Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[AlexBP]

AlexBP: This thread was started to give Christians to opportunity to ask questions of an atheist--though the thread's starter seems to have scuttled off--so I do wonder why, when a woman devotes herself to helping the poorest people on earth, some atheists respond by slandering her with the most horrible lies that they can imagine. It seems a rather strange thing to do.

Davian: Even stranger is how you edit out of my post the on-topic comments directed at you.
​

There's nothing strange about that. AtheistAlan started this thread specifically so that Christians could ask questions of him about atheism and he'd have a chance to answer. He did not start it for atheists to ask questions to Christians, so posts of that nature are off-topic. (Of course, as I mentioned, AtheistAlan has disappeared and left several questions unanswered.) If you want to debate those questions that you asked me, I'd be happy to do so in a different thread.

 

[Vainslain]

Logic is how we can take one true statement and deduce the truth of another. More generally, it is the sixteen fundamental laws of logic and all they derive and imply. Reason is a nebulous term, but broadly means basing one's beliefs and decisions on what is sensible and rational and logical and justifiable.

Our chemically brains can certainly understand logic, but logic doesn't 'exist' inasmuch as it isn't a thing.

Well, that's why I said logic, reason, and empirical evidence. They are taken together.

If you'll excuse my poetic flourish: empirical evidence tells us what is, logic tells us what isn't, and reason is born from both. A hundred caveats should be appended for it to be absolute, but that's the general gist of it.

Logic tells us that 1 + 1 = 2, and that "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement, and that "1 + 1 = 3" is a false statement. Empirical evidence and logic taken together (aka, 'reason') tell us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that stormy clouds are predicators of rain, that apparently solid matter is largely empty space, etc.

Thanks and I appreciate how you explain what logic, reason and empiricism is all about. Though we cannot just put them together and establish something without defining each of them fundamentally and see if they really make sense in the non theistic worldview. This is important given that naturalism is the bedrock for all atheist argument. It should therefore fit to what atheist believe and take for granted. So ok when it comes to empiricism it should be obvious that it can't really prove anything unless it utilize something that we assume are already true like laws of logic. So the question is whether the laws of logic are better justified in your worldview. That's the question. I understand that when you say that logic isn't a 'thing' it's because it is an abstraction. It's something that is not material but existing. Yes it does exist otherwise why we even use them at all. There can be no communication without logic and rules of thought. But logic isn't material. Not only its immaterial but universal and invariant. That's why we could say that 1+1 is always 2 and that mathematics works everywhere in the universe not just in some corners of it. But in a random chance universe, of matters and motion why can't 1 +1 equals 5? Or math equation only works in our region but not in alpha centauri? After all it's a universe of constant changes and evolution. Yet laws of logic follows objective patterns all the time. It's never contingent to how the physical universe works. And under naturalism chemicals are not known to produce meanings and concepts, logic and rules of thoughts yet we take it for granted that they are merely product of the brain as if these abstraction can be measured through that physical means. But i won't take it no further for now except by saying that if atheism wants to prove reality through the lens of naturalism, then there should be consistency in explaining these things and not just assuming their very existence without a priory argument

 

[someguy14]

Atheism. What are your thoughts?

Dube doy dibe dibe, doy doy.
If you got no water, how you gonna survive.

Matisyahu - Got no Water - YouTube

 

[Eudaimonist]

But in a random chance universe, of matters and motion why can't 1 +1 equals 5?

Please explain how 1 + 1 could possibly equal 5.

It's very easy to imagine that it could, but explain how it could.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Please explain how 1 + 1 could possibly equal 5.

It's very easy to imagine that it could, but explain how it could.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is it? I can't. We can talk about it, physically write it down, but I can't imagine it. If I could, it'd be logically possible!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks and I appreciate how you explain what logic, reason and empiricism is all about. Though we cannot just put them together and establish something without defining each of them fundamentally and see if they really make sense in the non theistic worldview.

Such an endeavour is doomed to fail (qv. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems), and I disagree that such a task is even necessary. Ultimately, the atheist is 'prohibited', if you like, from invoking God in an explanation - if he does, he's no longer an atheist. But that's the only restriction, and atheists don't even restrict themselves to that: they're quite happy to invoke God, if need be, but they just don't see the need to. Anyway, let's continue.

