Atheists - Doubt Your Doubts

Cycel · Dec 20, 2014

Hi Yeraza_Bats, evolution says nothing at all about God, and I strongly suspect most every person who sees evolution as our best model for understanding the origin of species (not the origin of life, which evolution makes not attempt to address) would agree with me. Evolution does not disprove God; and in full disclosure I will point out that I agree with evolutionary claims and I am an atheist.

Richard Dawkins, who I am sure you are familiar with, has said it was evolution that made him an atheist. What I want you to understand, however, is that many roads lead believers to atheism, and evolution gets far more credit for taking people down that path than it actually deserves. Dawkins has stated publicly that evolution does not disprove God, that it says nothing about God, but for him it makes God unnecessary.

I just finished reading a book titled Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind (2013), by Dan Dennett and Linda Lascola. The book documents the results of some 30 interviews with clergy who have either lost their belief in God, or whose certainty has greatly diminished, and in no case was evolution sited as the cause of this loss. The issue clergy are having is with the Bible itself.

Check out The Clergy Project home page for more detailed information. The Clergy Project - Home Page

Yeraza_Bats said:

Dawkins is the only person I have come across who sites evolution as the cause of his unbelief. People actually have a wide variety of reasons for being set on that path. I came to it because of problems I had with biblical claims.

Yeraza_Bats said:

Oh, it does matter. A former archbishop of the Anglican Church in England stated more than 100 years ago, "God did something much more wonderful than make the world, he made the world make itself."

Yeraza_Bats said:

A Christian member recently point me to this site: BioLogos Foundation. The BioLogos Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Founded by the renowned American geneticist, and evangelical Christian, Francis Collins, its goal is to point Christians toward wedding their belief in God with science and evolution.

Yeraza_Bats said:

I don't know what the Bible says about it, but do you really think God wants you to live in ignorance of the world around you?

Yeraza_Bats said:

A statement such as this can only be made by some one who is taking a stance from blissful ignorance.

Have you ever played chess? I love the game. I have taught it to hundreds of kids. Occasionally I will be challenged by a person, youth or adult, who wants to beat me. In the opening moves I can tell whether the person is all bluster or whether they actually know something about chess strategy. In your statement above you give away that when it comes to evolution you are uninformed. No one who understands the game would made such a comment.

nl · Dec 20, 2014

FWIW, Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC was profiled yesterday in the WSJ: Kate Bachelder: God Isn’t Dead in Gotham - WSJ

Excerpt:

“Everyone has a God, everyone has a way of salvation, we just don’t use the term,” he says. “St. Augustine would say: What makes you what you really are is what you love the most.” Mr. Keller adds that he likes “to show secular people that they’re not quite as unreligious as they think. They’re putting their hopes in something, and they’re living for it.” For ambitious, driven New Yorkers, it’s often a career, he says. “I try to tell people: The only reason you’re laying yourself out like this is because you’re not really just working. This is very much your religion.”

If there’s no God, he says in sermons, then everything you do at work will be forgotten, and nothing you can do in your career will earn lasting significance. But if Christianity is true, then “every good endeavor,” he likes to say, no matter how small, “can matter forever.”

Cycel · Dec 20, 2014

nl said:

No they do not! I suppose he means it metaphorically, but there is nothing comparable. Notice he says everyone has a “God,” not that everyone has a “god.” I suppose he must mean that atheists treat evolution as God, but think about it. Can you pray to evolution? Do evolutionist ask evolution to heal a sick loved one? Do we gather to sing about evolution on Darwin’s birthday? Do we think evolution deliberately designed us? No.

Creationists often criticize the claim that we evolved by chance. They often use the analogy of a tornado building a 747 from scrap in a junkyard. What kind of a God is that? Really now! It is not a belief in a God at all. That is really your point, isn’t it? Only a God can create Man, so evolution must not be a God at all.

Do evolutionists have a God? Only if they are Christians. Do atheists have a God? No. Do we have a god (lower case). Absolutely not. People who have faith believe there is something beyond themselves. Atheists do not and for evolution it is not even part of the equation.

