Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[HitchSlap]

You know God exists.

You know it doesn't.

 

[HitchSlap]

del

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In seeking God, you still haven't found him.

Perhaps because there's nothing there.

Through all your research, books, pie charts, he still eludes you.

Perhaps because there's nothing there.

And no matter how much intelligence and thinking you come up with, will continue, unless the Holy Spirit convicts you of your need for salvation.

Or perhaps there's nothing there.

You still think you are God.

No I don't.

You are looking for the answers to questions you already know the answer to.

No I'm not.

You know God exists.

No I don't.

You have always known.

No I haven't.

Why else would you title yourself "seeker"?

It was the most ambivalent title I saw.

I know he exists and acknowledge he exists.

No you don't.

Man, you're the worst mentalist I've ever come across. I mean, most mentalists get at least a few things correct, but you're batting 0...

 

[Chriliman]

I will agree that some have come across what they consider to be convincing evidence. It's usally in the form of miracles and incredulity. Real evidence is objective and demonstrable. So while you may believe you've seen enough evidence to convince you it's odd, without either of us being able to count the gumballs, I'm forced to accept it's either odd or even.

You think the gumballs are uncountable because you think God is impossible to know? I don't understand why you think that way.

I would think the gumballs are countable and therefore can know the true answer, meaning the God question would also have a knowable true answer. That's how I think of it anyway.

 

[HitchSlap]

You think the gumballs are uncountable because you think God is impossible to know? I don't understand why you think that way.

Because you can't prove the existence of god/s.

I would think the gumballs are countable

I know you'd like them to be countable, but in this analogy, you're unable to count them. Because you can't prove god/s exist.

and therefore can know the true answer, meaning the God question would also have a knowable true answer.

Sure, if we could count them. But we can't. Because you can't prove god/s exist.

That's how I think of it anyway.

I know. And it's why I accused you of faulty logic. Because you can't prove god/s exist.

You can claim you think you know if it's odd or even, but you really don't know. It's only a guess.

Because you can't prove god/s exist.

 

[Tom 1]

Matt Dillahunty has clarified the atheist position with the following gumball analogy, which I have paraphrased:

Suppose there exists a gumball machine, and we don't know how many gumballs are inside it. If you told me that there were an even number of gumballs in the machine, then I would reject your assertion. Your assertion is rejected on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and I am not claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs. The fact of the matter is that we don't know and can't know how many gumballs there are, and so any positive assertion is unreasonable.

This is why most atheists are the "lack of belief" type of atheist. Some of these atheists might positively assert that Jehovah cannot exist, but this is usually because of the fact that Jehovah is often saddled with self-contradictory properties. Make Jehovah's properties self-consistent, and most atheists will not positively assert that he does not exist.

Those atheists who do assert that no gods exist are (hopefully) operating under the null hypothesis. For example, we might say that adding racing stripes to a vehicle will not make it go faster. This is not a declaration that experiments have been performed to conclude this, but rather that, by the null hypothesis, this is the default position. So, in that sense, when atheists say that there are no gods, they are (hopefully) speaking formally under the null hypothesis.

If an atheist were to say that there are definitively, absolutely, positively no gods, then they would be unreasonable. For if they were not saying this under the umbrella of the null hypothesis, then they must be declaring it as some conclusion. But most of us can agree that there is no argument which will soundly and validly conclude that there are positively no gods.

But now that we've clarified this, we should turn our attention to the Christian and see that they are unreasonable. The vast majority of theistic arguments are only suited to advance deism, which allows for the existence of one, many, or infinitely many deities. While all of these arguments are flawed, they are at least deductive, whereas Christian-specific arguments are rarely, if ever, deductive. Proving to the satisfaction of an atheist that Jesus rose from the dead does not definitively disprove the existence of Zeus or Thor.

So if a Christian cannot argue beyond the existence of potentially many generic deities, then - just like the atheist - the Christian would be unreasonable to positively assert that Zeus, Thor, and the countless other deities definitively do not exist. Yet, Christian creed demands that this declarative statement is made.

Even if the Christian were to successfully prove the existence of a supreme deity, there is nothing that can be done to show lesser deities do not exist. And gods like Thor certainly are lesser deities, since they are not said to be omnipotent or omniscient. Their existence cannot be disproved.

This means that Christianity is fundamentally unreasonable. Christianity cannot be defended logically, but must be believed by faith. And faith is not a path to the truth: just look no further than Islam.

Until you count the number of gumballs, there is both an even and odd number of gumballs in the machine.

