Friendly clarification

[weybourne1]

Hey all,

This is my post in response to what I had referred to as "fundamentally incorrect responses". And allow me to clarify: I want to clear the air about some common atheist misconceptions, and I would like to volunteer myself to be the "ask-the-atheist" guy on here, haha. The way I see it, if I can help to make heads-or-tails of the accurate atheist position, there won't be so much hostility toward the position.

1) Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Some atheists feel so strongly about their position, that they say they are certain there is no god, however there is no way to prove a negative (I can't disprove the hypothesis that there are gnomes living in my basement, I can only assert that there is a lack of evidence for it). Even Richard Dawkins, on his own scale of belief in god from 1-7 (1 being absolute certainty that there is a god, 7 being absolutely certain there is no god), is a 6.9999999, simply because it would be highly unscientific to say that it is impossible that there is a god. We simply don't have the evidence to suggest otherwise.

2) Being an atheist has nothing to do with lacking in moral value, or with just wanting to be free to sin without the fear of god's wrath. I have read this a few times and it frustrates me as an extremely moral individual. We don't get our morals from scripture, and that is pretty basic. The opposing viewpoint would therefore suggest that any individual without a belief in a particular deity could not possibly have any morals, and would be inclined to commit sins of all kinds. I have yet to meet any atheist who fits the latter description. There is evidence for morality in the animal kingdom.

I'll stop there for now, and again, I am here to improve communication between theists and atheists, and I encourage PM's if anyone prefers to reach me that way.

 

[Bro_Sam]

Hey all,

This is my post in response to what I had referred to as "fundamentally incorrect responses". And allow me to clarify: I want to clear the air about some common atheist misconceptions, and I would like to volunteer myself to be the "ask-the-atheist" guy on here, haha. The way I see it, if I can help to make heads-or-tails of the accurate atheist position, there won't be so much hostility toward the position.

1) Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Some atheists feel so strongly about their position, that they say they are certain there is no god, however there is no way to prove a negative

But it isn't a negative. Do you know what a truth claim is?

If you say, "there is no evidence for the existence of God", that's a negative and you can't prove it.

However, if you state definitively, "There is no God", then that is a truth claim and you have a responsibility to defend that statement by showing evidence to back it up.

(I can't disprove the hypothesis that there are gnomes living in my basement, I can only assert that there is a lack of evidence for it). Even Richard Dawkins, on his own scale of belief in god from 1-7 (1 being absolute certainty that there is a god, 7 being absolutely certain there is no god), is a 6.9999999, simply because it would be highly unscientific to say that it is impossible that there is a god. We simply don't have the evidence to suggest otherwise.

Then it looks like you don't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

2) Being an atheist has nothing to do with lacking in moral value, or with just wanting to be free to sin without the fear of god's wrath. I have read this a few times and it frustrates me as an extremely moral individual. We don't get our morals from scripture, and that is pretty basic.

Right. You believe your morals are subjective but what you don't realize is that there are certain morals that are inherent in every human being, regardless of culture, religion, or environment.

 

[weybourne1]

But it isn't a negative. Do you know what a truth claim is?

If you say, "there is no evidence for the existence of God", that's a negative and you can't prove it.

However, if you state definitively, "There is no God", then that is a truth claim and you have a responsibility to defend that statement by showing evidence to back it up.



Then it looks like you don't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism.



Right. You believe your morals are subjective but what you don't realize is that there are certain morals that are inherent in every human being, regardless of culture, religion, or environment.

OK, then I will clarify: there is no evidence for the existence of a god. I believe in evidence, and if your aim is semantics here - technically every atheist is agnostic because what we are demanding is evidence for any god's existence, and there just simply isn't any.

Do you believe in Zeus, Baal, or any other gods, or just the one you've been brought up to believe in? Would you consider yourself agnostic towards the aforementioned gods, or do you know that they don't exist?

What morals are inherent in every human being? (not challenging the idea, as it's a terrific point you bring up, just looking for examples)

 

[weybourne1]

If you say, "there is evidence for the existence of God", that's a truth claim and you must provide evidence. The onus is on you to provide proof for your particular deity, same as if I were to claim that I have a gnome living in my basement.

 

[Van]

The definitions of atheism and agnosticism are well known, and available in the dictionary. People pushing false doctrines usually have to resort to redefining the meaning of words to present their doctrine as consistent with fundamental truths.

A non-debatable false doctrine is "there is no god" and so the atheist will disavow their doctrine and substitute "a lack of belief in God" which is agnosticism. While the definition of atheism includes "disbelief in God" the definition of atheist says "one who denies the existence of God.

