[Note: This is a modified version of a post from September 2004.]
Although I try to respect the opinions of those who disagree with my beliefs and arguments, I do have one prejudice that limits my ability to take my critics seriously. I have an admittedly low regard for the position held by some atheists that the assertion "God does not exist" requires no justification. Though this philosophical relic was once in vogue, it appears that some people didn't get the memo that the claim has been deemed invalid.
What is even more maddening is that this idea is often accompanied by a claim that a disbelief in God is on par with a refusal to recognize the ontological status of the Tooth Fairy or some other presumptively mythical being.
A prime example is the comment left by BCB on a previous post on this blog:
That's right, I don't buy into the notion of God or the fairy or any of the crap...I became too sophisticated for when I was about five.
And a few comments later Rob Ryan added:
No faith is required to not believe something of which there is no evidence. It takes no faith to disbelieve in the tooth fairy, Joe. Your Bible god is similarly incredible to millions of Americans. Get over it. You are the one with the worldview that has a positive statement to defend, one it has never defended anywhere near adequately to assuage my doubts.
Since numerous atheists--including many of the so-called New Atheists--make a similar claim, I think it's important to clear us some of the confusion on this point. But before we begin, we must first define the meaning of the term atheist.
I recommend that we follow the example of Theodore M. Drange and use the term atheist to refer to a person who would answer false or probably false to the proposition that "God exists." We could also say that an atheist is one who believes the set that contains "Entities defined as God(s) which exist" is an empty set. They claim that there are no members of that particular set. While it may not be all-encompassing, I believe it is applicable to my critics who refer to themselves as atheists.
Drange also presents four types of atheists that I think would be useful for this discussion:
Disproof atheists, who claim that there is good objective evidence for God's nonexistence, and if there is any good objective evidence at all for God's existence, it is significantly outweighed by the evidence for God's nonexistence.
Methodological atheists, who claim that there is no good objective evidence either for God's existence or for God's nonexistence, but there is a certain methodological principle which places the burden of proof upon theists, and since they fail to meet that principle, the only rational position to take is that of atheism. (Some methodological atheists formulate the principle by saying that the burden of proof is always on any person making an existence claim, since, from a logical point of view, existence claims are only capable of proof, not disproof. No one has ever proven the nonexistence of Santa Claus, or elves, or unicorns, or anything else, simply because the very logic of an unrestricted existential proposition prohibits its disproof. It is impossible to go all over the universe and show that, for example, there are no elves anywhere. For this reason, rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of all those things which have never been shown to exist. That is why we all regard it rational to deny the existence of Santa Claus, elves, unicorns, etc. And since God is in that same category, having never been shown to exist, it follows that rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of God.)
Mystical atheists, who claim that there is no rational support for theism or atheism, but who believe in God's nonexistence on the basis of a private, subjective, mystical experience.
Faith atheists, who accept atheism, not on the basis of any grounds or experiences, but simply on the basis of "faith," regarding it to be a "properly basic belief." They say that one could be rational in accepting a noetic system that has atheism as its foundational presupposition, since there is no good objective evidence for God's existence.
Disproof and faith based atheists are, in my view, much more respectable than the methodological and mystical atheists. Regrettably, the most vocal advocates of atheism are often the ones who subscribe to the least intellectually respectable forms. For example, my friend Tom Girsch argues for a form of methodological atheisms in claiming:
The default state of belief is disbelief. I don't believe in anything until I'm presented with good reasons to affirmatively believe in it.
Must you assume that the pink-and-purple polka-dotted toaster god of the sky exists, until someone has conclusively proven that it doesn't exist? Are you relying solely on blind faith to deny the P&PPDTGotS?
Taken at face value, we can clearly see that Tom's claim is self-refuting. If it is true that the default state of belief is disbelief, then we cannot believe this statement until we have a good reason to affirmatively believe it. I suspect, however, that he is not making the claim about all beliefs but only beliefs about the ontological status of unobserved entities.
But is it really the "default state" to disbelieve that an entity exists until we have good reasons to believe otherwise? If so, then what counts as a good reason? If Tom tells me that his wife exists should I take his word for it or remain skeptical until further evidence is presented? Considering the fact that no one has ever been able to sufficiently and irrefutably prove the existence of another person, any criteria I would use would be somewhat arbitrary and subjective. The same holds true for Tom's "good reasons" for believing in the existence of either God or the P&PPDTGotS. The metaphysical atheist attempts to establish a presumptive standard for existence which can never be met.
Another problem is that the absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence. The most we could say about God, the Tooth Fairy, or the P&PPDTGotS is that we have personally never found evidence of their existence. Unless we examine every possible place where these entities could exist in order to look for evidence, we cannot claim to have knowledge that they do not exist. We can, by a pure act of will, decide to disbelieve in the existence of these entities but we must do so on faith (I'm using the term faith as defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: The conviction of the truth of some doctrine which is the result of a voluntary act of will.) The most we can have is a faith-based assumption that they probably do not exist.
Returning to Rob Ryan's original statement we find that faith really is necessary to disbelieve in the tooth fairy. If I say that the "Tooth Fairy exists" and Rob says "The Tooth Fairy does not exist" we are both making positive assertions. Rob may remain unconvinced until I provide sufficient evidence for the TF but that would require him to clarify what evidence he would find convincing. If he tells me that there is no evidence that would convince him that the TF exists then he is simply taking a fideistic stance. He has taken an a priori assumption that such entities as the TF cannot exist and therefore no a posteriori evidence will be convincing.
The same holds true for belief in God, an entity whose existence is much more amenable to evidentiary proof. One difference we may have from the TF example is in establishing what reasonable evidence of this entities existence actually is. I may agree that Rob is a reasonable person and he may extend the same compliment to me. Yet we may still disagree on what is considered to be reasonable evidence in establishing the likely existence of God. Obviously, then, the problem is not with the evidence but with the openness to accepting the proof that is presented.
