Atheists, What's the point?

[Archaeopteryx]

I would not use the word require. I would use the phrase "is best explained by". I think that is more accurate and appropriate. The universe and its complex design, the existence of objective moral values and duties, and the existence of human beings who are moral creatures is not best explained by the proposition: "Moon Fairies are responsible for reality as we know it." This does not mean moon fairies do not exist, they very well could. But with regards to explaining the existence of the above, I would say that they are not the best explanation and therefore, I would not adhere to the proposition: "Moon fairies are responsible for the events that go on in the earth."

I don't see how the moon fairies explanation is any different to your theistic explanation. More to the point, I see no reason to preference your particular theistic explanation above any other similarly supernatural explanation. They are each just as hollow.

Strictly speaking in scientific and philosophical terms: We have in fact several good arguments for the existence of God.

1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe.
3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
5. The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality

These arguments are hardly compelling. Even theists don't find them convincing.

The idea of eternal life after a mortal life is comforting to me. It seems to me however, that you are insinuating that because some religious people believe this, that it means that their religious beliefs are necessarily false. If this is your position, or rather your complaint, it simply does not follow that therefore their beliefs are false. Jesus Christ is either God incarnate or He is not. And this would be an objective fact or truth, regardless of how one or why one believes He is or is not. Indeed, there may be many Christians who believe in God and find assurance and comfort in a heaven after death. This belief however, has no bearing on whether or not God exists. In like fashion, just because many atheists have confessed they hate the idea of being morally accountable to someone other than themselves, this does not mean that God does not exist. God's existence or non-existence simply is not contingent upon our belief in His existence or non-existence.

The idea of nothing after death is a comfort to many, as is evidenced by the two quotes from the two men above. As Dostoyevksy once alluded to: "If there is no immortality, then all things are permissible." Many find a comfort in believing that they can fulfill all of their lustful passions and selfish desires without having to ultimately be accountable to one who will judge them for their deeds. In fact, it is my position that this is actually the main reason why people do not believe in God, they find the idea of being morally accountable to repugnant. They desire to be autonomous. In fact, if you take a careful look at many posts here by atheists, some of the them admit outright that even if they were given what they deemed sufficient evidence that Christianity was true, they still would refuse to worship and honor God and commit their lives to Christ. This is illustrative of a moral and volitional resistance, not an intellectual one. At the end of the day, if there is no God for some people, then that is liberating to them for they can live their lives however they desire to without feeling accountable or morally guilty before a Holy, all knowing God.

How many times must that myth be dispelled?

To say that atheists do not try to infringe on the rights of theists is obviously false. I can list two men, Stalin and Mao Zedong among others, who were atheistic leaders of their respective areas of influence who made it one of their chief aims to eradicate religion from their countries and to in the process, infringe upon the rights of theists residing in those places.

I think it was Sam Harris who pointed out that these so-called "atheist regimes" were remarkable in how closely they resembled religion.

It is true that atrocities have been done in the name of atheism as well as theism.

How does one commit atrocities in the name of no god? It simply doesn't make sense. On the other hand, we have theists who admit that would commit atrocities in loving obedience to their deity.

Read more: Is God Imaginary? | Reasonable Faith

Have they hired you to promote their website?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Strictly speaking in scientific and philosophical terms: We have in fact several good arguments for the existence of God.

1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe.
3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
5. The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality

Assuming you've read the refutations of these arguments, do you still consider them "good"?

 

[Elioenai26]

Assuming you've read the refutations of these arguments, do you still consider them "good"?

There are no refutations to these arguments. I have read various objections and complaints about the arguments from atheists, but there are no sound refutations of any of the arguments I have listed. This list is also not exhaustive.

The five arguments are the main arguments that have been used personally by Dr. William Lane Craig in his debates for the past 20 years and no one when debating Dr. Craig, offers refutations to these arguments. What they offer, more times than not, are appeals to emotion, complaints about evil done in the name of religion etc. etc. Some muster up some undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to some of the premises of these arguments, but they have each been responded to with their appropriate answer and thus, none of the arguments have been refuted, neither in the arena of debate, or in the academic arena.

Thus, when presented together, they constitute a strong case for theism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are no refutations to these arguments. I have read various objections and complaints about the arguments from atheists, but there are no sound refutations of any of the arguments I have listed. This list is also not exhaustive.

The five arguments are the main arguments that have been used personally by Dr. William Lane Craig in his debates for the past 20 years and no one when debating Dr. Craig, offers refutations to these arguments. What they offer, more times than not, are appeals to emotion, complaints about evil done in the name of religion etc. etc. Some muster up some undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to some of the premises of these arguments, but they have each been responded to with their appropriate answer and thus, none of the arguments have been refuted, neither in the arena of debate, or in the academic arena.

Thus, when presented together, they constitute a strong case for theism.

Craig has been using the same arguments for the past 20 years, but not because they represent a strong case for theism. He uses them because they are all that he has, supplemented by appeals to incredulity and emotion.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't see how the moon fairies explanation is any different to your theistic explanation.

Ask Anthony Flew if positing moon fairies is the same as a theistic explanation for the existence of the universe. Do not take my word for it. Ask the cosmologists, and astrophysicists if moon fairies are considered in the live pool of options for the explanatory ultimate for the existence of the universe and life as we know it. Ask Stephen Hawking, ask Robert Jastrow, Barrow and Tipler, ask Dr. Craig, and Dr. Plantinga. Ask those who are educated in these matters if moon fairies are accepted as a live option for the explanation of reality. I assure you, they will tell you that any scientist who posits moon fairies as an explanation for the universe is simply not doing serious metaphysics.

More to the point, I see no reason to preference your particular theistic explanation above any other similarly supernatural explanation. They are each just as hollow.

No doubt. If you did, you would be a theist.

These arguments are hardly compelling.

Compelling for what? To coerce you into believing God exists? The evidence is not going to grab you by the collar and force you to believe anything. For those who are willing to follow the evidence to where it leads, they will have their answers. For those who are not, excuses will always be in abundance. Ask Aldous Huxley, ask Thomas Nagel, whose quotes you conveniently left out.

Even theists don't find them convincing.

This is clearly false. I find them convincing. I am a theist. So even if I were the only one to find them convincing, your above statement would still be false.

How many times must that myth be dispelled?

Where is the quote from Huxley and Nagel? Why leave them out? They will tell you that what I wrote is not a myth.

I think it was Sam Harris who pointed out that these so-called "atheist regimes" were remarkable in how closely they resembled religion.

You did not know atheists could be religious?

How does one commit atrocities in the name of no god? It simply doesn't make sense. On the other hand, we have theists who admit that would commit atrocities in loving obedience to their deity.

Let me rephrase. Atheists and theists have comitted atrocities in the name of their respective ideologies stemming from their belief, unbelief in God.

Have they hired you to promote their website?

They do not need to hire me. Dr. Craig is my brother.

 

[Elioenai26]

Craig has been using the same arguments for the past 20 years, but not because they represent a strong case for theism.

Of course this is your view, you are an atheist.

He uses them because they are all that he has,

He uses them because they, when combined, provide a strong case for theism. So strong in fact, that they have never been refuted in the 20 years he has been debating atheists on the subjects pertaining to the arguments.

supplemented by appeals to incredulity and emotion.

For example.....???

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ask Anthony Flew if positing moon fairies is the same as a theistic explanation for the existence of the universe. Do not take my word for it. Ask the cosmologists, and astrophysicists if moon fairies are considered in the live pool of options for the explanatory ultimate for the existence of the universe and life as we know it. Ask Stephen Hawking, ask Robert Jastrow, Barrow and Tipler, ask Dr. Craig, and Dr. Plantinga. Ask those who are educated in these matters if moon fairies are accepted as a live option for the explanation of reality. I assure you, they will tell you that any scientist who posits moon fairies as an explanation for the universe is simply not doing serious metaphysics.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

Whether or not anyone is seriously positing moon fairies as their preferred explanation is beside the point.

Compelling for what? To coerce you into believing God exists? The evidence is not going to grab you by the collar and force you to believe anything. For those who are willing to follow the evidence to where it leads, they will have their answers. For those who are not, excuses will always be in abundance. Ask Aldous Huxley, ask Thomas Nagel, whose quotes you conveniently left out.

Speaking of excuses, what is your excuse for evading my questions in the previous thread?

This is clearly false. I find them convincing. I am a theist. So even if I were the only one to find them convincing, your above statement would still be false.

I never said "all theists".

Where is the quote from Huxley and Nagel? Why leave them out? They will tell you that what I wrote is not a myth.

Because Huxley and Nagel speak for all atheists?

You did not know atheists could be religious?

Way to miss the point.

Let me rephrase. Atheists and theists have comitted atrocities in the name of their respective ideologies stemming from their belief, unbelief in God.

That is still nonsensical. How does one commit atrocities in the name of no god?

They do not need to hire me. Dr. Craig is my brother.

So you feel that it okay to copy-and-paste his entire website on here? If I wanted to read something from Reasonable Faith, I wouldn't be on CF, I'd be on Reasonable Faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course this is your view, you are an atheist.



He uses them because they, when combined, provide a strong case for theism. So strong in fact, that they have never been refuted in the 20 years he has been debating atheists on the subjects pertaining to the arguments.

Of course this is your view, you are Craig's number one fan boy.

 

[Elioenai26]

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

Scientists and metaphysicians do not posit moon fairies as a possible explanatory ultimate when discussing the origins of the universe. This is not an appeal to authority, this is a fact.

Whether or not anyone is seriously positing moon fairies as their preferred explanation is beside the point.

It is actually the whole point. If the experts do not see moon fairies as a plausible explanatory ultimate, why should you? Do you know better than they? No, you do not.

Speaking of excuses, what is your excuse for evading my questions in the previous thread?

I respond to what I can, when I can. You are not the only person here I engage in discussion with. I must be as fair to all as I possibly can.

Because Huxley and Nagel speak for all atheists?

Because they represent what a good many atheists here have already stated. And that is that even if there was evidence that God existed, they would not worship Him or reverence Him.

That is still nonsensical. How does one commit atrocities in the name of no god?

I did not say that people commit atrocities in the name of no god, so why are you saying that I said that?

So you feel that it okay to copy-and-paste his entire website on here? If I wanted to read something from Reasonable Faith, I wouldn't be on CF, I'd be on Reasonable Faith.

It is not possible for me to copy and paste his entire website here. Maybe you should be there and not here.

 

[Elioenai26]

Of course this is your view, you are Craig's number one fan boy.

I am a fan of his. I do not know all of his fans, so I cannot say if I am number one or not.

 

[Tiberius]

He uses them because they, when combined, provide a strong case for theism. So strong in fact, that they have never been refuted in the 20 years he has been debating atheists on the subjects pertaining to the arguments.

Strong? They aren't strong. Each of those arguments falls aparts at the slightest touch. Don't think that using many weak arguments makes a single strong argument. But that logic, a house of cards is tornado proof.

For example.....???

Do you know what those fallacies are?

 

[Tiberius]

Scientists and metaphysicians do not posit moon fairies as a possible explanatory ultimate when discussing the origins of the universe. This is not an appeal to authority, this is a fact.

Nor do they posit gods.

It is actually the whole point. If the experts do not see moon fairies as a plausible explanatory ultimate, why should you? Do you know better than they? No, you do not.

They don't see gods as plausible explanations either.

Because they represent what a good many atheists here have already stated. And that is that even if there was evidence that God existed, they would not worship Him or reverence Him.

It is a mistake to think that just because atheists agree with them on some things that they therefore agree with them on all things.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There are no refutations to these arguments. I have read various objections and complaints about the arguments from atheists, but there are no sound refutations of any of the arguments I have listed. This list is also not exhaustive.

The five arguments are the main arguments that have been used personally by Dr. William Lane Craig in his debates for the past 20 years and no one when debating Dr. Craig, offers refutations to these arguments. What they offer, more times than not, are appeals to emotion, complaints about evil done in the name of religion etc. etc. Some muster up some undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to some of the premises of these arguments, but they have each been responded to with their appropriate answer and thus, none of the arguments have been refuted, neither in the arena of debate, or in the academic arena.

Thus, when presented together, they constitute a strong case for theism.

Every single one of the arguments you listed have critical flaws to them.

Using 5 logically flawed arguments doesn't equal a strong case for anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are no refutations to these arguments. I have read various objections and complaints about the arguments from atheists, but there are no sound refutations of any of the arguments I have listed. This list is also not exhaustive.

The five arguments are the main arguments that have been used personally by Dr. William Lane Craig in his debates for the past 20 years and no one when debating Dr. Craig, offers refutations to these arguments. What they offer, more times than not, are appeals to emotion, complaints about evil done in the name of religion etc. etc. Some muster up some undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to some of the premises of these arguments, but they have each been responded to with their appropriate answer and thus, none of the arguments have been refuted, neither in the arena of debate, or in the academic arena.

Thus, when presented together, they constitute a strong case for theism.

I honestly thought no one still appealed to either of the cosmological arguments anymore, simply because even if the premises behind these arguments were sound (and they aren't) the proponent is still unable to show that the "first cause" is god. It's a bare assertion. Likewise, I had thought the ontological argument abandoned because we cannot "define" something into existence.

As for the moral and teleological arguments...you've presented them on this forum and seen them soundly refuted....I'm not sure who you're trying to convince here. I understand you have a lot of admiration for Dr. Craig, but if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit he's been debated to pieces. If you honestly haven't seen it happen I'll be happy to pull some videos/transcripts for you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Scientists and metaphysicians do not posit moon fairies as a possible explanatory ultimate when discussing the origins of the universe. This is not an appeal to authority, this is a fact.

It is actually the whole point. If the experts do not see moon fairies as a plausible explanatory ultimate, why should you? Do you know better than they? No, you do not.

This is still an appeal to authority. Whether or not "the experts" seriously consider moon fairies as an explanation is not germane to the point I am making, which is best captured by Nietzsche: "Mystical explanations are considered deep, the truth is they are not even hollow."

I respond to what I can, when I can. You are not the only person here I engage in discussion with. I must be as fair to all as I possibly can.

The same questions have been asked by multiple individuals.

Because they represent what a good many atheists here have already stated. And that is that even if there was evidence that God existed, they would not worship Him or reverence Him.

I think you are missing the point of why they might abstain from worship. Perhaps if they were theists they would be Deists. They might believe a perfect God lacks nothing and therefore doesn't require worship. Or perhaps they think the claim that God is deserving of worship requires justification.

I did not say that people commit atrocities in the name of no god, so why are you saying that I said that?

Because that is what is implied, hence my question: How does one commit atrocities in the name of no god?

It is not possible for me to copy and paste his entire website here.

Doesn't stop you from trying.

Maybe you should be there and not here.

Thanks to your frequent copy-and-pasting, I practically am.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think you are missing the point of why they might abstain from worship. Perhaps if they were theists they would be Deists. They might believe a perfect God lacks nothing and therefore doesn't require worship. Or perhaps they think the claim that God is deserving of worship requires justification.

IIRC, I said that I wouldn't necessarily worship God, not that I absolutely wouldn't worship God. It would depend on God's character. If he is an Evil God, I would not worship. If he is a Good God, I might, but I would still want to know why I should worship such a being instead of viewing him more as a friend or a mentor, like a Gandalf figure.

Edited to add:

This is what I had written in a different thread:

Not necessarily.

I would believe that the Christian God exists, but I would not necessarily become a Christian, if that means a follower of Christ. It depends on just how much my worldview changes. It's possible that I would become an apatheist (not caring if a God exists and sticking to my own principles) or a maltheist (viewing God as evil and not worthy of worship).

I hope that what I had newly written at the beginning of this post clarifies my original statement, in case I was too brief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

I tend to use the dictionary definition of atheism. It seems to me that atheists cannot even agree on what atheism is, so I no longer ask them.

Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, so using one that does not match current usage will undermine your arguments. Or, WLC's arguments, in your case.

 

[Davian]

<snip>
You did not know atheists could be religious?

Sure. The lack of belief in deities is all it takes to be an atheist.

Let me rephrase. Atheists and theists have comitted atrocities in the name of their respective ideologies stemming from their belief, unbelief in God.

Your dislike for atheism causes you to paint with a wide brush, that even your fellow theists get paint on them. Still, you cannot show that people are motivated by what they don't believe in.

They do not need to hire me. Dr. Craig is my brother.

Do you ever invite him here to see how how your cut-and-pasting is received?

Seeing that you have admitted having an interest in his web site, your repeated posting of links to his web site would constitute spamming, and would be in violation of the site rules. If you care.

 

[Elioenai26]

Strong? They aren't strong. Each of those arguments falls aparts at the slightest touch. Don't think that using many weak arguments makes a single strong argument. But that logic, a house of cards is tornado proof.

I consider an argument strong when the objector to the argument in order to avoid the conclusion which follows from its premises, is forced to admit that the universe brought itself into existence.

For an intelligent person to be reduced to holding such an irrational position in order to avoid the conclusion of a philosophical argument, I would call that a strong argument. You would not of course because you, at all costs, cannot accept the theistic implications of the conclusion of the argument, namely that the universe has a cause for its existence. So you dismiss the argument as weak, when atheistic professors, and scholars, astrophysicists and cosmologists do not even dare to hold such a position. Do you want me to believe you know more than they?

I am talking about the Kalam Cosmological argument by the way, which is one of many arguments.

 

[Elioenai26]

Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, so using one that does not match current usage will undermine your arguments. Or, WLC's arguments, in your case.

Current usage of the word atheism varies from atheist to atheist. When atheists redefine what atheism means and use it to shirk any burden for defending their godless views, then they undermine their own position.

Therefore, I will use the dictionary definition when writing in general, but when specifically talking to an individual, I will ask them what they mean by "atheist".