The effort to disavow the actual doctrine (there is no god) and adopt the "I am just not a theist" definition is too clever by half.

As for the second point, which is valid, we still must deal with the dictionary which say for definition number 2, atheism means "godlessness" which strongly suggests an immoral person. Thus an atheist would see nothing wrong with "if it feels good, do it."

 

[weybourne1]

The definitions of atheism and agnosticism are well known, and available in the dictionary. People pushing false doctrines usually have to resort to redefining the meaning of words to present their doctrine as consistent with fundamental truths.

A non-debatable false doctrine is "there is no god" and so the atheist will disavow their doctrine and substitute "a lack of belief in God" which is agnosticism. While the definition of atheism includes "disbelief in God" the definition of atheist says "one who denies the existence of God.

The effort to disavow the actual doctrine (there is no god) and adopt the "I am just not a theist" definition is too clever by half.

As for the second point, which is valid, we still must deal with the dictionary which say for definition number 2, atheism means "godlessness" which strongly suggests an immoral person. Thus an atheist would see nothing wrong with "if it feels good, do it."

Ok, then, I appreciate your honest reply. you have made me realize that the correct term for my lack of belief in a god is agnostic, given that nobody can prove that god does not exist. We can just state that there is no evidence. i am more than willing to accept that.

So then, are you agnostic in regards to any other gods in the world other than your own? You cannot prove that they don't exist, so what would be the correct term for people who don't believe in Baal, for example?

Why does "godlessness" strongly suggest an immoral person? I see many things wrong with "if it feels good, do it". Why would anybody live like that?

Prior to Christianity, the golden rule existed. It's common sense (even observed in the animal kingdom) that doing that which is helpful to a group or family is going to benefit said group or family, and the individual doing the deed.

Are you proposing that we need god to be good? If so, let me ask you: if, for whatever reason (and I can understand that this concept might be hard to grasp) it was proven that god does not exist (again, I recognize that we cannot prove there is no god, we can only assert that there is a lack of evidence, not a shred) would you be just as moral as you are now, or would you personally go out and do whatever you wanted, to whomever you wanted, simply because it "felt good" ?

 

[tansy]

Do you believe in Zeus, Baal, or any other gods, or just the one you've been brought up to believe in? Would you consider yourself agnostic towards the aforementioned gods, or do you know that they don't exist?

I know this question was asked of Bro Sam..but I thought I'd put in my two pennies' worth. I'm not saying this is correct. and there are probably different views on it, but I do think think there may be 'gods' such as Baal etc...only they are actually be demons masquerading as gods..it's even possible that they may also be known by other names. I'm not well up in these sorts of things, so I would like to hear other views, but I'll have to start a thread in a different section for that I suppose. Unless Bro Sam or someone will also give some input on that aspect of your question, (though I suppose it may not be relevant to the main thrust of your questioning)

 

[weybourne1]

thank you for the honest reply, Tansy. The follow-up to that would be: how,then, do you know that Baal isn't the one true god and that your god isn't one of his/her demons doing the masquerading?

 

[tansy]

thank you for the honest reply, Tansy. The follow-up to that would be: how,then, do you know that Baal isn't the one true god and that your god isn't one of his/her demons doing the masquerading?

Good point...perhaps one can't know absolutely 100 percent for sure. (Can one actually be 100 percent sure of anything for that matter?) I n the Bible (and I'm afraid I can't remember where exactly, and am also babysitting at the moment, so haven't much time to look it up), there was a test to see who could set alight and burn up rock soaked in water (forget exact details). It was between Baal and Yahweh. Baal couldn't do it, but Yahweh could.
Going by what it says in the Bible and my own experience, I would say that God is love etc and is the most powerful..also from Scripture, it says that Yahweh created everything including angels (some of whom became fallen angels), and I have so far found no reason to believe other than tha which is in Scripture.
Sorry if this is not a particularly good answer, but as I say, I'm also looking after a baby at the moment).
Will have to follow this thread later..baby needs picking up LOL

 

[weybourne1]

No need to apologize for your answer. You're speaking (writing? lol) honestly, and that is all I can ask.

I guess the fundamental issue is that if you accept the bible as literal truth, there is nowhere for a debate to go, do you know what I mean?

For example, my next question would be, what if the bible was written (or inspired, i should say) by another god/demon in a scheme of trickery? The story you referenced is contained IN the bible, so the argument that is has to be a true story is found within its own pages.