This is important given that naturalism is the bedrock for all atheist argument.

I disagree with that assessment. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, no more, no less. Naturalism is the rejection of the supernatural - and atheism doesn't require the rejection of the supernatural. Thus, naturalism is not the bedrock of atheism, or "all atheist argument [sic]". There's nothing to say that atheists can't believe in ghosts or psychic powers, and indeed many of them do.

It should therefore fit to what atheist believe and take for granted. So ok when it comes to empiricism it should be obvious that it can't really prove anything unless it utilize something that we assume are already true like laws of logic.

Indeed.

So the question is whether the laws of logic are better justified in your worldview. That's the question.

I submit that the question is moot: the laws of logic are no more or less justified in either of our worldviews.

I understand that when you say that logic isn't a 'thing' it's because it is an abstraction. It's something that is not material but existing. Yes it does exist otherwise why we even use them at all.

Because they are statements whose truth is known, and from whom we can deduce... well, everything deducible. They don't exist, in any useful meaning of the word - rather, it is more descriptive to say they are 'true'. They don't 'exist' any more than a unicorn exists.

There can be no communication without logic and rules of thought. But logic isn't material. Not only its immaterial but universal and invariant. That's why we could say that 1+1 is always 2 and that mathematics works everywhere in the universe not just in some corners of it.

Agreed.

But in a random chance universe, of matters and motion why can't 1 +1 equals 5? Or math equation only works in our region but not in alpha centauri? After all it's a universe of constant changes and evolution.

Apples and oranges. The universe's constituent matter and energy and space and time interact in a consistent fashion, giving rise to the natural laws (thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, etc). These laws are why matter is constantly in flux - in essence, it's still trying to reach an equilibrium state, like a pendulum swinging back and forth, or heat from a hot poker distributing evenly through the air.

Logic is another fish altogether. It doesn't change because, so to speak, it's not in its nature. The whole point of the laws of logic is that they are statements known to be true: "A = A" is true. It isn't variable any more than "1 + 1 = 2" is. Indeed, it makes no sense to consider a universe where the laws of logic are variable, any more than it makes sense to think about what happened "before time", or what's north of the north pole.

Yet laws of logic follows objective patterns all the time. It's never contingent to how the physical universe works.

Indeed, hence why it's fallacious to compare the dynamic universe to the unchanging laws of logic. They aren't the same.

And under naturalism chemicals are not known to produce meanings and concepts, logic and rules of thoughts yet we take it for granted that they are merely product of the brain as if these abstraction can be measured through that physical means. But i won't take it no further for now except by saying that if atheism wants to prove reality through the lens of naturalism, then there should be consistency in explaining these things and not just assuming their very existence without a priory argument

That seems to be the crux of your error.
1) Atheism isn't a religion or organised group.
1a) Most atheists aren't bothered about proving the philosophical foundations of logic and reason - and neither are most Christians. That doesn't undermine the central premise (or lack thereof).
2) Atheism doesn't seek to "prove reality through the lens of naturalism".
2a) Atheism doesn't presume naturalism.
2b) Atheism doesn't require a proof of reality - "I don't know" is sufficient, albeit unsatisfactory, and indeed is often the most logical stance to take.
3) An a priori argument is, by definition, an argument that assumes without proof. It means 'from before' or 'from what came before', and refers to an argument that makes an assumption or a definition to cement its conclusion ahead of time. By contrast, an a posteriori argument ('from after' or 'from what comes later') makes no assumptions*, and works from observations.

That is, a prior defines itself right ("All unmarried men are bachelors", which is right by definition), and a posteriori is concluded from other, independent things ("All swans are white", based on the lack of any black swans).

*Save basic ones, like empiricism or a rejection of solipsism, which don't actually justify the conclusion, unlike in an a prior argument.

So, what do we have? It seems you're trying to demonstrate that atheism is fundamentally untenable because it cannot explain the existence of the laws of logic, or that the laws are only explainable by God. My first counter to that would be that atheism doesn't need to explain the laws of logic - atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of deities. If we don't know how to explain the laws of logic, so be it. If we want to ascribe the existence of reality to a quantum wibble in nothingness, so be it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is it? I can't. We can talk about it, physically write it down, but I can't imagine it. If I could, it'd be logically possible!