Cycel · Dec 20, 2014

nl said:

Does that really make someone religious? When Bobby Fisher was about 12 years old he once quipped, “All I want to do, ever, is play chess!” Does this sentiment qualify as religious? If so, then it is truly a watered down shadow of what it represents in yourself, wouldn’t you say? Some people live for World of War Craft. Does that make it a religion? Hockey, NASCAR? Are they religious movements? Stamp collecting?

People live for these things, it may be what gets them out of bed in the morning, but what does it mean when he says they put their hopes in them? When you live for something you are so enthralled by it, that you just want to do it all the time – like Bobby Fisher and chess. Is Christianity something you just want to do all of the time because it is so much fun, or does it have a deeper meaning? All of these activities mentioned above are important for their entertainment value. Do you really think they have a strong religious component as well?

Percepi · Dec 20, 2014

nl said:

Do you require higher standards of evidence for Vishnu than you do lack of belief in Vishnu? Do you require higher standards of evidence for molemen than you do for a lack of belief in molemen?

It's purely logical not to believe in something in the absence of evidence.

BTW, I'm the only person on earth who can fly around like superman. I can't leave the city I'm in though so I unfortunately can't visit you. I also try to keep my power a secret from most people so I can't send vids or pics either. According to your logic, it's just as reasonable to believe me as it is not to believe me. According to the way you talk to atheists, I should expect you to believe me until you prove me wrong!

You're shifting the burden of proof.

Concluding God is not the same as proving God. It doesn't matter what your philosophy is, you can not use it as empirical evidence. Honestly, that should be enough to end your arguments right there but I'll continue anyway.

I know you're a huge fan of this failed argument and that you're merely summarizing - thus the simplicity. Therefore, allow me to explain why the cosmological argument simply doesn't work.

First of all, philosophical arguments alone can't prove anything. Ever.

Second, this argument is merely another God Of The Gaps expression.

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the best explanation.
5. Therefore God.

Even if we accept 1-3 to be true, there's zero evidence for 4. It's like saying, "My proof that God exists is that God did it. Checkmate atheists." It doesn't actually prove anything, it simply states the very thing you're supposed to prove as an already excepted premise. You can't do that with anything you're trying to prove. For example, if I want to prove you can run cars on grape soda, I can't make point 4. "This engine can run on grape soda" and point 5. "Therefore engines can run on grape soda".

There's a lot wrong with this argument but I'd like to address some of your other failed points. The following link goes into great detail as to why your argument doesn't hold any water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1DdWeK5XM&list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk&index=5

* Life exists and has never been shown to have been created by a god, therefore it must have originated from non-living things.

1. The above argument doesn't prove that life came from non-life. It's just the same exact argument you made with the premise flipped around.
2. Why do you demand evidence that life came from non-life, but it's perfectly acceptable to conclude God did it without proof?

The proper solution goes as follows:

* We don't know what caused the origins of life. Therefore, we don't know.

Did we solve any mysteries? No, but at least it's honest.

Many religious texts are based off of actual people and events. That's like saying the movie "Inglorious B******s" is 100% factual because Hitler was a real person.

This statement is vague, but it's not really impressive for a document to predict something that has already happened.

Which proves...?

This doesn't prove the Bible to be true at all.

Hinduism has a greater history, therefore Hinduism > Christianity?

Unfortunately, people often die for things they believe in... and are wrong. 9/11.

Essentially, "People have been saying it's real for years, therefore it's real."

There are testimonies to support all religions. In fact, my life improved after I stopped believing in God because it changed the way I looked at the world and made me take a more logical approach to all my problems. I stopped waiting for stuff to happen and started making things happen myself. Personal testimony is completely unreliable.

A person who tells you about how much better there has become after accepting Vishnu as their savior will leave you feeling the same way I do when people tell me Christ has made their lives better.

There's no evidence of a virgin birth. Not only that but Christ's birth story changes multiple times in the Bible and is inconsistent. Of course, it doesn't matter since there's no evidence of it having ever occurred in the first place. Even if there was, what evidence would you have that Mary was a virgin?

You keep talking bout proof but all you have are statements. "I have proof of God! That proof comes in the form of statements assumed to be true!"

