Atheism destroyed with a question

[poolerboy0077]

One thing I find amusing in this thread is how the religious fundamentalists attempt to taint atheists by saying they employ "faith" while they are the true champions of science and objectivity. I now see why nearly every apologist has gone through great pains to use pure reason (e.g., God proofs, argument from ignorance) or empiricism (e.g., Shroud of Turin) to prove their beliefs. It's simply embarrassing to employ the epistemology of faith, if it can even be called an epistemology at all.

 

[TillICollapse]

To any believers:

I don't understand why believers who focus so much on origin beliefs (Uncaused Cause, First Cause, Creation aspect, Intelligent Design, etc) ... do so with unbelievers specifically. What is your personal reasoning behind focussing so heavily on origins with unbelievers ?

Is this not focussing more heavily on the past, rather than the present ? How would you prove the existence of God here, in the present, as opposed to in the past ?

 

[bhsmte]

Ana,

"Well refuted."

Who would get the great honor to decide if the argument had been successfully "well refuted" or not? If there was a debate between an atheist and a Christian in front of an audience made up of 500 atheists, then we know how the "majority vote" would go. The Christian would be declared "well refuted." .. lol ..

There are lengthy debates between a Christian and some atheists at William Lane Craig's web site Reasonable Faith. I don't think William Lane Craig would be easy to "well refute" if you [or anyone else] actually had to do it in front of an audience of (say) 500 truly unbiased non-prejudiced people, who later voted on how well you [or anyone else] did.

Google "William Lane Craig Reasonable Faith" and see what you think. (I'd give you a link to a good debate between Craig and Law, but I need to get my post count up to 50 before I do that. (I plan to do that soon, this is a nice site.)

Cheers.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

Did you ever see Craig's debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame?

 

[Eudaimonist]

However, it is true that atheists argue something from nothing as source for all that exists.

Which atheists? I don't.

Basically, they hold faith in the, "anything as long as it isn't called God" principle of creation.

I don't relate to that statement at all.

And all the while those same atheists will argue on behalf of science and when asked will say they believe in Atoms.

Even though they're a theory and have never been seen.

You are a little bit behind the times. Atoms have been seen.

The First Image Ever of a Hydrogen Atom's Orbital Structure

How researchers captured the first images of atoms making and breaking molecular bonds | ExtremeTech


And even before that there was plenty of scientific evidence for atoms.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Cearbhall]

Atheism. How much intellect does it take to believe in nothing.

How much intellect does it take to jump on the bandwagon of an origin theory from 4,000 years ago? They knew nothing of the world, much less how the universe started.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If any theist can actually identify a single thing I believe based on 'faith', I will not only concede it, I will stop believing it.

 

[Sayre]

If any theist can actually identify a single thing I believe based on 'faith', I will not only concede it, I will stop believing it.

Well, I don't want this to turn into a competition, but how do you feel about basic beliefs? The existence of other minds, the uniformity of nature, that we aren't in the matrix, that we aren't a brain in a vat, etc?

 

[durangodawood]

If any theist can actually identify a single thing I believe based on 'faith', I will not only concede it, I will stop believing it.

Interesting challenge. Not a theist, but i will try to think of something. Perhaps you should run this challenge as its own thread somewhere...

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, I don't want this to turn into a competition, but how do you feel about basic beliefs? The existence of other minds, the uniformity of nature, that we aren't in the matrix, that we aren't a brain in a vat, etc?

There is evidence of other minds. There is no evidence for a matrix. (It requires no faith to disbelieve that for which there is no evidence.)

Neither of these things require faith.

 

[poolerboy0077]

If any theist can actually identify a single thing I believe based on 'faith', I will not only concede it, I will stop believing it.

They might try to get you to concede assumptions you make and call that faith so I suggest clearing up terms for them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To any believers:

I don't understand why believers who focus so much on origin beliefs (Uncaused Cause, First Cause, Creation aspect, Intelligent Design, etc) ... do so with unbelievers specifically. What is your personal reasoning behind focussing so heavily on origins with unbelievers ?

Is this not focussing more heavily on the past, rather than the present ? How would you prove the existence of God here, in the present, as opposed to in the past ?

