Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey.

I cannot commit to swearing such an oath. No. Does this impede our conversation?

Indulge me friend?

Don't swear then. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Is it yes or no?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Don't swear then. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Is it yes or no?

Hey hey.

I cannot commit to swearing such an oath. So it will be a no. Does this impede our conversation?

Indulge me friend?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. Why would I talk to a person who already abandoned a conversation before and who won't commit to not doing the same thing again?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Ok. Why would I talk to a person who already abandoned a conversation before and who won't commit to not doing the same thing again?

Hey hey my new friend

Does a nihilist need a reason or purpose? Do you need a meaning?

Cheers.

 

[dcalling]

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.

I am curious about the term "lack of belief", it seems your point of that is "not sure" which is agnostic, but I think most atheists hold the "no" answer, and just use "lack of belief" as a shield.

Jehovah's properties are self-consistent, not sure why you think they are not.

And last, faith is very important, but faith are supported by evidence. The more research we have, the more truth come out, the more we find truth got brought out by science.

I did study Islam, and for some reason the passage that says people of book should be judged by Gospel and Torah (5:47) that greatly confirms my faith. The Gospel might contain translation errors, but the message is consistent, most Muslims will conflict with Quran by telling you Gospel/Torah is corrupt, even though Quran is done 300 years after Gospel is completed and Quran tells Christians to follow Gospel.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Hey hey friend.

Do you believe that the dog showed empathy or sympathy?

Cheerd

I'm not certain. Sympathy is feeling sorry for someone, empathy is putting oneself in another's shoes and perhaps a bit stronger. The next step is taking some sort of action to alleviate the suffering of another. Ben the dog did this but I'm not sure if every dog or human would. The priest and Levite almost certainly felt sympathy and perhaps even empathy but did nothing and continued on their way. The Samaritan took the next step.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I'm not certain. Sympathy is feeling sorry for someone, empathy is putting oneself in another's shoes and perhaps a bit stronger. The next step is taking some sort of action to alleviate the suffering of another. Ben the dog did this but I'm not sure if every dog or human would. The priest and Levite almost certainly felt sympathy and perhaps even empathy but did nothing and continued on their way. The Samaritan took the next step.

Hello my brother in Christ.

Would you say this dog perceives a problem or has an emotion - feels sympathy?

Cheers

 

[DogmaHunter]

You need to provide a test that would prove it false.

You are completely misrepresenting what I said concerning falsifiability.
What I said was that if a claim is unfalsifiable, it is impossible to evaluate its accuracy or inaccuracy.

If you know of a way to see if an unfalsifiable claim is accurate or not, please tell me.

Because it seems to me that unfalsifiable claims, are infinite in number - only really limited by your own imagination.

Mathematical axioms are not falsifiable. Of course, they are also not quite verifiable.

They also aren't claims about reality.

Falsification, at least in the Popperian sense, is an interesting concept, and it's about more than justifying claims as accurate. It plays into how we get scientific progress at all--every piece of information that you get which doesn't fit with your theories gives you additional data to work with. This makes it more about expanding the bedrock that empirical science is built upon than justifying specific claims.

It's really simple imo.... if a claim is unfalsifiable, it means that there is no way to find out that what is claimed is false, if it is actually false.

Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number and thus utterly useless.

Applying scientific tools to non-scientific problems doesn't really work, though.

If you say so.
I'm just applying what-i-would-call sensible reason to evaluate claims about reality.

When you make a claim in such a way that it is impossible to verify if it's accurate or not, then what is the point?

Nor is it necessary for the goal of scientific progress unless people are trying to pass off their theological or political theories as science.

Well sorry, but as far as I am concerned, claiming the existance of theistic "interventionist" entities, is most definatly a claim that is subject to scientific investigation. You're making claims about empirical reality.

If I tell you "x exists", where X is anything but a god but still something fantastical, I'm quite positive you'll ask me to show X to you, to demonstrate it actually exists.
And why wouldn't you....

God doesn't exist in objective reality.

You mean as opposed to "subjective reality" - which is the reality that one creates in ones mind?

That certainly seems to be the case, yes.

You said that moderate beliefs were less irrational than fundamentalist beliefs. This implies that all theistic beliefs are to some extent irrational.

Yes.

This is a strange claim to make when you neither understand nor wish to understand what religious scientists actually believe and why.