AKA. Find something that likely referred to someone/something else and assume it referred to the Bible. Found an empty tomb? Assume it belonged to Jesus. You underestimate religion's ability to take historical landmarks and apply their own beliefs to the history of those landmarks - we see this with numerous religions.

Now to tackle your quote:

I believe in things because they work. The following video goes over this and I can elaborate further in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdXuoeI1Cq8&index=10&list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk

This sounds like a child throwing a tantrum and shouting, "YOU CHEATED!" when he finds himself in checkmate after playing chess with a friend. In this case, it's a grown man going, "You didn't come to the same conclusion as me, you must have used double standards or something! It's the only way!"

Essentially, the man you quoted is humorously immature and would rather assume there are double standards being taken instead of trying to explain why people don't accept his arguments. He may sincerely believe his arguments to be rock tight, but if his arguments are related to any of the above, I've proven them to be completely flawed.

Keep in mind, I don't have to prove God doesn't exist unless I claim God - without a doubt - doesn't exist. There's a difference between saying, "I don't believe in God because I don't see any valid reason to believe in him" and "I know God doesn't exist".

[video=youtube;sNDZb0KtJDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk[/video]

Please watch the video until the end, because every time I link a video people respond to what they THINK the video is about and not what it's actually arguing.

Again, I must stress that philosophical arguments alone CAN NOT PROVE ANYTHING. You need actual, physical, evidence. Concluding God is not the same as proving God.

Cycel · Dec 20, 2014

nl said:

While most of us will be forgotten the memories of others will live on, for decades, centuries, or thousands of years. You have heard of John Lennon, Alexander Graham Bell, Napoleon, Cyrus the Great? Other people are best known only in their fields of expertise, but their names and accomplishments will live on, and some people make themselves famous quite unintentionally. Samuel Pepys for example:

The detailed private diary Pepys kept from 1660 until 1669 was first published in the 19th century and is one of the most important primary sources for the English Restoration period. It provides a combination of personal revelation and eyewitness accounts of great events, such as the Great Plague of London, the Second Dutch War, and the Great Fire of London. (Wikipedia: Samuel Pepys)

Anyone who has kept a diary, myself included, way well live on for centuries. My interest in history and genealogy led me to record a detailed account of the lives of my grandparents and parents. They will not be forgotten. In fact everyone who touches the lives of others will have a lasting impact on those individuals, and those who come after them, even if names are forgotten. Once again Keller seems to have gotten it wrong.

Red_Tory · Dec 20, 2014

Percepi said:

What do you even mean by needing actual physical evidence, and why do philosophical arguments not constitute proof? To be honest, this sounds strange, since your empiricism is itself a philosophical position. Suggesting that empirical arguments are somehow above philosophy is wrongheaded, since empiricism is a philosophy.

- Arguments with true premises and a valid form have necessarily true conclusions.

- To prove something means to demonstrate the truth of the proposition in question.

- Hence any expounded "philosophical argument" (whatever you're referring to here?) that employs true premises and follows a valid form of inference has a proven conclusion.

?

Percepi · Dec 20, 2014

Red Tory, it's obvious we're on two entirely different pages. Your response to me isn't really addressing anything I said, so hopefully I can clear a few things up.

Let me give you an example of a philosophical argument that is 100% true:

1. Molag Ba Mehrune created everything, but was not created himself.
2. The universe was created.
3. Therefore, Molag Ba Mehrune created the universe.

I have just philosophically proved that Molag Ba Mehrune created the universe.

This is why philosophical arguments alone do not prove anything. For these philosophical arguments to serve us any purpose what-so-ever, we need to be able to prove the premises correct.

When Christian apologists rely solely on philosophical arguments, they assume the very thing they're supposed to be proving to be true. Earlier I provided a wonderful example:

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the best explanation.
5. Therefore God.

Premises 1 and 2 are assumed. Premise 3 follows two assumptions. And premise 4 is just the pinnacle of absurdity because it uses the very thing it's supposed to be proving as an argument to prove itself!