I can't either, but he can. He has suggested the possibility with a straight face, as far as one can tell such things over the Internet. I believe that he is being honest with us.

By "imagine", I probably don't quite mean what you mean. I mean a kind of pre-digested thought -- such as entertaining the "possibility" that one does not exist, or that there could be such a thing as a square circle. Once one really "digests" those thoughts, they will rightly be recognized as impossible in reality and not worthy of serious consideration.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AtheistAlan]

Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist at Thomas Jefferson University whose field of study is neurotheology, the study of the relationship between the brain and religious and spiritual beliefs and experiences. Newberg and his late partner Eugene D'Aquili mapped various parts of the brain showing activation in specific areas when people were undergoing certain religious rituals or experiences, such as a shaman being in a trance or a Buddhist entering a mystical state. Regardless of the religion, the brain function was the same. Something was happening when these people experienced their version of religious phenomena, and the scans lit up like Robert Redford's suit in The Electric Horseman.
This does not prove God exists, but it does show humans are wired or biologically predisposed to believe in something. When I interviewed him for this article, Newberg said his research demonstrates that "we are wired to have these beliefs about the world, to get at the fundamental stuff the universe is about. For many people, it includes God and for some it doesn't. Your brain is doing its best to understand the world and construct beliefs to understand it, and from an epistemological perspective there is no fundamental difference."
So, whether you make sense of the world as an atheist and don't require the God postulate to complete your understanding, or you are a theist and your feelings and experiences tell you something greater is there, biologically speaking, that big blob of gray Jell-O in our skulls is like a giant arrow pointing us in the same direction. I believe that is delicious. And religious.

This entire section does bring up interesting topics. None of it relates to your opinions on atheism being a religion. It is merely tacked on the end, as an opinion.

(Kennedy)
Childs makes the case:
Atheism is a religion.
Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)

I agree that denying something doesn't prove it is not there. Also, stating something, doesn't prove that it is there either. Facts prove those things.

A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless.

In the above statements, except for atheism, are all religions and religious organizations. They all believe in supernatural forces. I would agree that Buddhism is the least theistic of them all, and I could argue that it could be not a religion, but a philosophy. The speaker makes claims without backing anything up at this point. Let's continue.

Consider this:
• They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

This is an incorrect analogy. We (humans) can test and verify things we cannot see. Also, how can we tell if anything is true or not, unless we have real world data? The speaker recognizes that we analyze data, but what data do we have from sources that are NOT from sources in our view? Also, atheism simply means that someone doesn’t believe in the supernatural. This definition doesn’t state or care WHY one does not believe. It is not tied to variables such as world view. Atheism is not a world view.
Scientists collect and analyze scientific data. Scientist and atheism are very different things. I do recognize that there are scientists who are atheist. All scientists are not atheist, and not all atheist are scientists.

• They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Incorrect analogy, again. Atheism is not an organization. We do tend to believe in what scientist can test and verify, but this is a result of free thinking. This is not an atheistic belief. Again, I think the speaker is mixing science in general, with atheism. These are not the same things. The very definition of atheism doesn’t care why you are an atheist. Atheist also includes people who have not been introduced to the concept of supernatural beings.

Also the very definition of orthodoxy stated above states that is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith based community. We atheist are not a faith based community. We are people with a LACK of faith in the supernatural.
I also have a problem with “…EVERYTHING can be explained as a the product of… evolution”. This is not true. Evolution, as most people refer to it, myself included, is biological evolution. The theory associated with “evolution” is related only to evolution of living things. I fail to see how a theory based on the change of a living organism can explain how stars form, or how tectonic plates shift the continents.

• They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

Tergiversation also means desertion of a cause, position, or party. It doesn’t only mean desertion of faith. Businesses fire people all the time for not following company rules (said rules including a moral code, or giving information to a competitor, or applying for a job with a competitor), and they are not considered religious.

PETA can have a member eat meat, then denounce them for it. This also doesn't make them a religion.

Also, your example, if true (because I found no reference in my immediate search, but I would love a link if you have one), one known atheist saying something doesn’t make the opinion an atheistic view. It would be the same thing as saying since one Catholic priest thinks that touching little boys sexually is acceptable, that all Catholics think that touching little boys sexually is acceptable.