Not sure if I'm being clear or not. What I am getting at is this: If I wanted to convince people that MY own god exists and is the one true god, I would write a book that had my god going up against all other gods in some sort of "god olympics", of course I am going to have MY god win. And it must be true if it's written in my book.

See what I'm getting at? Some people accept the bible as literal truth without considering other texts considered to be sacred by followers of other faiths, and everyone "knows" that theirs is the "one true god".

 

[tansy]

I guess the fundamental issue is that if you accept the bible as literal truth, there is nowhere for a debate to go, do you know what I mean?

I accept the Bible as truth, but not necessarilly all of it as literal (there are after all some discrepancies, or at least on the face of it, some discrepancies) Maybe it's better to say that God imparts His truth to us through Scripture, and as the Holy Spirit enlightens us as to it's meaning - now I know that begs an awful lot of questions, but it would take an awfully lomg time to go into all the ins and outs of that.

Sorry, have to pick baby up again..will attempt to respond to rest of your post later (it might be much later, maybe tonight, depending)

 

[Bro_Sam]

I guess the fundamental issue is that if you accept the bible as literal truth, there is nowhere for a debate to go, do you know what I mean?

I agree. Nothing makes an atheist lose interest in honest and intelligent debate quicker than finding out that their oponent actually believes the Bible.

So, unfortunately, we waste our time using logic and reason while the atheist has to resort to such brilliant arguments as "well, I should have known that somebody who believes in talking snakes is just stupid".

For example, my next question would be, what if the bible was written (or inspired, i should say) by another god/demon in a scheme of trickery?

What other god, certainly, what demon, has the characteristics of God as displayed in the Bible?

The story you referenced is contained IN the bible, so the argument that is has to be a true story is found within its own pages.

If I say, "John is at home watching TV", what better way of finding out whether or not my statement is true is there than going to John's home and looking for him in the house to see if he is, in fact, there and what he is doing?

If I wanted to convince people that MY own god exists and is the one true god, I would write a book that had my god going up against all other gods in some sort of "god olympics", of course I am going to have MY god win. And it must be true if it's written in my book.

And if your book could emulate the internal consistency, manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, prophetic evidence, and statistical evidence of scripture, then we would be foolish not to consider that it may be true.

See what I'm getting at? Some people accept the bible as literal truth without considering other texts considered to be sacred by followers of other faiths, and everyone "knows" that theirs is the "one true god".

How do you know we haven't studied other texts? But let's say for a moment that we haven't. If "A" is true and "B" contradicts "A", then "B" is by definition false and no further examination is needed.

 

[kevlite2020]

Weybourne, I have a question and I'm curious to see what you think about it. I've heard it said that often-times atheists/agnostics try to live more morally correct then most Christians, and the reason behind it is because they fear that heaven and hell could possibly be real and just in case it is, they want to be able to say they lived good lives and all with hopes of not going to hell based on that. Would you call that somewhat accurate or is that off the mark?

 

[Van]

Hi Weybourne1, now that you are an agnostic, you should change your icon.

Now an agnostic believes in the possibility of God, do you?

Am I agnostic about other gods? Nope, I believe there is only one God, in three persons. But I do not make the assertion, there are no other gods, only that I believe there are no other gods.

You say the Golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, existed before Christianity. Animals are at best tribal, treating others within their family group, differently than others outside the group. Hardly the Golden rule. Do you have other evidence to support your belief?

 

[weybourne1]

I agree. Nothing makes an atheist lose interest in honest and intelligent debate quicker than finding out that their oponent actually believes the Bible.

No, we just know that anyone who believes the bible to be the literal word of god, then that is going to be the source of your argument, therefore it's kind of hard to convince you that there is the possibility that the bible is man-made and that there is room for a debate. I hope you can see the problem with saying "i know god in the bible is real, because it says so in the bible". Circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works, because circular....etc etc

So, unfortunately, we waste our time using logic and reason while the atheist has to resort to such brilliant arguments as "well, I should have known that somebody who believes in talking snakes is just stupid".

I have never been given proof of the existence of any god, therefore I don't accept theism...is that illogical?

Why aren't you a Muslim? certainly they have "proof" that theirs is the "one true god", no? If you were given logical proof that Allah is the one true god, would you denounce Christianity?


What other god, certainly, what demon, has the characteristics of God as displayed in the Bible?

Any god/demon who might have written or inspired the bible. the god of the OT did some pretty demonic things, or am I reading the wrong version of the bible?

If I say, "John is at home watching TV", what better way of finding out whether or not my statement is true is there than going to John's home and looking for him in the house to see if he is, in fact, there and what he is doing?

I agree completely. Please elaborate on which point this responding to.


