The stumbling block for atheists.

[Speedwell]

Examples where there is a happy ending for a devout is not evidence for a god, unless examples where there is an unhappy ending for a devout person is evidence against a god. And please, don't raise any variations of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Most theists here do not understand the nature of evidence. The best evidence cuts both ways.

I am in agreement with the 'theology' expressed in dysert's last post and will presume on that agreement to the extent of suggesting that he regards it as unfalsifiable, as I do. That is, a happy outcome for some enterprise of a devout person is no more evidence for it than an unhappy outcome is evidence against it.

 

[Ophiolite]

We couldn't detect radio waves until a few decades ago, too. Doesn't make them supernatural.

Then how do you account for this? Magic 105.4 FM

 

[Nithavela]

Then how do you account for this? Magic 105.4 FM

Magic is heresy.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

But atheism has one fatal flaw.

Oh goody! Someone to tell us the "fatal flaw" of atheism!

It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses.

Not necessarily. Let me explain something to you somewhat briefly that gets around this silly complaint:

When I am presented with a claim such as "There is a God" then I must test that claim to see it it comports with the data. If it doesn't I simply fail to accept the claim.

Now, unless YOU feel OBLIGED to accept any claim provided without any evidence then you must NOW believe that there is an invisible micro-elephant that lives in your refrigerator and it is named Raymond. You simply must believe this. You can go check but remember it is "invisible". You say you don't see it? Well, clearly you are limiting yourself to only the data available to your senses.

Do you believe in Raymond? If not WHY NOT?

Now, how 'bout this: If you DON'T believe in Raymond you will die a horrible death and be tormented forever in a lake of unquenchable fire. You will suffer forever. Every single second will be suffering.

Seems like you should have believed in Raymond.

OR, you could be like most people and say "Well, I'll believe in Raymond the minute there's some evidence for him. And not just someone else's feelings."

Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

But only once someone has accepted that He exists. Kind of like Raymond.

Do YOU believe in Raymond? If no, why not?

 

[aachen_hexagon]

Magic is heresy.

No it's not.

 

[dysert]

So... back to the drawing board? Or would you be willing to consider that "we don't see convincing evidence" is atheists giving you their real reason for being atheists?

You've come across as a reasonable person, and there's no reason for me to think you'd be dishonest about this. The thing is, you see the world around you but don't see evidence of God. I see the world around me and it screams of the evidence of God. If it were only about evidence, how could we each come to diametrically opposed beliefs?

 

[dysert]

He also did some pretty unnatural stuff, though. Like, burning bush, cloud around tent, parting the red sea...

Those things seem pretty detectable to me.

Certainly the effects of God's works were detectable back in day. Unfortunately (?) He doesn't work that way any more. We can, however, see evidence of His work in the millions of transformed lives. The problem, though, is that atheists would not attribute the cause of the transformations to God.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

You've come across as a reasonable person, and there's no reason for me to think you'd be dishonest about this. The thing is, you see the world around you but don't see evidence of God. I see the world around me and it screams of the evidence of God. If it were only about evidence, how could we each come to diametrically opposed beliefs?

That is a really good question. I won't dare to speak on behalf of the other poster you are replying to, but I've got some ideas.

I've met people who swear up and down that homeopathic remedies helped them. I am doubtful that it was more than a placebo effect and predicated on their credulity.

I've got many Christian friends who see "beauty" as only being explicable by a belief in the ineffible like souls or God. As if it is irrational to find something beautiful and fail to believe in God or souls. I see they have simply taken the things that are "difficult" to explain and plugged them into the "God Space".

I've had many Christians tell me they "feel" God's presence in their life. I am happy for them. I remember once, while young, feeling intensely in love with a young woman. I remember thinking "Maybe this is what they mean by God is Love. Just a great feeling of wonderfulness". But that's just being happy. As for other feelings of God's presence in one's life I cannot feel their feelings but I doubt that simply feeling something is possible would make it real for me.

Like many atheists I'm glad you "experience" God. It didn't work that way for me in about 35 years as a believer. I tried. The thing I did feel quite effectively was fear and guilt. In my darkest moments the thing that got me through was not a feeling of supernatural love from On High, but rather a fear that taking my own life was an unpardonable sin. I don't think that was God speaking.

For many people they get wonderful goodness from their feeling of God and that's a good thing that should never be taken away from them. By the same token my acceptance that my 35 years of work to get God on the line and feel that was a failure, is not a "fatal flaw." In many ways atheists have worked harder for their philosophical positions than Believers ever have to do. Belief shouldn't be the "default" position but we act as if it is in this Christian nation.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

Certainly the effects of God's works were detectable back in day. Unfortunately (?) He doesn't work that way any more.

He stopped working that way once we started develop a scientific approach to viewing the earth and nature. The more we learned about the world around us the less "miracles" happened. The more we learned about our own potential to be fooled by misperception the less we saw miraculous events.

We can, however, see evidence of His work in the millions of transformed lives. The problem, though, is that atheists would not attribute the cause of the transformations to God.

I would be glad to attribute transformation in people's lives to God if they believe in God. That's only reasonable. I don't think God actually did anything but the people whose lives were transformed believed it was God so it pretty much had to be God.

There are many out there who experience a great feeling of goodness and love from their conception of God. And that's great for them. But by the same token there are many whose lives were transformed without God...or in some cases precisely when they were able to let go of God.

Yes, atheism can be freeing and transformative and help focus one's life on what really matters: making the world a better place for our fellow people. There's no "reward" in the hereafter. Just a chance to make this life better.

 

[dysert]

He stopped working that way once we started develop a scientific approach to viewing the earth and nature. The more we learned about the world around us the less "miracles" happened. The more we learned about our own potential to be fooled by misperception the less we saw miraculous events.

That may be part of it, but there's also this:

Hebrews 1:1-2 (NKJV)
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

 

[essentialsaltes]

Joining blind.

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't

I hate to break it to you, but it's not all about you.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear

Why would the pink unicorns disappear? I can't detect them with my senses. Wouldn't their magic appear, too?

 

[Freodin]

You've come across as a reasonable person, and there's no reason for me to think you'd be dishonest about this. The thing is, you see the world around you but don't see evidence of God. I see the world around me and it screams of the evidence of God. If it were only about evidence, how could we each come to diametrically opposed beliefs?

This is an interesting question.
But before I lay out my thoughts on that, allow me to address the following post you made in response to Nithavela.

Certainly the effects of God's works were detectable back in day. Unfortunately (?) He doesn't work that way any more. We can, however, see evidence of His work in the millions of transformed lives. The problem, though, is that atheists would not attribute the cause of the transformations to God.

Again I have to ask you to go back to your ideas presented in your original post. There you said:

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

So on the one hand we have these "millions of transformed lives"... and on the other hand we have all these "professing Christians", being rather untransformed.

Perhaps this is a good start for your question about the evidence: evidence has to be conclusive and unambiguous to work correctly. "Evidence" that can be interpreted equally for two opposing conclusions, isn't.

Also, and this is a rather important point that you need to understand if you want to understand atheists: usually, and in most cases, all of us interprete "evidence" not exclusively on its own - this isn't possible - but embedded in a wider context. A system of axioms, doctrines. A worldview.

But atheism doesn't do that. Atheism is not a worldview, or a system of axioms. Atheism is not the categorical position of "THERE IS NO GOD".
Atheism, on its very basical level, is simply pointing out that the theist's reasonings and "evidence" are not conclusive without first buying into the the theist's whole other system of axioms.

You said that you "chose" to believe that pink unicorn do not exist. But imagine someone who did... perhaps because he was born into a society that for ages had promoted the idea of the glorious Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH). He would interprete all the "evidence" in Her favour, wouldn't he?

An atheist - an aunicornist - would simply point out that without this existing IPU worldview, this evidence would not be conclusive. And the IPU worldview is not a given, not an unquestionable truth. There are enough competing worldviews that are on exactly the same level.

 

[Belk]

Blind post

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

Christians not living up to their ideals does not help. That said I don't think that is the reason why we become atheists. It certainly was not the reason I lost faith.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

No atheism makes no assumptions about evidence. Individual atheists might but it is not inherent to atheism itself. The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities. I doubt we all come to that lack of belief by the same path.

 

[Nithavela]

For many people they get wonderful goodness from their feeling of God and that's a good thing that should never be taken away from them.

Why?

 

[Kylie]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

Fine.

Show me something that can not be detected by the senses and is reliable, and I'll believe it.

I mean, if studies showed that sick people who were prayed for got better more often than sick people who weren't prayed for, then I'd think, "Hey, maybe there's something to this religion thing."

But that doesn't happen, does it?

 

[quatona]

You've come across as a reasonable person, and there's no reason for me to think you'd be dishonest about this. The thing is, you see the world around you but don't see evidence of God. I see the world around me and it screams of the evidence of God. If it were only about evidence, how could we each come to diametrically opposed beliefs?

Well, it seems to me that a lot of people are interested in reaching a consensus as to what constitutes "evidence" - so that a meaningful discussion can be had around this keyterm. Whilst others are trying their best to render this concept intersubjectively useless, so that they can claim "I see evidence" as though they could actually present their standards for evidence, to begin with.
If we were to follow the latter approach (and you seem to be one of its protagonists), I would like to hear an answer to: If, as you submit, it can not only be about evidence (because it´s subjective), what can it be about in order to be able for you to demonstrate the objectivity that´s required for convincing someone of your the accuracy of your beliefs?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Really? Let's see:
"They argue for an unknown, supernatural, omnipotent force that somehow, in an unknown and unknowable (you might call it "mysterious") way "caused" something else."

Unknown: in the specifics, yes. In the same way as "a creator" is unknown, no. Forming hypoteses is different from making stuff up.
Supernatural: definitly no. That is basically a given.
Omnipotent: No, not by far.
Force: no. Just a mechanism relying on existing, known principles.
Unknowable: no. Or else there would be no reason to research the topic.

So, I stand with my verdict of "no, this is not exactly the same."

Quite - an 'explanation' that raises more questions than it answers explains nothing.

You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

 

[dysert]

If we were to follow the latter approach (and you seem to be one of its protagonists), I would like to hear an answer to: If, as you submit, it can not only be about evidence (because it´s subjective), what can it be about in order to be able for you to demonstrate the objectivity that´s required for convincing someone of your the accuracy of your beliefs?

I do think that evidence is subjective. Consider how often people in a jury hear/see the same evidence yet come to opposite conclusions. There's more going on than cut-and-dried objective evidence. I think one of the things going on is the worldview of the person interpreting the evidence. As suggested in the OP, if your worldview holds that there's no reality beyond what we can detect, then all evidence will be interpreted in light of the natural world. However, if your worldview holds that there is reality beyond what we can detect, then evidence can be interpreted in light of the supernatural. This allows for the miraculous, e.g., Creation ex nihilo.

 

[Freodin]

I do think that evidence is subjective.

Not quite. The evidence is objective. The interpretation of the evidence is subjective.

Consider how often people in a jury hear/see the same evidence yet come to opposite conclusions.

Not very often, if you consider it. People in a jury quite often come to the conclusion that the presented evidence is not sufficient to convict. That is different from "opposite conclusions".

There's more going on than cut-and-dried objective evidence. I think one of the things going on is the worldview of the person interpreting the evidence. As suggested in the OP, if your worldview holds that there's no reality beyond what we can detect, then all evidence will be interpreted in light of the natural world. However, if your worldview holds that there is reality beyond what we can detect, then evidence can be interpreted in light of the supernatural. This allows for the miraculous, e.g., Creation ex nihilo.

And everything else that you can imagine. Like The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

So... have we come to the final verdict that the stumbling block of atheists is that they are atheists?

 

[dysert]

Not quite. The evidence is objective. The interpretation of the evidence is subjective.

Not very often, if you consider it. People in a jury quite often come to the conclusion that the presented evidence is not sufficient to convict. That is different from "opposite conclusions".

And everything else that you can imagine. Like The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

So... have we come to the final verdict that the stumbling block of atheists is that they are atheists?

Tautologies make things nice and tidy, don't they ;-).