For Atheists - define what you don't believe in

[skepticalbip]

I don't think Christians believe in praying for temporal things. If you could pray for a Ferrari and get one I'd sign up today.

You'll have to ask one of them.

I would say that shows a healthy skepticism, that the Bible verses can't be taken literally. You apparently would like a Ferrari for free but don't take the Bible verses literally. That you don't wish to prove to yourself how much of the Bible is misleading by praying for a Ferrari and not getting it.

 

[Copernicus]

...Why should one reject belief in supernatural forces or spiritualism? Not just gods, but spiritualism in general. If you can make that case, then the foundation of theism is undermined.

That last bit is pretty much what underpins all these "debates". It tries to place the onus on the non-believer to prove that it doesn't exist (or to disprove any claim). This is an impossibility - a negative existence can not be proven. As an example, no one can prove that leprechauns don't exist. However, anyone claiming that they do could easily prove their claim by simply producing a leprechaun. This is why the onus of proof is always rightly on the one making the claim.

I would make roughly the same point to you that I just made to Random Person. We are framing the debate incorrectly if we make it about logical proof rather than empirical proof. Is the existence of a god (however it is defined) something that we can defend as plausible? Is it plausible to believe in ghosts or spirits? On that basis, we can have a rational, productive discussion. If we frame the debate as about proving negative claims, then there is never going to be any reasonable argument for atheism. Occam's razor is not about logical validity. It is just rule of thumb regarding the construction of valid arguments. Don't add unnecessary steps to the proof. It is true that the burden of proof should be on the person making a positive assertion, but that doesn't mean that we should simply sit back behind our defensive shields and demand that theists make stuff up for us to pick away at. As with Santa Claus, there can be good reasons to reject existence claims. If someone asks you to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, you don't need to say that you are waiting for all the evidence to come in before you make a final decision. Scientists make plausibility arguments all the time about things that don't exist, e.g. phlogiston.

 

[Copernicus]

.......snip........

To summarize my point: claims of the existence of beings like gods, elves, fairies, etc., are empirical claims. You can't prove logically that they don't exist, but you can prove it empirically. That means that there will always be a logical argument somewhere that they could exist, just not a plausible one. And it is on that basis, I think, that we can "disprove" the existence of gods in an empirical sense. We can assess the plausibility of such claims.

But then what is "plausible" is personal and subjective, as should be obvious in reading any debate about religion. Atheists don't find religious claims to be plausible while the religious do and creationists don't find the theory of evolution plausible though it is a staple in science.

So what? You just had a theist tell you that we can reasonably reject belief in elves and Santa Claus. His point was that God is not equivalent to Santa Claus. OK, fine. You don't need them to be equivalent, but you can work with that admission. Theists are not necessarily unreasonable people, and atheists are not necessarily reasonable people. In the end, we all work on the same basic principles when it comes to plausibility arguments.

 

[skepticalbip]

.......snip........

To summarize my point: claims of the existence of beings like gods, elves, fairies, etc., are empirical claims. You can't prove logically that they don't exist, but you can prove it empirically. That means that there will always be a logical argument somewhere that they could exist, just not a plausible one. And it is on that basis, I think, that we can "disprove" the existence of gods in an empirical sense. We can assess the plausibility of such claims.

But then what is "plausible" is personal and subjective, as should be obvious in reading any debate about religion. Atheists don't find religious claims to be plausible while the religious do and creationists don't find the theory of evolution plausible though it is a staple in science.

So what? You just had a theist tell you that we can reasonably reject belief in elves and Santa Claus. His point was that God is not equivalent to Santa Claus. OK, fine. You don't need them to be equivalent, but you can work with that admission. Theists are not necessarily unreasonable people, and atheists are not necessarily reasonable people. In the end, we all work on the same basic principles when it comes to plausibility arguments.

Yes, we all work on the same basic principles but strongly disagree on what we see as plausible. Else there would not be the debates we see. What we see as plausible is determined by how we see the world and we obviously see the world quite differently.

 

[Random Person]

I don't think Christians believe in praying for temporal things. If you could pray for a Ferrari and get one I'd sign up today.

You'll have to ask one of them.

I would say that shows a healthy skepticism, that the Bible verses can't be taken literally. You apparently would like a Ferrari for free but don't take the Bible verses literally. That you don't wish to prove to yourself how much of the Bible is misleading by praying for a Ferrari and not getting it.

You should work on clearing up what you think before you attempt to devine what I think. If you want to know just ask. I'll tell you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The same evidence can't be used. They aren't the same.

sp you say, and say, and say, but no demonstration except by more assertion

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think Christians believe in praying for temporal things. If you could pray for a Ferrari and get one I'd sign up today.

You'll have to ask one of them.

You asked for scripture.
The scriptures just say anything you desire.

Of course, taken literally, it would be quickly obvious that there is no god, so the faithful must invent reasons for Jis inaction.

 

[Random Person]

The same evidence can't be used. They aren't the same.

sp you say, and say, and say, but no demonstration except by more assertion

I have said it more than once in a way that can be easily understood. How much do I have to dumb this down?

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

 

[Random Person]

I don't think Christians believe in praying for temporal things. If you could pray for a Ferrari and get one I'd sign up today.

You'll have to ask one of them.

You asked for scripture.
The scriptures just say anything you desire.

Of course, taken literally, it would be quickly obvious that there is no god, so the faithful must invent reasons for Jis inaction.

The Scriptures say what they say. I'm not arguing your point.

I don't really know how the prayer thing works or what you can pray for or what.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't think Christians believe in praying for temporal things. If you could pray for a Ferrari and get one I'd sign up today.

You'll have to ask one of them.

I would say that shows a healthy skepticism, that the Bible verses can't be taken literally. You apparently would like a Ferrari for free but don't take the Bible verses literally. That you don't wish to prove to yourself how much of the Bible is misleading by praying for a Ferrari and not getting it.

You should work on clearing up what you think before you attempt to devine what I think. If you want to know just ask. I'll tell you.

I was just accepting what you posted as being what you thought. You said, "If you could pray for a Ferrari and get one I'd sign up today.". The Bible says you will be given whatever you pray for so the only reason I can see that you wouldn't pray for that Ferrari, that you said you would sign up for, is that you are skeptical of what the Bible promises.

 

[abaddon]

To summarize my point: claims of the existence of beings like gods, elves, fairies, etc., are empirical claims. You can't prove logically that they don't exist, but you can prove it empirically. That means that there will always be a logical argument somewhere that they could exist, just not a plausible one. And it is on that basis, I think, that we can "disprove" the existence of gods in an empirical sense. We can assess the plausibility of such claims.

I think THIS is where skeptics are exposing values that aren't shared with the biblicists. God's defined well enough. All the nitpicking over "which God?" and how farting space goats or Santa Claus don't compare to the Christian God isn't an ill-defined God, but just biblicists asserting "you're making shit up but I'm not".

This gets to my thoughts on why skeptics and biblicists talk past one another, and cannot do otherwise. To me this is all a discussion of myths -- and not in the sense of falsehoods but the stories people make to relate their self to the cosmos. Christian theists know skeptics see their "biblicism" as simple stories and consider us ludicrous for that. They're "inside" the myth looking out. It isn't a philosophical system constructed by the use of human reason; for them it's a revealed image of how things are and, as such, answerable to nothing but itself.

When a biblicist is presented with farting space goats or invisible dragons, to him that's someone "making things up". So it doesn't compare at all to his biblicism, which isn't made up.

They'll protest it's reasoned, that there are valid apologetics. And complain atheists keep demanding non-biblical reasons. As here:

...

I'll happily argue for Christian particularism ...

But the stock standard repertoire of counter-apologetics is;
*Miracles are impossible
*The universe wasn't created
*Religion was invented
*"Thats not evidence"
*Argument from incredulity
*Utilitarian benefits of atheism

...and none of these demand an apologetic specific to the bible, let alone Christianity or orthodoxy.

Skeptics are in effect asking the biblicist to step outside the fishbowl of their "particularism" and look at it from an outsider perspective. But, a biblicist can't analyze the whole edifice of their myth because, again, for them it's not an edifice. It's the cosmos. It doesn't trace back to the human imagination like a fairy tale. The reasoning of his "reasoned faith", his apologetics, is entirely a matter of filling out the details within the myth. And that's all. A biblicist cannot reason his faith except to tell why the beings and events within the myth happen as they do. Hell exists because God wants you to have free will. God exists because the world's made and he's the world-maker. ALL their reasoning is limited to inside the myth (their cosmos). If a skeptic can't speak in these terms, then... to a biblicist... that's the skeptic being obtuse.

It's much like talking to a legalistic bureaucrat about his bureaucracy. You'll get "policy says" repeated to you forever. The justification of the system itself is the rules-maker that made it.

It's also something like talking with an isolated tribe. The skeptic is trying to tell the tribe-members their understanding of the cosmos is a myth. But to them it's handed down from the ancestors as well as communicated directly through special experiences of the sacred. The skeptic's eggheaded valuation of scientific evidence (the water of the fishbowl that skeptics live inside of) is supposed to trump everything that makes his life meaningful?

I suggest probably there's no meeting of the minds possible here. Defining terms won't created a common ground. If the atheist tries defining terms, then get the slightest detail differently from the biblicist's understanding, or if it's not as wholly positive as he wants (both of which are inevitable), it'll be called a straw man misrepresentation; or you're criticizing "someone else's God, not mine".

For a biblicist to be induced out of his "fishbowl", the believer has to feel its limits constricting him. So long as he's feeling safe in his haven, then atheists are only just nuts for suggesting he's got anything wrong.

 

[Jobar]

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there really any difference?

Well maybe a bit in degree:

. Santa punishes the bad by withholding toys and giving a lump of coal but only for that year. God punishes the bad with eternal damnation in hell.

. Santa rewards the good with toys but only for that year. God rewards the good with eternal bliss in heaven.

But there is still that both are omniscient and reward the good and punish the bad.

 

[Copernicus]

So what? You just had a theist tell you that we can reasonably reject belief in elves and Santa Claus. His point was that God is not equivalent to Santa Claus. OK, fine. You don't need them to be equivalent, but you can work with that admission. Theists are not necessarily unreasonable people, and atheists are not necessarily reasonable people. In the end, we all work on the same basic principles when it comes to plausibility arguments.

Yes, we all work on the same basic principles but strongly disagree on what we see as plausible. Else there would not be the debates we see. What we see as plausible is determined by how we see the world and we obviously see the world quite differently.

I agree. What this suggests to me is that the real argument is not over the question of whether a god exists but over the beliefs that lead theists to think of gods as plausible. That's why I think it is more important to look at those other kinds of beliefs that we disagree on, e.g. spiritualism vs materialism. If God didn't create physical reality, then how did order emerge out of chaos? Can thought take place in the absence of a brain? Atheists can do better than to just keep repeating the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God. There is more to atheism than just lack of belief. It usually entails all sorts of beliefs about how reality works and how we came to exist in the first place. Those are the questions that led to the creation of religion in the first place. God is supposed to explain stuff. What's the alternative explanation?

 

[Lion IRC]

"The trouble arises when an atheist gives their concept of what God means, then the theist replies "that's not what God is!" ...

That would be progress. Because then both sides would agree they aren't believing/disbelieving in the same thing. And what we see so often in the atheosphere is atheists asking Christians to debunk a dozen other non-Christian religions/definitions when the starting discussion should be "does God/god exist" not "which God/god exists"

I'll happily argue for Christian particularism with a non-theist whose primary objection is "I'd be a Christian except for...[Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism]"

But the stock standard repertoire of counter-apologetics is;
*Miracles are impossible
*The universe wasn't created
*Religion was invented
*"Thats not evidence"
*Argument from incredulity
*Utilitarian benefits of atheism

...and none of these demand an apologetic specific to the bible, let alone Christianity or orthodoxy.

Lion, in my post you quoted from I gave a definition of God ("...a supreme, self-consistent, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, righteous and benevolent being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what he has created.") meant to describe Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah. It's general enough to cover all the common monotheistic faiths. Would you accept it as an approximation of the God you believe in, even if it doesn't address every characteristic of your belief?

Yes, a very close approximation. I couldn't have said it better.

Even that very general definition is one that we find unbelievable, because of internal contradictions in the characteristics listed. So defining the God of your belief more specifically (maybe by adding 'who gave His only begotten son for the salvation of those who believe on Him') doesn't help you, if you want to convince us we are wrong in our unbelief.

Well I don't think there are any internal contradictions but I agree, the doctrine of atonement is a little esoteric for a thread like this.

Your list of counter-apologies doesn't include the point being argued here;
*Theistic definitions of God/gods are unintelligible/self-contradictory.

No, I don't accept that my definition (as you summarised it) has any internal contradictions.
So when the atheist (incorrectly/mistakenly) describes the God they don't believe in as an incoherent entity, then that justifies my having asked them to define what it is they disbelieve.

So many times I am telling atheists that I wouldn't worship the God they are describing.

You really should put the Problem of Evil/Suffering in there, too.

Yep. Good catch. It should probably be at the top of my list.
The God/god(s) of any religion would have to account for the existence of otherwise preventable evil/suffering.

But do you see my point about the need for the atheist to at least define the scope of their disbelief sufficiently to allow good faith dialogue? How often do we see atheists quibbling about stuff that PZ Myers rightly says is off topic.

 

[skepticalbip]

So what? You just had a theist tell you that we can reasonably reject belief in elves and Santa Claus. His point was that God is not equivalent to Santa Claus. OK, fine. You don't need them to be equivalent, but you can work with that admission. Theists are not necessarily unreasonable people, and atheists are not necessarily reasonable people. In the end, we all work on the same basic principles when it comes to plausibility arguments.

Yes, we all work on the same basic principles but strongly disagree on what we see as plausible. Else there would not be the debates we see. What we see as plausible is determined by how we see the world and we obviously see the world quite differently.

I agree. What this suggests to me is that the real argument is not over the question of whether a god exists but over the beliefs that lead theists to think of gods as plausible. That's why I think it is more important to look at those other kinds of beliefs that we disagree on, e.g. spiritualism vs materialism. If God didn't create physical reality, then how did order emerge out of chaos? Can thought take place in the absence of a brain? Atheists can do better than to just keep repeating the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God. There is more to atheism than just lack of belief. It usually entails all sorts of beliefs about how reality works and how we came to exist in the first place. Those are the questions that led to the creation of religion in the first place. God is supposed to explain stuff. What's the alternative explanation?

Yes, we have very different world views. From all the contact I have with the religious, I see their worldview as being that everything has an answer or explanation. For the religious that answer or explanation (for the big questions) is provided by their holy book or priest and is not to be questioned.

I certainly can't speak for all atheists but can explain my world view (which is likely close to many atheists). I see my understanding of reality to be conditional and will change if offered a better understanding. But that is only for the parts of reality of which I have some understanding which has been amply demonstrated. A great deal of reality falls under the label of "I don't know" but I am eager to learn if given sufficient evidence. Explanations that directly contradict what I do understand of reality would require extraordinary evidence before it would be incorporated into my worldview.

The big difference I see in worldviews is the religious are convinced that they know even if it is unevidenced or contrary to demonstrated reality while atheists generally reject that which has no evidence because there is no rational reason given to accept it. They see an honest "I don't know" preferable to accepting feel good but baseless explanations.

I see the different worldviews as the crux of the "debates". The atheist expects evidence for religious claims that are contrary to their evidenced understanding while the religious think their holy book and/or priest are beyond question. Uncertainty is an anathema for the religious and a reason to try to understand for the unbeliever.

 

[Random Person]

You should work on clearing up what you think before you attempt to devine what I think. If you want to know just ask. I'll tell you.

I was just accepting what you posted as being what you thought. You said, "If you could pray for a Ferrari and get one I'd sign up today.". The Bible says you will be given whatever you pray for so the only reason I can see that you wouldn't pray for that Ferrari, that you said you would sign up for, is that you are skeptical of what the Bible promises.

I do lots of things without the expectation of receiving a Ferrari so its not a deal breaker.

I'd be wasting my time enumerating the reasons I don't believe here.

 

[bilby]

So what? You just had a theist tell you that we can reasonably reject belief in elves and Santa Claus. His point was that God is not equivalent to Santa Claus. OK, fine. You don't need them to be equivalent, but you can work with that admission. Theists are not necessarily unreasonable people, and atheists are not necessarily reasonable people. In the end, we all work on the same basic principles when it comes to plausibility arguments.

Yes, we all work on the same basic principles but strongly disagree on what we see as plausible. Else there would not be the debates we see. What we see as plausible is determined by how we see the world and we obviously see the world quite differently.

I agree. What this suggests to me is that the real argument is not over the question of whether a god exists but over the beliefs that lead theists to think of gods as plausible. That's why I think it is more important to look at those other kinds of beliefs that we disagree on, e.g. spiritualism vs materialism. If God didn't create physical reality, then how did order emerge out of chaos? Can thought take place in the absence of a brain? Atheists can do better than to just keep repeating the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God. There is more to atheism than just lack of belief. It usually entails all sorts of beliefs about how reality works and how we came to exist in the first place. Those are the questions that led to the creation of religion in the first place. God is supposed to explain stuff. What's the alternative explanation?

The beliefs that lead theists to think God is plausible are the same as the beliefs that lead them to think that venomous snakes are lethal - as infants they unquestioningly absorb their parents' beliefs, and if they attempt to deviate even slightly (by trying to pick up a Brown Snake or asking awkward questions about religion) they get a smack and a loud 'NO!'.

Kids without a tendency to believe after such training are rare, for sound evolutionary reasons.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree. What this suggests to me is that the real argument is not over the question of whether a god exists but over the beliefs that lead theists to think of gods as plausible. That's why I think it is more important to look at those other kinds of beliefs that we disagree on, e.g. spiritualism vs materialism. If God didn't create physical reality, then how did order emerge out of chaos? Can thought take place in the absence of a brain? Atheists can do better than to just keep repeating the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God. There is more to atheism than just lack of belief. It usually entails all sorts of beliefs about how reality works and how we came to exist in the first place. Those are the questions that led to the creation of religion in the first place. God is supposed to explain stuff. What's the alternative explanation?

The beliefs that lead theists to think God is plausible are the same as the beliefs that lead them to think that venomous snakes are lethal - as infants they unquestioningly absorb their parents' beliefs, and if they attempt to deviate even slightly (by trying to pick up a Brown Snake or asking awkward questions about religion) they get a smack and a loud 'NO!'.

Kids without a tendency to believe after such training are rare, for sound evolutionary reasons.

I think that belief in gods goes much deeper than just unquestioning acceptance of what they were told as children. Most people are instinctive dualists. That is, they split reality up into the physical and the mental, rather than seeing mental thoughts, feelings, and sensations as just an aspect of physical reality. We interact with physical reality through volition--mind over body (and matter). So belief in two planes of existence--the spiritual and the physical--is a natural state of affairs. To the extent that we become materialists, we do that later in life, after we've come to observe the dependence of mental activity on physical brain activity. Gods tend to inhabit the spiritual realm, so it isn't hard to convince people that immaterial beings such as gods could exist. A god can manipulate physical reality by will alone, just as our minds can will our bodies to move. Gods would explain a lot of events that are otherwise inexplicable, and they provide us a means of trying to influence events that seem beyond our control, e.g. natural disasters.

What I'm getting at is that belief in a deity is not caused by a failure to be sufficiently skeptical. It follows as a consequence of our own intimate experiences and interactions with the physical world. It takes time for people to begin to look for better models of reality, and most people aren't ever motivated to do so. Atheism is not an attractive belief. It might explain reality better--for example, why there is so much human suffering--but it doesn't represent a more attractive explanation of reality. For one thing, it doesn't promise immortality or an ultimate alleviation of suffering. As the previous Pope once said, atheism robs people of their hope.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Comparing Santa Claus to God is a false equivalency.

Why do you think so? I've been working on a comment on why theists and atheists talk past one another, and it's this "not an equivalent" stance that's key to knowing if I'm the right track. So, if you will, don't be flip. It would be informative if you could explain this some. Thanks.

Sure. I mentioned earlier that we would know if Santa existed based on the attributes Santa is purported to have. We know that no one delivers gifts to all the children of the world in one night. If that were happening we would know it.

This would not apply to any god and especially the Christian God. If we wanted to prove that God doesn't exist then we wouldn't point out that he doesn't deliver gifts to all the children in the world in one night from a flying sled.

There is no necessary connection between God and Santa.

People "believe in" Santa.

People "believe in" gods.

Someone asked that atheists define what they don't "believe in." I don't "believe in" Santa. I don't "believe in" gods.

It's quite simple.

But it should be stated that I'm talking about all the ghost gods, the ones that aren't there, the ones that are phantoms that walk through walls and have magic powers, like the christian gods. If someone wants to call a mountain or a river a god that is different and I think people understand the difference. Those things aren't ghosts.

Also, "believe in" is being pretty tricksy, and I'm not sure most folks have caught on. For example, I know gods are not real, just like I know I'm not a billionaire, or just like I know that Santa is not real. Whether I "believe in" something or not hardly makes a difference.

What's being discussed in this thread are the ghost gods, alleged gods, not rivers and mountains, whether those ghost gods are real.