That is the heart of the problem with methodological atheism. It's adherents tend to claim that there is "no good objective evidence" and then proceed to refuse to acknowledge any evidence that is presented, even that which might be considered sufficient under other circumstances. Such close-mindedness is the reason I think that this view lacks sophistication. Claiming that no compelling evidence exists and then refusing to acknowledge the existence of any evidence is simply a form of atheistic fideism. And that, in my opinion, is about as intellectually respectable as believing in the Tooth Fairy.
I'm confused. Does this mean you do believe in the Tooth Fairy?
What gets me more than anything Joe, is when they willfully conflate monotheism and paganism - as if we have one god and they have a few more. The difference between these two belief systems are night and day, and yet I still hear atheists say things like "well you're an atheist with regard to all these other gods, and I am just an atheist to one more."
"What gets me more than anything Joe, is when they willfully conflate monotheism and paganism - as if we have one god and they have a few more. The difference between these two belief systems are night and day, and yet I still hear atheists say things like "well you're an atheist with regard to all these other gods, and I am just an atheist to one more."
Really? and what exactly makes monotheism and pagan beliefs so different that they can be called night and day? Both share a belief in dinive being(s) which made the world and give it its structure. Both have UNPROVEN histories of earthly miracles. Both hold they belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. and add to this the fact that there is so much pagan traditions that have been incorporated into christianity and pagan gods remade into christian saints...so do tell...what is the key element that makes paganism and monotheism soooo different...i m on the edge of my seat here...
Well i think this actually leads to an interesting question....assuming that God does exists,what evidence is there that A : theres just one and B: that its the judeo-christian God of the king Jame's version of the bible to the exclusion of all other possible "versions" of God? Unless you can provide an intelligent answer to that,you look really fooling bashing on atheism of any kind.
Well i think this actually leads to an interesting question....assuming that God does exists,what evidence is there that A : theres just one and B: that its the judeo-christian God of the king Jame's version of the bible to the exclusion of all other possible "versions" of God? Unless you can provide an intelligent answer to that,you look really fooling bashing on atheism of any kind.Well i think this actually leads to an interesting question....assuming that God does exists,what evidence is there that A : theres just one and B: that its the judeo-christian God of the king Jame's version of the bible to the exclusion of all other possible "versions" of God? Unless you can provide an intelligent answer to that,you look really fooling bashing on atheism of any kind..
I consider the continued existence and prosperity of the Jewish people to be compelling evidence that God exists and that he is the God of the Bible.
But is it really the "default state" to disbelieve that an entity exists until we have good reasons to believe otherwise? If so, then what counts as a good reason? If Tom tells me that his wife exists should I take his word for it or remain skeptical until further evidence is presented? Considering the fact that no one has ever been able to sufficiently and irrefutably prove the existence of another person, any criteria I would use would be somewhat arbitrary and subjective. The same holds true for Tom's "good reasons" for believing in the existence of either God or the P&PPDTGotS. The metaphysical atheist attempts to establish a presumptive standard for existence which can never be met.
Actually Joe this is easily resolved by modifying Tom's position to something like "existence claims should be disbelieved unless evidence equal or greater too the evidence for the existence of a person, thing or whatnot can be presented." Then only if evidence of God equal to the evidence of Tom's wife can be presented should the truth value be assumed. Granted we can't prove Tom's wife exists but we can present evidence. We can get records, we can call her and we can even visit her if she's willing.
Yes yes, we cannot prove the 'Matrix scenero' isn't at play where everything we see, feel and taste is being manufactured for us.
But Tom is at least being consistent in demanding an equal level of evidence before switching the 'default assumption' in both cases.
It's adherents tend to claim that there is "no good objective evidence" and then proceed to refuse to acknowledge any evidence that is presented, even that which might be considered sufficient under other circumstances. Such close-mindedness is the reason I think that this view lacks sophistication.
This is a very different assertion. Very different. Now you have switched gears and seem to be saying it's fine that Tom has a high standard of proof but Tom's problem is that he is ignoring the evidence that meets that standard. Do tell what type of evidence you are talking about that would, say, be acceptable proof that his wife exists but is being ignored for God's existence?
Also do you realize your argument basically trashes the value of faith? You are basically saying no matter what you believe it requires faith. well if everyone has faith then what exactly is its value here? Is it just important as a tool to believe in anything regardless of whether it is true or not?
Ahhh Ludwig - you eager seeker of truth, you.
To understand the difference, I would start by comparing the thinking of Homer and Plato.
This is a great discussion! I just wanted to thank you Mr. Carter, for your analysis. I found the categories especially useful for understanding atheists. I'm an atheist myself, but I hadn't given thought to the different ways of non-belief that there are, and new ideas are always welcome.
I still don't agree, though. I think the statement about Tom's wife would require the same sort of proof as a statement about God iff (not a typo)the resulting statements from Tom and/or about Tom's wife were significant in a way that required me to think deeply about his wife, act on the basis of his wife's desires, and admit his wife's authority over me in various areas. Or, perhaps, if I were about to meet her. Since, as far as I can see Tom being actually married or not is something that is important only to him, if he chooses to tell me about it, it doesn't impact me much. Unless I wanted to marry him myself, but that's a rather private consideration. If it turns out that he was only fantasising about his wife, or mistaken about her identity, it would be unfortunate for him, but alas, supremely irrelevant to everything and everyone else.
However, thank you again for the thought experiment.
"I consider the continued existence and prosperity of the Jewish people to be compelling evidence that God exists and that he is the God of the Bible."
Thats like saying the continued existance and prosperity of the Norwegian people is evidence of the existance of Odin and Thor or that the fact any native american people survived 350 years of near constant genocide is a testament to the power of the Great Spirit...God did not give Israel to the jews,nor did God send thunderbolts and fire from heaven to rain down on their arab ennemies...you are choosing to see an otherwise very mundane event as some sort of miracle for purely self serving reasons and not as a result of any exercise in critical thinking.
"To understand the difference, I would start by comparing the thinking of Homer and Plato."
Actually,you re the one who needs to understand something very important to this issue...namely that the term pagan was a pejorative term actually invented by christian cultists to arbitrarely lump together any and all belief that was not their own....in essence to create a false distinction like you are doing now. Anyone who studies paganism realises very rapidely that most pagan beliefs are often so drastically different from one another that they dont really fit under any one big umbrella...one thing is certain though...pagan believers never used to refer to themselves as pagans and as i indicated,christianity itself contains quite a few pagan traditions.
Thats like saying the continued existance and prosperity of the Norwegian people is evidence of the existance of Odin and Thor or that the fact any native american people survived 350 years of near constant genocide is a testament to the power of the Great Spirit
No, it really isn't. I'm sure if you thought about it, you'd understand why, but I fear that is expecting too much of you.
Ludwig,
You're doing a great job of proving Joe's point. Not only that, but you are showing the characteristics that make many an atheist off putting to the rest of us.
Statements such as, "Both have UNPROVEN histories of earthly miracles," makes me hope that you are never seated on a jury. By your level of proof, no one should reasonably believe that Baron d'Holbach truly existed. Sure, we have historical accounts from people long dead who claim to have met him, but can anyone alive today claim to have seen him? Sure we have a portrait of d'Holbach, but we don't really know if the artist really saw him. Sure, we have a book describing the principles by which many modern atheists live that people claim was written by d'Holbach, but where is the proof that he actually wrote it? No one can even produce evidence for it other than the testimony of the long dead publisher and certainly no one alive today could provide such testimony.
Most criminal court cases are resolved on the testimony of people. Very, very few have much physical evidence and even then most physical evidence must be backed up by the testimony of witnesses and/or experts. Should we free most of our prisoners now?
You see, the point that Joe was trying to make is that people like you are not dishonest because they disbelieve the evidence that theists present, but because people like you dismiss it out of hand and claim that that is proof that God does not exist.
The apologetics.com radio team went on the offensive against atheism the other night, pointing out a number of things that the atheist needs to explain if we are to take it seriously.
It's worth a listen: http://www.apologetics.com/audio/05_19_07.mp3
"No, it really isn't. I'm sure if you thought about it, you'd understand why, but I fear that is expecting too much of you."
speaking to say absolutely nothing serves no purpose you know....
Ludwig - paganism to me seems a better term than polytheism, to describe the general religious experience of man in antiquity, but I'll use polytheism if you like. It doesn't have to be pejorative.
But, setting semantics aside, what of the difference between the ideas of Homer and Plato? Are they just all Greek to you?
On the "default state" and evidence, one could adopt a more sophisticated version of "disbelief is the default state" argument pretty easily. One could, for example, adopt a Bayesian approach in which you could consider several prior probabilities (as we probably do automatically, in these sorts cases), including having actually encountered the type of being involved (human females, in the wife example), and a probability indicating the prior honesty of the individual making the claim. In this way, the default state would be disbelief that is overruled when Bayesian reasoning indicates that given a state of affairs (your friend making an existence claim about a person who holds the position of his wife) makes the likelihood that an existence claim is true high, given past experience.
Of course, I still don't think disbelief is the default state. In fact, I don't think there is a simple either/or dichotomy between belief and disbelief, and that one of the two has to be the default state. Though as an atheist closest to your "faith atheist" position, I do have to wonder why you think disproof atheism is respectable. Most disproof atheism takes the form of strong philosophical scientism, which is ultimately an internally inconsistent philosophy. I actually think methodological atheism is more respectable, because it only requires methodological scientism.
"You're doing a great job of proving Joe's point. Not only that, but you are showing the characteristics that make many an atheist off putting to the rest of us."
I m sure most atheist couldnt care less that you find them off putting since they base their belief (or unbelief) on facts (or their absense) and not how popular that makes them with the faith over fact crowd.
"Statements such as, "Both have UNPROVEN histories of earthly miracles," makes me hope that you are never seated on a jury. By your level of proof, no one should reasonably believe that Baron d'Holbach truly existed. Sure, we have historical accounts from people long dead who claim to have met him, but can anyone alive today claim to have seen him? Sure we have a portrait of d'Holbach, but we don't really know if the artist really saw him. Sure, we have a book describing the principles by which many modern atheists live that people claim was written by d'Holbach, but where is the proof that he actually wrote it? No one can even produce evidence for it other than the testimony of the long dead publisher and certainly no one alive today could provide such testimony."
Well,we know that there are human beings since we see them every day...and we know that there were human being back then since they left evidence of their passage and we also know that there are humans who are atheists today so given all that,there is sufficiant reason to believe that some atheist named Baron d'Holbach lived back then and was actually the subjet of his protrait.
"Most criminal court cases are resolved on the testimony of people. Very, very few have much physical evidence and even then most physical evidence must be backed up by the testimony of witnesses and/or experts. Should we free most of our prisoners now?"
Well,if the testamony presented before the court came from an anonymous witness that no living person ever met and who made written claims that ran completely contrary to every known laws of physics or biology without any shred of evidence to back those claims up,do you think any court today would convict anyone based on that sole testamony?
"You see, the point that Joe was trying to make is that people like you are not dishonest because they disbelieve the evidence that theists present, but because people like you dismiss it out of hand and claim that that is proof that God does not exist.
"
first of all,no one can affirm that gods do not exist,since as Joe pointed out,there is no way for us to visit the entire scope of universal reality or beyond to confirm the absense of gods. But the issue that concerns us here are the claims made by some that not only gods do exist but that they want us to do certain things or not do certain other things but whats worse is that the so called evidence that you present about your claims and complain that we reject out of hand you reject yourself if it is brought forth to support the claims of gods other then your own...and you dont even seem to think its problematic in any way.
More to the point Joe, does God believe in Atheists? I think it is safe to say that he does not, nor does he believe in Agnostics. I also think you need to polish up your arguments for the existence of Atheists. I'm not in the slightest convinced they exist. Keep trying though.
"Ludwig - paganism to me seems a better term than polytheism, to describe the general religious experience of man in antiquity, but I'll use polytheism if you like. It doesn't have to be pejorative. "
But thats just it...not all pagan beliefs were polytheist or pantheist...many pagan cultures also believed in only one god.
"But, setting semantics aside, what of the difference between the ideas of Homer and Plato? Are they just all Greek to you?"
Not they are not just "all greeks" and their philosophies differed on many key points...but they still were both greek...they were both men...they were both philosophers so there was still a lot of things they had in common. Likewise with religious beliefs...the claims of "uniqueness" of your religious beliefs can be made for many other religious pagan beliefs...the distinction you see between christianity and paganism is the same distinction pagans saw between their various religious beliefs...but what they were all is...religious beliefs.
Joe says: Another problem is that the absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence. The most we could say about God, the Tooth Fairy, or the P&PPDTGotS is that we have personally never found evidence of their existence. Unless we examine every possible place where these entities could exist in order to look for evidence, we cannot claim to have knowledge that they do not exist. We can, by a pure act of will, decide to disbelieve in the existence of these entities but we must do so on faith (I'm using the term faith as defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: The conviction of the truth of some doctrine which is the result of a voluntary act of will.) The most we can have is a faith-based assumption that they probably do not exist.
Surely when you say that we cannot claim that we know that, for instance, the tooth fairy (tf) does not exist, you really mean to say that we cannot claim to have absolute certainty that the tf does not exist. It's important to distinguish grades or degrees of certainty here. We're all highly certain here that the tf does not exist, but I would assume that, if pushed, we'd all admit a miniscule probability that the tf does in fact exist. This, I would think, is precisely what the evidence demands. There's no faith at work here. We don't decide by an act of will to believe with absolute certainty that the tf does not exist. Rather, we proportion our belief here to the evidence, and say quite rightly that we accord a quite high probability to the belief that the tf does not exist.
Second point: even if we were to examine every nook and cranny of the universe, we still could not have absolute certainty of the nonexistence of the tf. Perhaps she can make herself invisible. Perhaps she moved as we moved in our search. My point is that we can never have absolutely decisive evidence for the nonexistence of the tf. But again this does not imply that our disbelief in the tf is faith-based, even if only to a small degree. For that disbelief is proportional to the evidence, and thus while strong is not absolute.
"More to the point Joe, does God believe in Atheists? I think it is safe to say that he does not, nor does he believe in Agnostics. I also think you need to polish up your arguments for the existence of Atheists. I'm not in the slightest convinced they exist. Keep trying though."
well thats a solid argument thats never been tried before...call them all liars. I think you need to polish up your arguments for the existence of your having any intelligence to speak of. I'm not in the slightest convinced that it exist...especially when you ve just given ample reason to doubt it....keep trying though.
Ludwig,
Take Homer as an example of polytheism and Plato as an example of monotheism. In my mind the difference is shown never more clearly than in the Euthyphro. Is something good because the gods say it is? And therefore is it arbitrary? Or is the good rooted in a reality deeper than any finite being, god though he may be?
The difference between God and the gods is beyond comparrison. It is the same proportional difference between God and men, or God and ants, or God and atoms. Everything else is relative to the absolute and the infinite.
It's a big big difference - and the word "god" being used for both is quite misleading.
Agnostic: "I doubt there is a God. Because I haven't seen the evidence."
Atheist: "There is no God. Because I'm an a$$h0le."
OK, say God doesn't believe in athiests. What exactly does that change here and now?
"Statements such as, "Both have UNPROVEN histories of earthly miracles," makes me hope that you are never seated on a jury. By your level of proof, no one should reasonably believe that Baron d'Holbach truly existed. Sure, we have historical accounts from people long dead who claim to have met him, but can anyone alive today claim to have seen him? Sure we have a portrait of d'Holbach, but we don't really know if the artist really saw him....
There are, however, plenty of eyewitness accounts of assorted miracles that take place outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. When this topic came up long ago I remember it was posted that Julias Ceasar wrote that he witnessed a miracle. There's plenty of people who have claimed to see, hear or otherwise perceive miracles that...if we took them all at their word...would be mutually contradictory. I don't think it is unfair to ask of Christians have a slight bias in judging accounts of miracles that confirm their religion while adopting hyperskepticism when people talk about miracles elsewhere such as Buddhism.
Another thing, suppose a miracle is proven. Let's accept, for the sake of argument that Jesus both walked on water and rose from the dead. Does that prove he is God? If you think about it honestly it doesn't. A rather lame episode of Star Trek imagines technology that would easily allow very ordinary beigns to pull off such tricks in a convincing manner. (In fact, I think there was one episode that was about a person in a spaceship using technology to fool some simple folks into thinking she was God)
At best with miracles you are left with "well I can't explain that by what I know of the natural world". Even if someone unearths video tape of Jesus walking on water or Buddha stopping a violent storm by just touching the ground it doesn't prove anything except that we got a mystery on our hands.
This comes back to Joe's original argument and like many of his arguments I think it suffers from too much cleaverness. Joe tries to outsmart the atheist and in doing so ends up trashing the very idea of faith. Joe's argument can be summed up as follows:
1. It takes faith to believe God exists.
2. Atheists don't want to admit it, but it takes faith to believe God doesn't exist.
3. THEREFORE, since 1 & 2 contradict each other faith seems to be pretty poor for learning the truth. You might as well decide if you believe 1 or 2 by flipping a coin.
Is it more important to believe "the right things" about Jesus Christ or try to live like he lived?
Is it better to be a person who believes all the tenets of fundamentalist christianity, but doesn't give a tinker's damn about 2/3's of the world living outside the United States, or is it better to be an humble person that recognizes he doesn't have all the answers, but works for peace and justice?
Wonders for Oyarsa
you are correct in that abrahamic traditions of divinity makes universal claims but it was not always so...Yahwhe evolved from being a montain tribal war god to a universal all creating divinity...there was even a time where he had a consort...a godess named Asherah. most pagan beliefs on the other hand believe in more "local" gods which share many human attributes,namely that they were at some point in time "born" whereas the christian God claims it always was. but from the perspective of atheism,those are all faith based claims with no tangible evidence to back them up and in that,they are the same and so the argument of atheism against cherry picking which god you ll believe in is a completely valid one that has yet to be answered.
speaking to say absolutely nothing serves no purpose you know....
I think my point was very clear to all but the most obtuse. Which may explain why you didn't get it, Lud.
Is it more important to believe "the right things" about Jesus Christ or try to live like he lived?
If he didn't exist or if he wasn't who he claimed to be, what is the point of trying to live like he did, John (if that is your real name).
Is it better to be a person who believes all the tenets of fundamentalist christianity, but doesn't give a tinker's damn about 2/3's of the world living outside the United States, or is it better to be an humble person that recognizes he doesn't have all the answers, but works for peace and justice?
Actually it is more like the 95% of the world that lives outside the US. That said, how do you personally "work for peace and justice" in the world? For all the celebration surrounding Jerry Falwell's death, he actually set up charities to feed starving people and provide homes for unwed mothers, among other things. What are you doing to feed the starving in Africa? What are you doing to help the oppressed around the world? What are you doing to lead the way, Bubba?
"I think my point was very clear to all but the most obtuse. Which may explain why you didn't get it, Lud."
Well i am indeed "obtuse" to what exactly is there in the fact that jews are still alive and kicking today that required the bending of the very fabric of reality by some invisible god from the late bronze age to the point that it would constitute tangible evidence of its very existance.
ucfengr,
So using your logic, Jerry Falwell was a better christian than Martin Luther King, Jr., right? Afterall, he didn't support war and the exploitation of the poor.
Also, I can't show you the way, as I am not Jesus Christ. If you are truly interested in working for peace and justice. Pray about it, I'm sure God will lead you in the right direction.
Well i am indeed "obtuse" to what exactly is there in the fact that jews are still alive and kicking today that required the bending of the very fabric of reality by some invisible god from the late bronze age to the point that it would constitute tangible evidence of its very existance.
Well, let's see, God's Chosen people have survived, prospered, and maintained a unique culture through nearly 6000 years of persecution and even attempted genocide. It's not proof, but it is certainly evidence. Looking at your examples, first, the Norwegians didn't really worship Odin and Thor, the Vikings did. Viking culture was supplanted by Christian culture nearly 1000 years ago (perhaps more evidence of the Christian God). The closest thing you will find to modern Vikings are the odd folks who go to Star Trek conventions dressed as Klingons. As to the aboriginal tribes of the Americas, they didn't really survive genocide (unlike the Jews) so much as lose a long, bloody war with the Christian-European settlers, but their culture really didn't survive the loss; they don't really worship the Great White Buffalo anymore. That culture too, was supplanted by the Christian culture.
So using your logic, Jerry Falwell was a better christian than Martin Luther King, Jr., right? Afterall, he didn't support war and the exploitation of the poor.
I don't see where I where I made that comparison, I merely pointed out that even a genocidal monster like Falwell (I assume that was your opinion of him) did more to help the poor and downtrodden than your typical lefty and I suspect you.
Also, I can't show you the way
To show the way, you got to know the way, baby. I don't think you do.
If you are truly interested in working for peace and justice.
What are you doing to work for peace and justice, John? Typing critical comments on Christian blogs while waiting for Vente Espresso? I am sure that give great comfort to the oppressed of the world.
Ludwig,
We can certainly argue about the way ideas developed historically - and no Christian I know of would say that early revelation is at all a complete picture. But to talk of God as if he were just another god is a category mistake of the first order. The prime mover and the one-who-is is just completely different than some being that happens to be a good bit smarter and stronger than we are. To be obtuse to this hinders reasonable conversation.
Careful, Uncenfgr...don't spill your 128 ounce big gulp all over the keyboard....
Careful, Uncenfgr...don't spill your 128 ounce big gulp all over the keyboard....
It's after 6PM, my beverages come in 12 oz. bottles, now, and I stopped drinking Big Gulps; the caffeine was making me irritable. Kind of like you avoiding the question of what you're doing to help the poor and oppressed, you know, demonstrating your 'c'hristian love. Come on John, can't you even make something up? With all your talk of peace, justice, and Christian love and how you're a much better 'c'hristian than the rest of us benighted souls, you have to be doing something besides trolling in Christian blogs.
To be obtuse to this hinders reasonable conversation.
Wonders, are you trying to be like me?
If there is a purgatory, I think Ucfengr and JohnW's sentence will be to be locked in a room until they come to complete and total agreement on all issues...
Or was that Hell?
If there is a purgatory, I think Ucfengr and JohnW's sentence will be to be locked in a room until they come to complete and total agreement on all issues...
Or was that Hell?
It's Hell, Purgatory implies some fixed amount of time.
Uncengr,
I'm not going to tell you what I doing for peace and justice. Ok, one thing, I am helping some young people who are walking across the country to protest the continued occupation of Iraq and recent abuses to our constitutional democracy.
As for trolling on this board-I wouldn't dismiss it as being totally worthless. Perhaps, one or two people who follow Jesus Christ might actually think about why they continue to blindly support each and every war.
Did you ever hear the story about the Christians in Nazi Germany who would just start singing louder when the train full of Jews headed for the concentration camp rolled past their church every Sunday?
No, not liars Ludwig, just incapable of proving 1) that atheists are anything other than imaginary creatures that some goofy people aspire to be; 2) that they are really atheists; and 3) that they don't worship a god (fictional, factual, idol, substitute, or otherwise). Feel free to provide proof as substantive as would be required to prove to you that God exists.
"We can certainly argue about the way ideas developed historically - and no Christian I know of would say that early revelation is at all a complete picture. But to talk of God as if he were just another god is a category mistake of the first order. The prime mover and the one-who-is is just completely different than some being that happens to be a good bit smarter and stronger than we are. To be obtuse to this hinders reasonable conversation."
I m not comparing local gods with a "universal prime mover and the one-who-is",i m saying that belief in either is identical....a faith based affirmation that rests on no tangible facts whatsoever...you can no more show direct evidence for the existance of your all encompassing God and pagans could show for the existance of their more localised dieties which,from an atheistic perspective,makes both claims equivalent to one another.
"No, not liars Ludwig, just incapable of proving 1) that atheists are anything other than imaginary creatures that some goofy people aspire to be; 2) that they are really atheists; and 3) that they don't worship a god (fictional, factual, idol, substitute, or otherwise). Feel free to provide proof as substantive as would be required to prove to you that God exists."
well,one could then very well say the same things about christians...there is no evidence that 1: christians are imaginary creatures that some goofy people aspire to be,2: that they are really christians and 3: that they actually worship the god they claim to be worshipping...back to you,bob...
Ok, one thing, I am helping some young people who are walking across the country to protest the continued occupation of Iraq and recent abuses to our constitutional democracy.
Do you supply the "We're walking for Al Queda" shirts?
As for trolling on this board-I wouldn't dismiss it as being totally worthless. Perhaps, one or two people who follow Jesus Christ might actually think about why they continue to blindly support each and every war.
How does support for the present US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq equate to "blindly supporting each and every war"? And what about you, John? Wouldn't you support the use of military force to stop the slaughter in Darfur? I know many on your side support the use of force against Israel?
Did you ever hear the story about the Christians in Nazi Germany who would just start singing louder when the train full of Jews headed for the concentration camp rolled past their church every Sunday?
Let's assume that this was a form of protest against National Socialism's policies regarding Jews and not support for it. Protesting in National Socialist Germany actually entailed the risk of imprisonment (they had concentration camps for political opponents too) or even death. What risks do you expose yourself by protesting our current conflicts? None. If you happen to be a former high government official, protesting the war can be rather lucrative, leading to book deals and appearances on Larry King and Good Morning America. Let's please dispense with the lame attempts to elevate yourself to the level of real Christians who actually risked their and their family's lives to protest evil. You can't even be bothered to do your own protesting; instead, you outsource it to a couple of naive, young kids.
"you can no more show direct evidence for the existance of your all encompassing God and pagans could show for the existance of their more localised dieties which,from an atheistic perspective,makes both claims equivalent to one another."
Golly, Ludwig, does that mean that no true atheist believes in the possibility of life on other planets?
Golly, Ludwig, does that mean that no true atheist believes in the possibility of life on other planets?
You could also interpret it that atheists shouldn't believe that we ever landed on the moon. There's no "direct evidence" of that either.
"Golly, Ludwig, does that mean that no true atheist believes in the possibility of life on other planets?"
one the contrary...since atheists believe that life arose on this planet through a natural process which is for the most part very well understood,it stands to reason that this process could have occured on other planets where the conditions may be similar to our own...i should think that christian would have a much harder time believing that there could be life on other planets,since they believe that humans are the center of their god's plan and the reason why he created this whole universe. But when it comes to supernatural claims, thats where atheists draw the line. in fact...thats where most people draw the line,including religionists...if you get cancer,you 're not gonna stay home and wait for a miracle...you ll go see an oncologist about it. If you are told that you friend was murdered by someone who sprung wings,lifted your friend 1000 feet in the air and dropped him,your first reaction would be to reject the claim as lunacy. yet somehow atheists are supposed to explain why they reject the claims of supernatural events in relation to the christian god but you are not required to explain the reasons for your disbelief in the supernatural claims about Thor or Zeus or Baron Samedi...dont you think thats just a little silly?
"one the contrary...since atheists believe that life arose on this planet through a natural process which is for the most part very well understood,it stands to reason that this process could have occured on other planets where the conditions may be similar to our own"
I see. So true atheists are only prepared to accept the possibility of the existence of life like our own existing on other planets.
Ludwig,
Don't you think it's a bit lame to be parroting everything that I say back to me? Aren't you worried that people will start to believe that Atheists have beaks and feathers?
In the interest of being magnanimous though, I'll concede that I cannot provide any evidence that Christians exist either. But that's less problematic for me than the converse is for you.
Just look at how hard you proselytize the non-existence of God (as hard if not harder than many proselytize Christianity). It's almost as if you worship the non-existence of God.
MK
I see. So true atheists are only prepared to accept the possibility of the existence of life like our own existing on other planets.
I wouldn't see why not. Even atheists that support the rare earth hypothesis (that it takes highly unusual conditions for life to form that are absent from most of the known universe) have a huge universe to contend with.
You inserted the word 'possibility' there. A better question might be should an atheist believe in life on other planets given that we have no evidence of it yet (leaving the case of Mars aside)? You're correct that someone who takes the 'default belief' should therefore be skeptical until actual evidence is discovered.
ucfengr
Let's assume that this was a form of protest against National Socialism's policies regarding Jews and not support for it. Protesting in National Socialist Germany actually entailed the risk of imprisonment (they had concentration camps for political opponents too) or even death. What risks do you expose yourself by protesting our current conflicts? None. If you happen to be a former high government official, protesting the war can be rather lucrative, leading to book deals and appearances on Larry King and Good Morning America
So are you telling us not to protest you guys unless you start setting up concentration camps?
I guess at the moment protesting does run you the risk of landing on the semi-secret 'no-fly' list with no chance of appeal as well as possible warrantless wiretaps but yea I'll grant you Bush's America is not as bad as Nazi Germany. Perhaps you can suggest that as the next GOP campaign slogan, "After 8 years in the White House it isn't as bad as Nazi Germany!"
Well, let's see, God's Chosen people have survived, prospered, and maintained a unique culture through nearly 6000 years of persecution and even attempted genocide. It's not proof, but it is certainly evidence. Looking at your examples, first, the Norwegians didn't really worship Odin and Thor, the Vikings did. Viking culture was supplanted by Christian culture nearly 1000 years ago (perhaps more evidence of the Christian God).
Actually this points to a very secular explanation. While the disporia was sad it actually provided a nice survival edge for the Jewish people. Instead of being tied down to one place, one empire they were spread out over many nations. While individual empires/nations rose and fell there was always at any given time some successful nations. By being spread out the only way to accomplish genocide against the Jews was to literally conquer the entire world which is what the Axis wanted to do.
While the Jewish people never had a huge empire to call their own like the Romans, Germans, Japanese etc. did this was actually a good thing for them in the long run. Large Empires mean you have to put your efforts into defending a geographic region. Just having a culture, though, means you can adapt to whereever you are and spend your energy making sure you transmit your culture to the next generation.
I don't disagree that the story of the Jewish people is amazing but it isn't serious evidence IMO for supernatural intervention. If you took a sample of 100 stocks back in 1925 you're going to find a few that are still viable in 2007. That doesn't prove a divine mandate, it just proves that the extreme edges of the bell curve will always have some members. Given the mass of human history there will be some cultures that endure long periods of time.
"Don't you think it's a bit lame to be parroting everything that I say back to me? Aren't you worried that people will start to believe that Atheists have beaks and feathers?"
I merely illustrate how your arguments can work equally well against you...and no i m not worried about what christians will think of atheist...you allready believe them to be evil devil worshippers anyway so what would be the point.
"In the interest of being magnanimous though, I'll concede that I cannot provide any evidence that Christians exist either. But that's less problematic for me than the converse is for you."
really?...how so?
"Just look at how hard you proselytize the non-existence of God (as hard if not harder than many proselytize Christianity). It's almost as if you worship the non-existence of God."
i dont proletyse anything...i merely make the point that atheism has yet to be answered intelligently by so called believers.
Boonton
"You're correct that someone who takes the 'default belief' should therefore be skeptical until actual evidence is discovered."
Skeptical is not the same as denial. It just seems to me that there are a lot of atheists (Asimov et al) that are willing to postulate the possibility of life forms "out there" that are totally inexplicable to us (ie. silicon based) or other universes in other dimensions while at the same time willing to categorically deny the existence of God. Doesn't seem consistent.
So are you telling us not to protest you guys unless you start setting up concentration camps?
Yes, Boonton, that is exactly what I am saying. Are you normally this dense or are you making a special effort today?
I don't disagree that the story of the Jewish people is amazing but it isn't serious evidence IMO for supernatural intervention. If you took a sample of 100 stocks back in 1925 you're going to find a few that are still viable in 2007. That doesn't prove a divine mandate, it just proves that the extreme edges of the bell curve will always have some members. Given the mass of human history there will be some cultures that endure long periods of time.
Wow, what a perfect analogy. Yes, some small number of 100 randomly chosen stocks surviving something less than 80 years in one of the most pro-business climates the world has ever seen is exactly like a race of people that has survived 6000 years of persecution and attempted genocide while maintaining a unique, common culture. Seriously, I hope you don't spend too much time thinking this cow-flop up.
"Well, let's see, God's Chosen people have survived, prospered, and maintained a unique culture through nearly 6000 years of persecution and even attempted genocide. It's not proof, but it is certainly evidence. Looking at your examples, first, the Norwegians didn't really worship Odin and Thor, the Vikings did. Viking culture was supplanted by Christian culture nearly 1000 years ago (perhaps more evidence of the Christian God). The closest thing you will find to modern Vikings are the odd folks who go to Star Trek conventions dressed as Klingons. As to the aboriginal tribes of the Americas, they didn't really survive genocide (unlike the Jews) so much as lose a long, bloody war with the Christian-European settlers, but their culture really didn't survive the loss; they don't really worship the Great White Buffalo anymore. That culture too, was supplanted by the Christian culture."
First of all,6000 years? Judaism appeared in its earliest form about 2800 year ago and if you really insist on going about biblical narrative,most of jewish history before the alledged time of Jesus was spent butchering other people down to the last suckling but if you want to go by actualy evidence,all the evidence available indicates that the Egyptians built all their cities themselves and never kept large populations of jewish slaves and the sinai desert takes TWO DAYS to traverse on foot,not 40 years and it is also completely devoid of any evidence that a large population of any human groups,let alone jews,ever spent any appreciable time there. As for christianity supplanting other cultures,it was most often done through a combination of guile,smart PR and ruthless barbarism,depending on what the situation called for...the christian ability to keep thinking of themselves as righteous while commiting the most gruesome acts of cruelty has always been one of the most facinating aspect of your cult. nicole smalkowski and her family discovered all about christian love in HARDESTY, Oklahoma when she commited the unspeakable crime of being an atheist in a small town in america. Christians have mastered the art of hypocrisy over the last 17 centuries to the point where they cannot be equalled,let alone bettered....but theres nothing miraculous about that.
Ucfengr,
The Jews are not God's chosen people.
The Jews have survived, and they have recently regained portions of Judea and Israel, but they have also been mercilessly persecuted and hunted, off and on and on and off, for many centuries.
If anything, the history of the Jews illustrates, in graphic living color, the theological "problem of evil", which is perhaps the single most persuasive argument in favor of atheism.
That said, I share your fascination with the history of the Jewish nation.
Are you aware the so-called Jewish-Roman wars in which the plucky Hebrews successfully fought the armed might of the Roman empire at the height of its powers? And then there are the seemingly endless varieties of the Jewish communities of the diaspora, which go back so far in time in so many pockets of the globe.