And if your book could emulate the internal consistency, manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, prophetic evidence, and statistical evidence of scripture, then we would be foolish not to consider that it may be true.

internal consistency? of the bible? Do you admit to ANY contradictions, or any evidence of amendments along the way, or you think what you're reading today is word-for-word what was originally written?

I don't like comparative arguments generally, but since I haven't seen any of the unbiased, certifiable evidence you claim above, I'll ask about Islam. Is the bible more accurate than the Qu'ran? Would a muslim agree with you? What makes you certain that your book and your god isn't one of allah's false prophets, there to trick and test the faith of Muslims?

Can you point me in the direction of some unbiased evidence (I'll check out links if you have some) that demonstrate what you claim? I've never heard of such evidence for the god of the bible before.

How do you know we haven't studied other texts? But let's say for a moment that we haven't. If "A" is true and "B" contradicts "A", then "B" is by definition false and no further examination is needed.

You're starting off by assuming that "A" is true. How do you not accept the possibility that if "B" contradicts "A", then maybe it's "A" that is false?

 

[weybourne1]

Weybourne, I have a question and I'm curious to see what you think about it. I've heard it said that often-times atheists/agnostics try to live more morally correct then most Christians, and the reason behind it is because they fear that heaven and hell could possibly be real and just in case it is, they want to be able to say they lived good lives and all with hopes of not going to hell based on that. Would you call that somewhat accurate or is that off the mark?

I'll begin by giving myself as an example: I live an extremely moral life out of respect for other people, and for humanity in general. I would never ever do something or not do something out of fear of someone else's god.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I can tell you that I know a lot of them, and I can't think of any one of them who would deliberately do something to hurt someone else, or who would be good simply out of fear. It sounds like there have been some pretty bad people coming in here that happened to be atheists, and have left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I'm here to try to ammend some of that negativity left over.

If an atheist is living well just to avoid going to "hell", then that person certainly isn't a very good at being an atheist. Atheists have no hell to fear, we simply don't believe it exists.

In short, I am not sure where you heard that, but it is certainly off the mark. Hope this helps!

 

[weybourne1]

Hi Weybourne1, now that you are an agnostic, you should change your icon.

Now an agnostic believes in the possibility of God, do you?

I feel the same towards the possibility of a god that I do towards the possibility that (to use a popular example) fairies live in my garden.

Does that make me an atheist or agnostic?

This is where I am looking for clarification. Do you need to have evidence in order to be an atheist? This is where I'm at: I reject every proposed god in the history of the universe including that of Abraham, and I think that 'god' is just a term we use for 'that which we do not know, yet'.

So what am I?


Am I agnostic about other gods? Nope, I believe there is only one God, in three persons. But I do not make the assertion there are no other gods, only that I believe there are no other gods.

But how do you know that you are worshipping the right god?

You say the Golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, existed before Christianity. Animals are at best tribal, treating others within their family group, differently than others outside the group. Hardly the Golden rule. Do you have other evidence to support your belief?

I do have evidence. Frans de Waal is a primatologist with many published journals linking morality with our primate ancestry, Marc D. Hauser (Harvard biologist) has a book called "Moral Minds" which does the same, and it is all linked to evolutionary by-products.

Would you suggest that morality is unique to humans?

 

[weybourne1]

Would persecuting non-believers (outside your group) be considered moral? You have to admit that you yourself treat your family (immediate family as well as other Christians) different from someone outside your family, right?

 

[Bro_Sam]

I'll begin by giving myself as an example: I live an extremely moral life out of respect for other people, and for humanity in general.

Have you ever told a lie?

I can't speak for every atheist, but I can tell you that I know a lot of them, and I can't think of any one of them who would deliberately do something to hurt someone else

Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind.

You're starting off by assuming that "A" is true. How do you not accept the possibility that if "B" contradicts "A", then maybe it's "A" that is false?

Because "A" has already been demonstrated to be true.

 

[weybourne1]

Yes, I have told a lie in the past, and?

Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc, etc, - am I morally aligned with any of them?

Does a lack of belief in a deity mean that I want to rise to the top of a political party, starve and kill my own people, murder millions of Jews, etc? i am just as disgusted at the actions of these guys as you are, so why would you assume that they represent my sense of morality? If you think so, you are incorrect.

There are bad people everywhere, regardless of being theists/atheists.

Has the Catholic Church ever been responsible for the murder of millions? Certainly not the peaceful Witch Hunts, Crusades, Inquisitions?

Again, atheism doesn't drive people to do bad things. This is one of the common misconceptions about atheists that I am here to dispel.