Not a single religious scientist has rational evidence for his religious beliefs.
And not a single religous scientist's beliefs have any relevancy to their scientific work.

Theism is not an irrational belief.

Believing things on "faith", instead of evidence, is always irrational.

If anything, the most powerful arguments in its favor, like the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, are too rational.

No. It is, in fact, an argument from ignorance and / or a bunch of bare assertions, depending on the version.

If you would like to call it a non-empirical belief, I would certainly agree to that.

I just call it what it is: a belief that isn't based on evidence. Hence why theists require "faith".

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

If you say so.
I'm just applying what-i-would-call sensible reason to evaluate claims about reality

Hey hey hunter.

What is the method or formula to sensible reason? For that matter what is sensible reason my dear?

Cheers

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey hey hunter.
What is the method or formula to sensible reason? For that matter what is sensible reason my dear?
Cheers

Let's put it simplisticly....


I'ld say that, in context of claims, "true" means: that which reflects objective reality.
"False" then would mean: that which does not reflect objective reality. Or flat out contradicts reality.

That's sensible. Reasonable.
So when someone makes a claim and you are to decide wheter or not to accept it, you'ld have to investigate to what extent the claim reflects actual reality.

But how can you do that, if the claim is unverifiable by definition?
It is not sensible to accept a claim as true, if you can't assess to what extent it reflects or matches reality.

The claim merely being compatible with reality, is not enough.
I can make up an inumerable amount of unverifiable/unfalsifiable claims, invented out of thin air, which would be compatible with what we know about reality.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Compassion is an evolved emotion. Elephants, chimpanzees, gorillas, dogs, and humans all show compassion. You miss the forest for the trees.

You are correct and it is true that one finds examples of compassion in the realms of humans and animals. Unfortunately, one also finds many examples of hostility and apathy toward others as well.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Hello my brother in Christ.

Would you say this dog perceives a problem or has an emotion - feels sympathy?

Cheers

Although I cannot quite experience the mind of a dog, I would say yes. Ben was perhaps the kindest and most intelligent dog I’ve ever been acquainted with.
I remember another instance. I saw him walking around with his mouth part way open. Something was obviously wrong. He let me look into his mouth and I could see that he had bitten into a ham bone and it had become lodged like a C clamp around a molar. He stood there very patiently and still while I grasped the bone with pliers and pulled it off his tooth. I think a lot of dogs would have been more panicked.

 

[HitchSlap]

How is sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others and evolved emotion?

Could you please give us an example re dogs?

Cheers

Cheers.

 

[HitchSlap]

You are correct and it is true that one finds examples of compassion in the realms of humans and animals. Unfortunately, one also finds many examples of hostility and apathy toward others as well.

Yep, humans are a complex species, capable of many emotions and actions.

 

[anonymous person]

This approach unwittingly allows every belief system

That is a strawman. Properly Basic is a term used in reference to beliefs, not belief systems.

You are not talking about beliefs, but worldviews, which you call "belief systems" in the rest of your post.

in human history to be a "rational belief to hold." The real question is, how would we determine which one is correct. And we know they all can't be right, but they could all be wrong.

Very good question HitchSlap! It is this type of interaction that I wish occurred more often where I teach and present lectures.

You first made two good points. We can all agree that these worldviews out there cannot all be true. We also agree that they could all be wrong. This raises the next question which is, "how do we decide which is true?"

This is where evidence comes into play and the honest acknowledgment that requiring absolute certainty, or "proofs" is setting the bar unreasonably high.

Not only that, but more importantly, the willingness to do what the worldview teaches you should do if you were to discover it was true, live how it says you should live, and be what it says you should be.

 

[HitchSlap]

That is a strawman. Properly Basic is a term used in reference to beliefs, not belief systems.

Beliefs make up our belief systems. The former informs the later.

You are not talking about beliefs, but worldviews, which you call "belief systems" in the rest of your post.

See above.

Very good question HitchSlap! It is this type of interaction that I wish occurred more often where I teach and present lectures.

You first made two good points. We can all agree that these worldviews out there cannot all be true. We also agree that they could all be wrong. This raises the next question which is, "how do we decide which is true?"

You're presupposing one is true.

This is where evidence comes into play and the honest acknowledgment that requiring absolute certainty, or "proofs" is setting the bar unreasonably high.

No one but theists claim they have absolute certainty.

Not only that, but more importantly, the willingness to do what the worldview teaches you should do if you were to discover it was true, live how it says you should live, and be what it says you should be.

A "worldview" is only a term used to describe our level of understanding about the nature of reality.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am curious about the term "lack of belief", it seems your point of that is "not sure" which is agnostic, but I think most atheists hold the "no" answer, and just use "lack of belief" as a shield.

This isn't difficult. What's your position on the existence of Zeus? Do you affirm that he does not exist, or do you lack a belief in him? If you affirm that he does not exist, please prove it. Failure to prove it means that you can only reasonably say that you lack a belief.

Jehovah's properties are self-consistent, not sure why you think they are not.

Let's be as charitable as possible and define omnipotence as "Having the ability to do that which is logically possible."

So God is off the hook for not being able to make a ten-sided triangle.

And we can ignore the question of, "Is God capable of sinning?"

But here's the thing. I am capable of creating (creatio ex materia, of course) an object so heavy that I cannot move it. Since I can do this, it is logically possible. Therefore, God (an omnipotent being) can do it as well. Therefore, there is an object that God cannot move. It is logically possible to move any object. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent.

And last, faith is very important, but faith are supported by evidence. The more research we have, the more truth come out, the more we find truth got brought out by science.

OK... so it sounds like you're saying that the more we know, the less room there is for faith. So faith is directly related to ignorance, right?

I did study Islam, and for some reason the passage that says people of book should be judged by Gospel and Torah (5:47) that greatly confirms my faith.

Why? Islam is the absolute worst ideology on the face of the planet. An endorsement from it truly means nothing.

The Gospel might contain translation errors, but the message is consistent,

The message is consistent? Jesus did nothing but talk in riddles and confuse everyone. To this day, no Christian on earth even attempts to follow everything he said.

most Muslims will conflict with Quran by telling you Gospel/Torah is corrupt, even though Quran is done 300 years after Gospel is completed and Quran tells Christians to follow Gospel.

Islam, while despicable, is far more self-consistent than Christianity.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey my new friend

Does a nihilist need a reason or purpose? Do you need a meaning?

Cheers.

Insulted me and ignored the question. Thanks!

 

[dcalling]

This isn't difficult. What's your position on the existence of Zeus? Do you affirm that he does not exist, or do you lack a belief in him? If you affirm that he does not exist, please prove it. Failure to prove it means that you can only reasonably say that you lack a belief.

It is easy for me, not so easy for you to answer. I affirm Zeus as a deity does not exist, since there is only one God, since I believe the Bible in faith.
Do you affirm there is no God or you are not sure?

Let's be as charitable as possible and define omnipotence as "Having the ability to do that which is logically possible."

So God is off the hook for not being able to make a ten-sided triangle.

And we can ignore the question of, "Is God capable of sinning?"

But here's the thing. I am capable of creating (creatio ex materia, of course) an object so heavy that I cannot move it. Since I can do this, it is logically possible. Therefore, God (an omnipotent being) can do it as well. Therefore, there is an object that God cannot move. It is logically possible to move any object. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent.

So what's your point?

OK... so it sounds like you're saying that the more we know, the less room there is for faith. So faith is directly related to ignorance, right?

Nope. You have faith in your atheist system too

Why? Islam is the absolute worst ideology on the face of the planet. An endorsement from it truly means nothing.

Not necessarily. Communist ideology killed more than anything else combined.

The message is consistent? Jesus did nothing but talk in riddles and confuse everyone. To this day, no Christian on earth even attempts to follow everything he said.

Jesus is very clear. Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. Clear as day light. We all attempt at this, the issues is as the Bible states, no one is good enough to ful lfill the law, so we all fail. We can only saved by God's grace.

Islam, while despicable, is far more self-consistent than Christianity.

Can you give me some talking points on the worst offenders in consistency in Christianity? And the best consistency in Islam? Would love to discuss on actual points then board generalizations.

 

[Silmarien]

Believing things on "faith", instead of evidence, is always irrational.

Which ties right back into you not understanding what religious scientists actually believe. Not everyone is a fideist--plenty of people actually do accept theism based on the evidence. The fact that you interpret the evidence differently does not make their conclusion irrational.