This argument is supposed to prove God. How does it prove God? By asserting that God exists. That's it. Most apologist arguments can be stripped down to:

1. God must exist.
2. Therefore God exists.

Bam! A 100% true philosophical argument that proves God exists! Well, no, it only proves God exists within this set. IF God must exist, then he exists - but we must first prove God must exist first. A lack of explanation as to how the universe came to exist is not proof of God's existence - it's only evidence that we don't know how the universe came to exist. Thus, the God of the Gaps fallacy.

I hope that clears everything up for you.

ColinCat · Dec 20, 2014

Percepi said:

Red Tory, it's obvious we're on two entirely different pages. Your response to me isn't really addressing anything I said, so hopefully I can clear a few things up.

Let me give you an example of a philosophical argument that is 100% true:

1. Molag Ba Mehrune created everything, but was not created himself.
2. The universe was created.
3. Therefore, Molag Ba Mehrune created the universe.

I have just philosophically proved that Molag Ba Mehrune created the universe.

This is why philosophical arguments alone do not prove anything. For these philosophical arguments to serve us any purpose what-so-ever, we need to be able to prove the premises correct.

When Christian apologists rely solely on philosophical arguments, they assume the very thing they're supposed to be proving to be true. Earlier I provided a wonderful example:

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the best explanation.
5. Therefore God.

Premises 1 and 2 are assumed. Premise 3 follows two assumptions. And premise 4 is just the pinnacle of absurdity because it uses the very thing it's supposed to be proving as an argument to prove itself!

This argument is supposed to prove God. How does it prove God? By asserting that God exists. That's it. Most apologist arguments can be stripped down to:

1. God must exist.
2. Therefore God exists.

Bam! A 100% true philosophical argument that proves God exists! Well, no, it only proves God exists within this set. IF God must exist, then he exists - but we must first prove God must exist first. A lack of explanation as to how the universe came to exist is not proof of God's existence - it's only evidence that we don't know how the universe came to exist. Thus, the God of the Gaps fallacy.

I hope that clears everything up for you.

Yeah.. When you can replace the word 'God' with any name like 'Molag Bal' or 'Sheogorath' and the argument still reads the same then you know there is a fundamental flaw with your argument.

Your not explaining anything.. your just assigning a mythical name to an unknown.

Leannaix · Dec 20, 2014

This argument from ignorance is essentially, there is a thing and we don't know how to explain it. Some people accept that we don't know yet. Some people really want to have an explanation, so they just make one up without any evidence that actually led them to that conclusion. Saying "God is the best explanation" is exactly the same as saying "Magic is the best explanation." It isn't an explanation. It's a placeholder until the explanation is supported by evidence. And its been the same every time god was proposed as an explanation, then the scientific method revealed the real explanation.

nl · Dec 21, 2014

Leannaix said:

Natural selection has been posited like a "gap-filler" even in domains outside of biology.

"Science will find an answer" has also been another "gap-filler". This phrase has been used to express faith in science.

nl · Dec 21, 2014

Cycel said:

I think that has been true for most humans after they passed.

Cycel said:

Cyrus the Great is an important part of both secular history and Bible history. I quoted Alexander Graham Bell to one of my kids this week. I researched something on Napoleon a few weeks back. John Lennon made some interesting music but was less famous than Jesus Christ.

Cycel said:

Agree and like.

I have visited Redeemer Church in NYC. I enjoyed the jazz and saxaphone music there that was not the traditional type of church music.

Some people in NYC and elsewhere do work very hard at their careers. I don't want to disparage them. This verse has long motivated some of my own work ethic in the workplace and elsewhere:

... be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. - 1 Co 15:58

Cycel · Dec 21, 2014

nl said:

What I was disagreeing with was the following:

"... if there’s no God, he says in sermons, then everything you do at work will be forgotten, and nothing you can do in your career will earn lasting significance. But if Christianity is true, then “every good endeavor,” he likes to say, no matter how small, “can matter forever.”

I think everything we do in relation to others is both meaningful and important. I don't think we need Christianity, or God, to make our lives significant and memorable.

nl · Dec 21, 2014

Percepi said:

From a couple of decades back, I remember this answer to a childrens' catechism question at church:

God is a Spirit and has not a body like we do.

How do you account for the spiritual under guidelines where evidence must be physical?

Have you ruled God out without sufficient justification by your guidelines for evidence?