Those tend to be the portions of the bible that clash the most with scientific evidence, and thus fundamentalists are pressed to come up with explanations.

 

[Dave Ellis]

They might try to get you to concede assumptions you make and call that faith so I suggest clearing up terms for them.

And they usually miss the point that the assumptions we make that they'll usually point out are done so for good reason, and we actually have evidence for them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I lost interest because the video is not reader friendly at all.

However, it is true that atheists argue something from nothing as source for all that exists.

No, not necessarily. Most atheists I know, myself include, argue that we are all ignorant on the question of cosmic origins.

Besides, isn't creatio ex nihilio a Christian doctrine? In which case, don't you believe that the universe was created from nothing?

Railing against God as something that is based strictly on faith, but doesn't exist, claiming it's never been proven to exist, and therefore isn't reasonable as source for all that does.

And all the while those same atheists will argue on behalf of science and when asked will say they believe in Atoms.

Even though they're a theory and have never been seen.

You really need to pick up a science textbook.

 

[JGG]

No, not necessarily. Most atheists I know, myself include, argue that we are all ignorant on the question of cosmic origins.

Besides, isn't creatio ex nihilio a Christian doctrine? In which case, don't you believe that the universe was created from nothing.

I've been wondering this myself, so I look forward to the answer. Does Christian doctrine not tell us that everything just popped out of nothingness?

 

[Sayre]

They might try to get you to concede assumptions you make and call that faith so I suggest clearing up terms for them.

You are right - because I think faith is the wrong term to use here, in context. We believe some things because they work functionally, and because to deny those beliefs, leads to disfunctional lives or global skepticism.

Most of us live functionally as if other minds exist. We live functionally as if the physical laws which govern the universe will continue to apply tomorrow. We live functionally as if induction were valid, even though we can't prove it per say.

There is evidence of other minds. There is no evidence for a matrix. (It requires no faith to disbelieve that for which there is no evidence.)

Neither of these things require faith.

But it's really just a misformed question, isn't it? At the end of the day, we all believe things that are not proven.

 

[Sayre]

I've been wondering this myself, so I look forward to the answer. Does Christian doctrine not tell us that everything just popped out of nothingness?

Yes.

 

[Sayre]

And all the while those same atheists will argue on behalf of science and when asked will say they believe in Atoms.

Even though they're a theory and have never been seen.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com....om-shadow-photograph-science-nature-smallest/

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are right - because I think faith is the wrong term to use here, in context. We believe some things because they work functionally, and because to deny those beliefs, leads to disfunctional lives or global skepticism.

Most of us live functionally as if other minds exist. We live functionally as if the physical laws which govern the universe will continue to apply tomorrow. We live functionally as if induction were valid, even though we can't prove it per say.

But it's really just a misformed question, isn't it? At the end of the day, we all believe things that are not proven.

I'd say the only assumption we make that can't be absolutely proven is that we live in the world in which we live. By that I mean we're not in some kind of matrix.

In that sense though, we do see the world around us as it is, and there is no reason to assume we are in the matrix. So we would be unjustified in believing that's the case, even if it were true.

 

[Sayre]

I'd say the only assumption we make that can't be absolutely proven is that we live in the world in which we live. By that I mean we're not in some kind of matrix.

In that sense though, we do see the world around us as it is, and there is no reason to assume we are in the matrix. So we would be unjustified in believing that's the case, even if it were true.

But that just regresses the problem back to the validity of sense data, and whether or not those perceptions aren't implanted into your brain by some evil demon. Is your memory valid or did someone implant it? Is past time a false memory?

The point is that we make functional assumptions on topics that can't be disproven because we need to in order to live our lives. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But that just regresses the problem back to the validity of sense data, and whether or not those perceptions aren't implanted into your brain by some evil demon. Is your memory valid or did someone implant it? Is past time a false memory?

The point is that we make functional assumptions on topics that can't be disproven because we need to in order to live our lives. There is nothing wrong with that.

That's my point, we can't prove that we aren't in the matrix, or a brain in a vat, or whatever..... but we also have absolutely no reason to believe that's the case. So, we have no reason to take the idea seriously, even if it were actually true. So, in a sense we're forced into that assumption that the world exists as we experience it.