 

[HitchSlap]

Until you count the number of gumballs, there is both an even and odd number of gumballs in the machine.

Not quite. Law of non-contradiction. It's either odd or even, it can't be both.

 

[Tom 1]

Not quite. Law of non-contradiction. It's either odd or even, it can't be both.

My point is that it’s a weak analogy. It’s an analogy that reduces the whole question to a basic, fully understood scenario where there are no variables. No faith required - you can just say ‘I don’t know’. Reality isn’t like that, in reality there are forces at work, whether you describe them in scientific or spiritual terms, that nobody understands. It simply isn’t possible to live in reality without faith. When a person decides that they don’t believe in God they are placing their faith in layer upon layer of predetermined reality. In the analogy, either you counted the gumballs before they were put into the machine, or you believe that the state of their being either an odd or even number of gumballs has already collapsed into reality without your observing (counting) them. You have no way of knowing that is true, you simply have to put your faith in that being the case,based on past experience.

 

[HitchSlap]

My point is that it’s a weak analogy. It’s an analogy that reduces the whole question to a basic, fully understood scenario where there are no variables. No faith required -

You're free to put faith in either odd or even.

you can just say ‘I don’t know’. Reality isn’t like that, in reality there are forces at work, whether you describe them in scientific or spiritual terms, that nobody understands.

Correct, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

It simply isn’t possible to live in reality without faith.

I do it every day.

When a person decides that they don’t believe in God

I didn't choose to not believe.

they are placing their faith in layer upon layer of predetermined reality. In the analogy, either you counted the gumballs before they were put into the machine, or you believe that the state of their being either an odd or even number of gumballs has already collapsed into reality without your observing (counting) them.

The gumballs are in the jar. We have no way to count them. All we can know is that there is an even or odd number.

You have no way of knowing that is true, you simply have to put your faith in that being the case,based on past experience.

It takes zero faith to understand gumballs in the jar are either odd or even in number.

You can't prove a god/s exist. I have accepted this.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Until you count the number of gumballs, there is both an even and odd number of gumballs in the machine.

False.

 

[Tom 1]

You're free to put faith in either odd or even.

Correct, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

I do it every day.

I didn't choose to not believe.

The gumballs are in the jar. We have no way to count them. All we can know is that there is an even or odd number.

It takes zero faith to understand gumballs in the jar are either odd or even in number.

You can't prove a god/s exist. I have accepted this.

You're free to put faith in either odd or even.

Correct, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

I do it every day.

I didn't choose to not believe.

The gumballs are in the jar. We have no way to count them. All we can know is that there is an even or odd number.

It takes zero faith to understand gumballs in the jar are either odd or even in number.

You can't prove a god/s exist. I have accepted this.

I’ll put it more directly, there are 2 possible states; omniscience and faith. An omniscient person (God) observing the universe can say I know that everything will continue to operate as it has done and within certain bounds now, and now, and now and so on, that there is nothing else going on that I’m not aware of that has some bearing on the reality I perceive, and things will not just cease to function as they do and begin to function differently. A person who is not omniscient (you and me) can say ‘based on what I know and have experienced I believe [the above] to be the case’.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

False.

The poster may be mistakenly referencing Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[Tom 1]

You can't prove a god/s exist. I have accepted this.

Well yes, of course that is true. And your good self, as you are not (as far as I know) omniscient, cannot prove that you are living a life free of faith

 

[HitchSlap]

Well yes, of course that is true. And your good self, as you are not (as far as I know) omniscient, cannot prove that you are living a life free of faith

I have zero religious faith, correct.

 

[Tom 1]

I have zero religious faith, correct.

How would you describe your faith?

 

[HitchSlap]

I’ll put it more directly, there are 2 possible states; omniscience and faith. An omniscient person (God) observing the universe can say I know that everything will continue to operate as it has done and within certain bounds now, and now, and now and so on, that there is nothing else going on that I’m not aware of that has some bearing on the reality I perceive, and things will not just cease to function as they do and begin to function differently. A person who is not omniscient (you and me) can say ‘based on what I know and have experienced I believe [the above] to be the case’.

I have no idea what your point is.

 

[HitchSlap]

How would you describe your faith?

Nonexistent.

 

[Tom 1]

I have no idea what your point is.

As I understood it you started out this post saying that atheism is more reasonable because it doesn’t involve faith. You have faith that everything you know is sufficient to explain existence, your own existence and that of everything else, and to understand what will continue to happen into the future - or do you believe something else?

 

[Tom 1]

Nonexistent.

So you’re omniscient?

 

[HitchSlap]

So you’re omniscient?

No.