• They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.

Non-faith based definitions of prophets do include: “an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group”. So what you are saying is essentially true. Only that this can include a used car salesman, a sports player, or the Old Spice Guy. These qualities do not make atheism a religion any more than it makes a used car lot a church.

• They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.

The part of this point is a bit off. We do not think that Darwin was a leader by any means. We think he did some fantastic research in a subject that has since grown into the evolutionary theory. Also, by the definition of messiah, the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Nathan Bedford Forrest, is also one. This point doesn’t make the KKK a religion itself, or Greenpeace, the Republican party, Wikipedia, or atheism a religion either.

Lastly on this point, stating that religion is a product of evolution, even if true doesn’t associate evolution with atheism. Evolutionary theory and atheism are two totally different things. To clarify, evolution and atheism are not the same thing.

• They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.

The quoted words: evangelistic and gospel, are used as metaphors. Using a metaphor doesn’t prove points, however it can provide connections for those who cannot relate or are having trouble relating. Saying that a trumpet has a voice doesn’t mean it can communicate with another trumpet but it does lend to a point that trumpet notes can communicate something. This point, though interesting, doesn’t actually lend itself to its own argument. Metaphors and facts are very different.

• They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by … faith.

Incorrect assertion again. Faith is belief in something without evidence. We believe in what we can test. We have “faith” in a vehicle, only because we can verify that it works.

Evolution, again, doesn’t try to explain order on a universal scale. That is like saying trying to use an explanation on why you car won’t work, with why tornadoes form funnels. These are unrelated things.

Why do we hope you will not ask these things? We want everyone to try and find the truth in all things. I can’t explain why everything, including the human mind, works, but that is the beauty in it! The more we don’t know, the more we have yet to learn. We don’t have faith in why things work, we better say that we can’t explain the “why” yet, but we are working on it. Also, the universal sense of right and wrong, self-awareness, these are things we can test. We don’t have faith that they exist, we can prove they do. We, at least I, can’t explain how they work, yet.

Also, saying that evolution is an atheist theory is incorrect. The Catholic church states that it believes in evolution. Does that make the Catholic church atheist? No, it does not. evolution and atheism are two different things.

There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.

This last part makes quite a bold assertion without any backing. Negative proof fallacy? How did you come to that conclusion exactly? The whole argument presented here was about the parallels of atheism and religion.

bit.ly/AtheistReligion
The framework set forth by Ninian Smart, commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions

The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the “secularisation” of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.
Atheism: A religion

Using this framework, I can state that most sports teams, used car dealerships, the KKK, and Greenpeace are all religions as well.

My final point I would like to make is a simple analogy. There are many parallels that you can draw between dogs and cats. Both have tails, both have four legs, both have paws, a head, a tail, and reproductive organs. However similar they seem to be when observed, they are not the same thing. They are completely separate species. Dogs and cats are vastly different animals. Though religion (dogs) and atheism (cats) look somewhat alike sometimes, they are not the same thing.

-Atheist Alan

 

[AtheistAlan]

To the OP: Do you believe the universe came into being out of nothing?

No, I do not believe that. All I know is that we can provide extensive evidence that, at one point billions of years ago, there was a huge expansion of all matter in the known universe from a singular point. I do not know what was there before the big bang happened.

-Atheist Alan

 

[AtheistAlan]

All very true, but I don't think you're seeing my point. Someone questioned your attitude towards a category of things, namely miracles. You responded by asking about one particular, very specific sub-category of that thing, namely miraculous restoration of limbs to amputees. But that's a highly unusual way to approach the question of whether a certain category of things exists. For example, imagine someone asked whether I believe that elephants exist, and I responded by saying, "I submit: why do elephants never eat meat?" The question of the existence of meat-eating elephants proves nothing about the existence of elephants overall. It's logically possible that carniverous elephants don't exist but elephants do. Likewise it's logically possible that miraculous restoration of limbs to amputees have never happened but miracles have happened.

The amputee analogy was an attempt to state something that can't happen naturally. Give me any supernatural even then, and then prove it exists. Prove that supernatural forces are behind it.

Give me a better example, and let's try it from that standpoint.

-Atheist Alan

 

[AtheistAlan]

I suppose that logically speaking, one cannot prove with absolute certainty what any person would have done if his or her beliefs were entirely different from what they were in reality, so in that sense it's correct to say that we don't know whether Gandhi would have lead India to independence if he weren't religious. I do think, though, that if we examine the evidence, we might it very unlikely that Gandhi would have had the same political program if he was non-religious.

If we accept this sort of logic, we can also turn it around and use to it to debunk common atheist arguments. For example, we often hear that the 9/11 terrorist arguments wouldn't have happened without religion. Now it turns out that no one can demonstrate that the hijackers wouldn't have hijacked even if they were atheists.

9/11 isn't an atheist argument, but you are overall correct. It's almost like people will do things they want to do, and are responsible for their own actions.

-Atheist Alan

 

[AtheistAlan]

Indeed what you say applies to all religions, including atheism. Someone believing in one religion also lacks particular beliefs in others...just as atheism. Plus, in no religion does everyone who ascribes to the basics also believe everything (you call them traits) of the entire religion.

Do you call Christianity a religion? It is not. Atheists ascribed to their faith in what they believe more cohesively than Christians do!

If one could stand back and away from any personal need to be defensive, they could see the truth in the categorization of the tenets of any "religion" and how atheism fits as well.

Alas, though, that is what I think of atheism. It is merely another religion that man has created so he doesn't have to face the God Almighty on this earth, just like buddhism, taoism, islamism, hinduism, pantotheism etc.

So atheism is a religion, but Christianity is not?

-Atheist Alan

 

[AtheistAlan]

AlexBP: This thread was started to give Christians to opportunity to ask questions of an atheist--though the thread's starter seems to have scuttled off--so I do wonder why, when a woman devotes herself to helping the poorest people on earth, some atheists respond by slandering her with the most horrible lies that they can imagine. It seems a rather strange thing to do.

Davian: Even stranger is how you edit out of my post the on-topic comments directed at you.
​

There's nothing strange about that. AtheistAlan started this thread specifically so that Christians could ask questions of him about atheism and he'd have a chance to answer. He did not start it for atheists to ask questions to Christians, so posts of that nature are off-topic. (Of course, as I mentioned, AtheistAlan has disappeared and left several questions unanswered.) If you want to debate those questions that you asked me, I'd be happy to do so in a different thread.

To be percise, I made the thread for debates on conceptions that Christians have about atheism. If asking Christians questions can help to entertain or expound a point, then why not?

Also, sorry for my absence. Life got real busy all of a sudden. All is quite once again. I'm working on answering questions directed to me.

-Atheist Alan

 

[GadFly]

Having not read the content of this thread, what I have to say may have already been said. The OP is not very clear to me just what type of discussion he wants and it is evident that he in the past crossed the line in what the CF will allow. My guess is that the OP wants the CF members to suggest what they think is real so he can explain how he thinks reality is as an atheist. What the OP wants is to discredit Christian's belief in God. What he has done is to ask the Christian be believe something that is impossible to believe: that there is no God.

Christian philosophy has proven that there is a God! The Atheist has not proven that there is no God. Everything in the universe is evidence that there is a God. The Atheist has no evidence that there is not a God and he is not able to give one partial evidence that there is no God. The Atheist is forced to fall back on the excuses that the burden of proof is on the Christian to prove there is a God. That is nonsense!

That is like saying you can not prove water exist by pointing to single cup of water. The Atheist wants the Christian to panic trying to explain their God. He wants the believer to doubt God like he would doubt the one cup of water was not any evidence that great oceans and rivers exist.

Logic that is real logic is always reasonable. To say there is not a greater source of water in a single cup is sheer nonsense. we intuitively know this to be true. To believe that there is life without a greater source of life is 1,000,000 times more ignorant than the water analogy.

There is so much evidence that there is a God that man easily accepts there is a God by God being self evident. We Christians are not powerful enough to present the evidence of God for it is the whole universe. The evidence for God is the only things the Atheist uses to say there is no God.The Atheist attempts to use science to prove there is not a God but they find out in their search for truth that God himself created the Scientific Method! He uses logic to illustrate truth but he finds that God created logic.

All these things are self evident. If it were not so, man would have no advantage over other creatures on earth. There are no examples in the universe where other creatures have mutated to have an intelligence equal to the one God created in man.

 

[AtheistAlan]

Having not read the content of this thread,

So you admit ignorance of the thread, but you want to add your opinion based on this ignorance?

what I have to say may have already been said. The OP is not very clear to me just what type of discussion he wants and it is evident that he in the past crossed the line in what the CF will allow. My guess is that the OP wants the CF members to suggest what they think is real so he can explain how he thinks reality is as an atheist. What the OP wants is to discredit Christian's belief in God. What he has done is to ask the Christian be believe something that is impossible to believe: that there is no God.

I state quite clearly in the first post that this is a thread for debate about conceptions Christians have about atheist. I'm not out to discredit anyone.

Christian philosophy has proven that there is a God!

Please, what are your sources? Where are your citations? Explain it to me, please.

The Atheist has not proven that there is no God. Everything in the universe is evidence that there is a God. The Atheist has no evidence that there is not a God and he is not able to give one partial evidence that there is no God. The Atheist is forced to fall back on the excuses that the burden of proof is on the Christian to prove there is a God. That is nonsense!

Unicorns and dragons exist. The burden of proof lies with you to disprove their existence. Otherwise you have to believe they exist!

Is that what you are saying? For me to believe in your God, you have to prove to me, that he exist.

That is like saying you can not prove water exist by pointing to single cup of water.

I can prove water exists by pointing to a cup of water. How could I disprove water, by pointing at it?

The Atheist wants the Christian to panic trying to explain their God. He wants the believer to doubt God like he would doubt the one cup of water was not any evidence that great oceans and rivers exist.

I wish nobody to panic. I am also not out to change anyone's minds about their faith.

Logic that is real logic is always reasonable. To say there is not a greater source of water in a single cup is sheer nonsense. we intuitively know this to be true. To believe that there is life without a greater source of life is 1,000,000 times more ignorant than the water analogy.

Your analogy is nonsense. But yes, real logic is always reasonable.

There is so much evidence that there is a God that man easily accepts there is a God by God being self evident. We Christians are not powerful enough to present the evidence of God for it is the whole universe. The evidence for God is the only things the Atheist uses to say there is no God.The Atheist attempts to use science to prove there is not a God but they find out in their search for truth that God himself created the Scientific Method! He uses logic to illustrate truth but he finds that God created logic.

You make an incorrect assumption. Atheist don't use science to disprove God. We have a lack of evidence for the existence of a God.

And what, exactly, is all of this evidence? If I am ignorant, please explain it to me. I'm always looking for more information.

All these things are self evident. If it were not so, man would have no advantage over other creatures on earth. There are no examples in the universe where other creatures have mutated to have an intelligence equal to the one God created in man.

We have an advantage because we have the ability to learn. We can use tools, and our brains to overcome beast.

Secondly WE evolved to have our intelligence, for example. Also, consider the sample size: the universe. We don't know all that is out there. So how can you say, that in the whole universe, we are the only ones with our degree of intelligence?

To sum up your post, it seems like you have MANY misconceptions about atheism. I can only ask that you read this thread, make informed decisions, and reply. I would very much like to have a respectful conversation with you about your thoughts on atheism.

-Atheist Alan

 

[Gadarene]

Ah, but without God you have basis for believing anything! By specious logic, you can deduce the logical necessity for God's existence as the core foundation of logic!

Wait, why do I feel dizzy...

Indeed, claiming that God inspires logic as an apologetic is a bit of an epic fail given that apologetics are attempts at logically defending the god-concept....

 

[Davian]

Now you are the one making claims.

I'm not too smart, but I see when someone is attempting to box me in to defending claims that I did not make. I would have to say that what you are attempting is intellectually dishonest.

I scanned through those books on Google Books, and what I said - that MT had a predilection for suffering - is not contradicted there. To quote from Spink's book, p 143:

"Fundamental to any understanding of the link for Sick and Suffering Co-Workers was an appreciation of the fact that it did not mean a desperate craving after healing but rather the constructive use of suffering. To Mother Teresa suffering was an essential part of the Christian way."

Mother Teresa: An Authorized Biography - Kathryn Spink - Google Books

As for the rest of your comments, you are tilting at windmills. I never disputed the missionary work that she did.

I ask again, please provide your own opinion of MT's stance on pain medication and modern medicine, with citations.

You made very specific claims about Mother Teresa.

I did make *a* claim, which I substantiated above, using a book *you* offered as reference. I see that you edited that out of your response. Do you concede that point or not?

In post #104, you claimed that Mother Teresa denied painkillers to patients who needed them, which would be a serious crime if it were true.

You are mistaken. I linked to a web page and quoted some text from it, as indicated from the quote marks and italicization of the text. That was not a claim.

Interestingly, you will find that the story on that linked web page is substantiated on page 144 of Spink's book.

You also claimed that certain words were direct quotes from Mother Teresa. I'm still waiting for you to provide reliable evidence to back up these claims. (I assume we both agree that many thing posted on the internet are false, and thus a personal webpage with no references does not constitute reliable evidence.) Do you have reliable evidence to back up your claim that Mother Teresa did what you said that she did and said what you said that she said?

Is not using the books you offered as reference acceptable?

She is quoted on page 144:
Mother Teresa: An Authorized Biography - Kathryn Spink - Google Books

If you are claiming that what I am saying and what is found in Spink's book are falsehoods, perhaps you could shed light on this subject with your own opinion of MT's stance on pain medication and modern medicine. With citations, of course.

 

[Davian]

AlexBP: This thread was started to give Christians to opportunity to ask questions of an atheist--though the thread's starter seems to have scuttled off--so I do wonder why, when a woman devotes herself to helping the poorest people on earth, some atheists respond by slandering her with the most horrible lies that they can imagine. It seems a rather strange thing to do.

Davian: Even stranger is how you edit out of my post the on-topic comments directed at you.
​

There's nothing strange about that. AtheistAlan started this thread specifically so that Christians could ask questions of him about atheism and he'd have a chance to answer. He did not start it for atheists to ask questions to Christians, so posts of that nature are off-topic. (Of course, as I mentioned, AtheistAlan has disappeared and left several questions unanswered.) If you want to debate those questions that you asked me, I'd be happy to do so in a different thread.

So the MT stuff was on topic, but the theistic questions were not? Looks more like evasion to me. You missed the boat on that one.

And to AtheistAlan - my apologies for the minor derail. Welcome to CF! Oh, and that was a nice, clean answer on post #169.

 

[AtheistAlan]

And to AtheistAlan - my apologies for the minor derail. Welcome to CF! Oh, and that was a nice, clean answer on post #169.

Why thank you!

-Atheist Alan

 

[Vainslain]

Such an endeavour is doomed to fail (qv. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems), and I disagree that such a task is even necessary. Ultimately, the atheist is 'prohibited', if you like, from invoking God in an explanation - if he does, he's no longer an atheist. But that's the only restriction, and atheists don't even restrict themselves to that: they're quite happy to invoke God, if need be, but they just don't see the need to. Anyway, let's continue.

I disagree with that assessment. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, no more, no less. Naturalism is the rejection of the supernatural - and atheism doesn't require the rejection of the supernatural. Thus, naturalism is not the bedrock of atheism, or "all atheist argument [sic]". There's nothing to say that atheists can't believe in ghosts or psychic powers, and indeed many of them do.

Indeed.

I submit that the question is moot: the laws of logic are no more or less justified in either of our worldviews.

Because they are statements whose truth is known, and from whom we can deduce... well, everything deducible. They don't exist, in any useful meaning of the word - rather, it is more descriptive to say they are 'true'. They don't 'exist' any more than a unicorn exists.

Agreed.

Apples and oranges. The universe's constituent matter and energy and space and time interact in a consistent fashion, giving rise to the natural laws (thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, etc). These laws are why matter is constantly in flux - in essence, it's still trying to reach an equilibrium state, like a pendulum swinging back and forth, or heat from a hot poker distributing evenly through the air.

Logic is another fish altogether. It doesn't change because, so to speak, it's not in its nature. The whole point of the laws of logic is that they are statements known to be true: "A = A" is true. It isn't variable any more than "1 + 1 = 2" is. Indeed, it makes no sense to consider a universe where the laws of logic are variable, any more than it makes sense to think about what happened "before time", or what's north of the north pole.

Indeed, hence why it's fallacious to compare the dynamic universe to the unchanging laws of logic. They aren't the same.

That seems to be the crux of your error.
1) Atheism isn't a religion or organised group.
1a) Most atheists aren't bothered about proving the philosophical foundations of logic and reason - and neither are most Christians. That doesn't undermine the central premise (or lack thereof).
2) Atheism doesn't seek to "prove reality through the lens of naturalism".
2a) Atheism doesn't presume naturalism.
2b) Atheism doesn't require a proof of reality - "I don't know" is sufficient, albeit unsatisfactory, and indeed is often the most logical stance to take.
3) An a priori argument is, by definition, an argument that assumes without proof. It means 'from before' or 'from what came before', and refers to an argument that makes an assumption or a definition to cement its conclusion ahead of time. By contrast, an a posteriori argument ('from after' or 'from what comes later') makes no assumptions*, and works from observations.

That is, a prior defines itself right ("All unmarried men are bachelors", which is right by definition), and a posteriori is concluded from other, independent things ("All swans are white", based on the lack of any black swans).

*Save basic ones, like empiricism or a rejection of solipsism, which don't actually justify the conclusion, unlike in an a prior argument.

So, what do we have? It seems you're trying to demonstrate that atheism is fundamentally untenable because it cannot explain the existence of the laws of logic, or that the laws are only explainable by God. My first counter to that would be that atheism doesn't need to explain the laws of logic - atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of deities. If we don't know how to explain the laws of logic, so be it. If we want to ascribe the existence of reality to a quantum wibble in nothingness, so be it.

I would love to highlights those points that I like to answer but still figuring out how...so bear with me. I'll just lump the ones that seem related and answer them accordingly. You mentioned atheists don't restrict themselves to what they can invoke. Of course you are the same one that says atheism isn't a religion and not an organized group right? Yet you are here representing what "atheists" collectively do think, telling me what is and what is not in atheism? Which is which really? There's many self proclaim atheist who never articulate their position like you do, those average atheists who normally invoke science and naturalism against people of faith. So do they have to sign up to your school of thought to be certified? You have a big job telling these illegitimates that they missing a lot. I'm sure many of them would be surprise to find out that there's a statement of beliefs atheist made for themselves. For what I can see you definitely has a belief system structured like any organization. A belief system that seemingly teach liberty of ideas within. That's quite a worldview.

"I submit that the question is moot: the laws of logic are no more or less justified in either of our worldviews."

This statement is either true or false. But you have to prove why it is so. It's a non answer


"Because they are statements whose truth is known, and from whom we can deduce... well, everything deducible. They don't exist, in any useful meaning of the word - rather, it is more descriptive to say they are 'true'. They don't 'exist' any more than a unicorn exists."

Of course they do exist. Logical absolutes exist whether somebody believes them or not. Unless of course if you think 'existence' is under empirical means again then you have to define what the word "existence" really is


I'm not trying to compare the universe with the laws of logic. I'm pointing out that in a chance universe who says we can't be contradictory or that 1 plus 1 should equal 5? If you believe in the objective nature of laws of logic and the same time don't think it has an ultimate source why not violate it?


"So, what do we have? It seems you're trying to demonstrate that atheism is fundamentally untenable because it cannot explain the existence of the laws of logic, or that the laws are only explainable by God. My first counter to that would be that atheism doesn't need to explain the laws of logic - atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of deities. If we don't know how to explain the laws of logic, so be it. If we want to ascribe the existence of reality to a quantum wibble in nothingness, so be it."


Yes atheism is untenable. It's obviously is. If you don't know how to explain the laws of logic then don't use it to disprove anything. Why use something that you can't explain and don't know? If you don't need to explain the very foundation of what you are trying to prove then you have no case at all let alone engage in logical discourse. This version of atheism looks like its built upon dodging question and explaining the unexplainable. Theists should start thinking then whether to take atheism seriously. Afterall the information coming off from an atheists may be nothing more like chemicals shaking like coke in a can. it doesnt mean a thing. Although it might be called truth by themselves whatever that is