God also has rules.

Cycel · Dec 21, 2014

nl said:

When science admits that it does not yet possess an answer, that is not filling a gap in our knowledge; but saying God is the cause of something is using God as a placeholder in substitution of true understanding. That is what is meant by the God of the Gaps argument. Once God is substituted for knowledge then the search for a physical explanation comes to an end. Therein lies the danger of creationism.

nl · Dec 21, 2014

Cycel said:

If everything is random and causeless without a Designer, then we don't know why atoms hold together or why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Cosmic collisions or natural disasters on earth may yet end us all.

Yes, I quoted TK on that indirectly and I may agree with you more. Especially now with digital data, none of us may be easily forgotten.

.

If Christianity is true and the Bible is true then every word and deed will matter in the end. We are all not mortal but rather immortal. After we die once, then comes the judgment. It's a heavy notion that even many professing Christians seem to avoid. Lord, have mercy.

I have hope that Jesus is perfect and a perfect Savior from Divine wrath (when it arrives). All the rest of us come short of the standard set by Jesus.

Cycel · Dec 21, 2014

nl said:

Precisely, how do you test for the physical presence of spirit when no physical context is said to exist? And when you rely upon scripture for answers, Saint Paul, for instance, how do you know that his insights are anymore certain than your own? You can claim that the Bible's passages are divinely inspired, but when it comes right down to it this is, after all, only a claim. You can't substantiate it. Believing, in this case, is placing faith in "the substance of things (only) hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). If there truly was evidence then faith would not be a requirement.

nl said:

There is no physical evidence that I can see and I don't believe in things without evidence. That is the purview of those with faith. Someone once told me that God doesn't provide physical evidence of himself because he wants Christians to believe through faith and providing proof of his existence would obviate the need for faith. However, if there is no God, and so no evidence, then what better defence for a lack of evidence is there?

Red_Tory · Dec 21, 2014

Percepi said:

Nope, you entirely missed the point.

The first argument (re: Molag) you gave is unsound because as you pointed out it employs a premise that hasn't been demonstrated to our satisfaction. The second argument you gave (your rendition of Kalam) isn't even a valid deductive argument.

Neither of them are "100% true" as you claim. If you would re-read my original post, I said that any philosophical argument involving true premises and a valid deductive form has a necessarily true (i.e. proven) conclusion, contrary to your assertion that philosophical arguments can never prove anything. Your two examples do absolutely nothing to refute this since they don't involve both true premises and valid forms, so perhaps you could go a bit further?

Essentially, I said that sound philosophical arguments have necessarily true (and therefore proven) conclusions. You provided two counter-examples, but they were both unsound philosophical arguments and therefore didn't address the actual point. tl;dr: Sound arguments have proven conclusions, regardless of whether or not the arguments themselves are "philosophical" in nature. Unsound philosophical arguments have no efficacy as counter-examples.

nl · Dec 21, 2014

Cycel said:

Surely, the atheistic naturalist can accept data from beyond the five senses like reason and logic. Surely, metaphysical realities like truth, beauty, reason and logic can be acknowledged.

The Mona Lisa painting is evidence of Leonardo da Vinci who painted it.

The cathedrals of Europe and North America are evidence of the generations of people who built them.

The pyramids of Egypt and the Great Wall of China are evidence of the generations who designed and constructed such wonders.

Why should the wonders of the human body and the Cosmos not be accepted as physical evidence of their Designer and Builder?

The atheistic naturalist seems to want to "tie the hands" of others and themselves by requiring that evidence be physical.

The atheistic naturalist seems to want to command God and to dictate the terms and conditions by which the Almighty must reveal Himself.

Almighty God also has commands, terms and conditions.

ColinCat · Dec 21, 2014

nl said:

The people who who built the cathedrals were themselves created.

The people who built the pyramids were created.

DaVinci was created...

Your unwilling to apply that to the creator of the universe.. Therefor the argument falls over.

Your also neglecting to mention naturally created things like Sand dunes, rivers, stalagmites, puddles etc. They have no creator and come into existence when certain conditions are right.

So not everything needs a creator.

Atheists - Doubt Your Doubts

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned