we really know about the world. It is not a way to at any cost get an answer to every possible question, disregarding wether we really know that or not.
Religion on the other hand, is all about getting answers, wether these answers actually are supported by what we know of the matter is not important.
Stating that there must be an original cause, and that that cause is an intelligent being as far away from anything we actually know. It is pure fiction.

 

[Lion IRC]

If/since the universe is not past-eternal then a prior first cause isn't superfluous - it is necessary.

Even if that were so, positing a god as that first cause is just trying to solve a mystery (the origin of the universe) with an even greater and unevidenced mystery. Until we have some reason to doubt that the universe is itself uncaused, the First Cause argument is unparsimonious, and the Razor carves it away.

I don't accept that an uncaused (unexplained) universe is necessarily the simplest hypothesis.
Surely Occam views unanswered 'why' questions as loose threads. Only by answering them is Occam appeased.

But the no-God hypothesis is tantamount to a deer in the headlights when asked about existential why questions.

Why are we here? Don't ask.
What happens when we die? Don't ask.
Is anything objectively right and wrong? Don't ask.

Why is there something instead of nothing? WUT?

 

[bilby]

If theists are wrong to assert that something caused the universe, why aren't atheists also wrong to assert the opposite - that nothing caused the universe?

An uncaused, past-eternal universe is either your belief or a fact claim.

If it's a fact claim, then step up and meet the burden of persuasion you owe us.

If it's a belief - well then take your great intellectual flaw and shove it up your tu quoque

Science is all about learning what we really know about the world. It is not a way to at any cost get an answer to every possible question, disregarding wether we really know that or not.
Religion on the other hand, is all about getting answers, wether these answers actually are supported by what we know of the matter is not important.
Stating that there must be an original cause, and that that cause is an intelligent being as far away from anything we actually know. It is pure fiction.

Even were there to be a first cause, it is insane to assume without evidence that that cause is sufficiently complex to exhibit intelligence or to engage in design; and more crazy still to assume that a bunch of Bronze and Iron Age mystics had a sound grasp of its detailed nature, much less of the details of its desires (or even the existence of any such 'desires').

The unfounded claim that a first cause is necessary, IF true, in no way justifies belief in any of the tbousands of Abrahamic sects.

 

[Juma]

If/since the universe is not past-eternal then a prior first cause isn't superfluous - it is necessary.

Even if that were so, positing a god as that first cause is just trying to solve a mystery (the origin of the universe) with an even greater and unevidenced mystery. Until we have some reason to doubt that the universe is itself uncaused, the First Cause argument is unparsimonious, and the Razor carves it away.

I don't accept that an uncaused (unexplained) universe is necessarily the simplest hypothesis.
Surely Occam views unanswered 'why' questions as loose threads. Only by answering them is Occam appeased.

But the no-God hypothesis is tantamount to a deer in the headlights when asked about existential why questions.

Why are we here? Don't ask.
What happens when we die? Don't ask.
Is anything objectively right and wrong? Don't ask.

Why is there something instead of nothing? WUT?

It is intellectual dishonest to invent answers when we really dont know.

That is why it is called ”lying for jesus”.

If you want to be an imposterer that fabricates answers then fine. Dont assume that anyone else will take you serious.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I want to go back to Ruth's remark, which others have commented on.

I can hear you asking now – so why do you believe in God? For me, it came down to one thing. Where did everything come from?

This is my favorite .gif.

View attachment 14908

Think about that carefully.

Although it's certainly true we don't understand the universe in its entirety, its existence is plain to all. But try though we might to find it, we atheists see not one drop of evidence for any god or gods, nor any argument which reasonably and consistently explains why such a being would hide from us.

Ruth, for many years- longer than the internet has existed- I have called myself an atheist/pantheist. If you want to use the word 'God' as a synonym for 'universe', I won't argue against you. But pantheism is a Catholic heresy, and only a few mystics from any Abrahamic faith will admit to it. (Dawkins comments on that in The God Delusion, and I've written extensively on the topic.)

It never fails to amaze me that in so many conversations between an atheist and a believer, the atheist is the one who brings up this axiom - when William of Ockham for whom this was named was a staunch Franciscan who completely rejected the idea that this could be used to deny the existence of God.

Like him, I have said repeatedly that there is no scientific proof for the existence of God; neither is there scientific proof that there is no God. This is strictly a matter of faith. I can't - nor would I even try - to prove His existence through science.

I was a searcher for many years before I became a Christian. Joedad and I discussed this on a previous thread.

And so here we stand, neither of us giving an inch. We have reached the point where we are starting to repeat ourselves, and in my opinion further conversation between us on this particular topic would be fruitless as neither of us is going to learn anything new from the other. It has been a good conversation for the most part and I thank you for that.

Ruth

 

[ruby sparks]

This is strictly a matter of faith.

The thing is, once you start even asking questions, such as 'where do we (or where does it all) come from', you are enquiring. If it's all faith, why even ask questions?

What I mean is, you say that you believe evolution is 'just a theory and not proven', but in that case, the answer to a slightly different question (where did we come from in the last 4 billion years since life started on earth?) is staring you and all of us in the face. When faith goes as far as to deny the obvious, for which there are mountains of reliable evidence and tests and no good reason whatsoever to doubt it, then it seems to me that that sort of faith isn't really about seeking the correct answer to questions at all and may in fact be an obstacle. For example, my eldest daughter now has a Biology degree. When she was at school, one of her biology teachers, who was a christian, admitted that although she had to teach evolution, she herself didn't believe in it. I mean, what can one say about the sort of faith that leads to that?


Actually, I'll be honest. I was astounded that you said that about evolution.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If theists are wrong to assert that something caused the universe, why aren't atheists also wrong to assert the opposite - that nothing caused the universe?

Ex nihilo creationism is religious bedrock, the invention of a second necessary religious fantasy, nihil, to explain the initial religious fantasy, deus.

Religion, reassuring and satisfying as it is for many, largely appears to me to be nothing more than the objectification of language, a kind of reverse reality.