So the Jewish story is, as you know, an intriguing mix of triumphs and tragedies.
But to focus on the triumphs of the Jews in the name of religious superiority is precisely the kind of thinking that the Islamo-fascists use to glorify Islam and Islamist aggression. I expect better from you, sir!
All the members of the atheist-baiting gang (and you know who you are),
If you want people to respect your religion, then you should consider being respectful of atheism and other creeds which differ from your own.
Atheism is not stupid, illogical, or morally purblind. Anyone who claims it is, especially in a rude way, is revealing himself to be at least something of a religious bigot.
Sticks and stones won't break my bones, but I do want to defend Ludwig, who is doing an admirable job of standing up to a wanna-be virtual lynch mob.
Rock on, Ludo!
Mk,
Skeptical is not the same as denial. It just seems to me that there are a lot of atheists (Asimov et al) that are willing to postulate the possibility of life forms "out there" that are totally inexplicable to us (ie. silicon based) or other universes in other dimensions while at the same time willing to categorically deny the existence of God.
Doesn't seem consistent.
That does sound a little inconsistent.
Of course, if some prominent atheists are a little inconsistent, that mainly serves to show that atheists are real people, just like theists, and don't necessarily filter all their beliefs through a finely-tuned consistency filter.
However, I don't find the willingness to consider the existence of alien life-forms as a live possibility to be inconsistent with the denial of the existence of God.
The first is an entertaining and interesting speculation; the second is an evaluation of the nature of the whole universe based upon all the available evidence. The notions are the result of two radically different intellectual exercises.
Perhaps atheists are more open to the idea of alien-type life forms because it wouldn't challenge some scriptural Earth-centric narrative, as it might do for a literalist follower of the Bible. But I don't think the question of belief in alien-type life forms reveals anything, pro- or con-, about the reliability of a person's judgement or thought-processes.
Same old baffle chamber..
John W is really excellent for some grins, though. It's like watching a lizard cross a busy highway. And there's old Ludwig copping the 'christian cultists' line. I believe JParker had it about right..
I had lunch with a 93 year old atheist last week. He said that he never, ever during his life tried to talk people of faith out of their position. Why? I asked, "because I've got nothing better to offer them."
Now there's an honest man.
RB,
Same old baffle chamber...
Don't be too hard on the peanut gallery. Joe's recycled post was about little more than tossing red meat into the tiger cage.
I had lunch with a 93 year old atheist last week. He said that he never, ever during his life tried to talk people of faith out of their position. Why? I asked, "because I've got nothing better to offer them."
It's pretty sad that your atheist friend felt that way. It is a privilege of old age to be resignedly and deeply unsatisfied with one's lot in life, so I respect his ambivalence, but I don't agree with it.
My short answer to old atheist's lament is: the truth (or our best approximation thereof) is better than falsehood or error.
My long answer is: atheism is what you have when you are willing to put aside the myths and the misconceptions of your forebears. It is not an unalloyed blessing, but on balance it is much better than what came before.
A child who grows up to be an adult will normally be nostalgic for the innocent days of youth. But who among us really aspires to be Peter Pan?
There are plenty of happy, well-adjusted atheists in the world. But like your friend, they don't necessarily go around advertising their beliefs and trying to convert people.
I think most atheists understand that it is hard for religious believers to give up the beliefs that often serve to define their identities. If atheists act on that understanding by declining to hector religious folk, that doesn't mean the atheists aren't happy with their own beliefs. The non-evangelical atheists are just content to let reality speak for itself, and let people come to their own conclusions.
P.S. Anyone who is depressed or scared by the prospect of an atheistic cosmos, or by the prospect of believing in an atheistic cosmos, should know that he is not alone without God. There are many millions of atheists out there, and some of them are actually nice people :)
My previous post was a little abrupt; my apologies. It's been a rough day.
The Jews are not God's chosen people.
How do you know?
If anything, the history of the Jews illustrates, in graphic living color, the theological "problem of evil", which is perhaps the single most persuasive argument in favor of atheism.
See, I consider it the least persuasive. Christian (and Jewish) doctrine does a real good job of dealing with the origins of evil in the world.
Sticks and stones won't break my bones, but I do want to defend Ludwig, who is doing an admirable job of standing up to a wanna-be virtual lynch mob
Being a bit dramatic aren't we; a little like John equating his little "march for Al Queda" with the brave folks who risked actual life and limb to protest the racial policies of National Socialist Germany. Matthew, have you even read Lud's post? If you want to defend that, be my guest, but I have lost much respect for you.
Ucfengr,
My previous post was a little abrupt; my apologies. It's been a rough day.
I don't consider you to be an atheist-baiter or a bigot. To the contrary, by engaging atheists in a good-faith debate, you are being respectful and a credit to your religion.
On the rare occasion, you do lose your cool and get a little impatient, but I wouldn't hold that against anyone.
The atheist-baiter is the person who throws out casual insults in order to provoke and demean. That ain't you.
"The Jews are not God's chosen people."
How do you know?
I don't know this to the same degree of certainty as I know the laws of electromagnetism. But I would say Hitler's industrial-strength pogrom tips the balance towards my side of the argument.
Many, many Jews (the ones who weren't dead, that is) came out of World War II with their faith extinguished.
Being a bit dramatic aren't we?
I'm glad you noticed. Actually, my "sticks and stones" comment (if you go back and read it again) is pretty incoherent as well.
My point, though, is that it is pathetic for Christians to dump verbally on anyone, and it is particularly pathetic for them to dump on someone who is challenging them in good faith. I know you agree with me, but there are some here who don't.
I don't agree with every last thing Ludwig says, but I do agree with all his main points. And I often defend people I disagree with anyway, if I feel they are being treated unfairly.
Many, many Jews (the ones who weren't dead, that is) came out of World War II with their faith extinguished.
And many didn't; I suspect some even came out with their faith strengthened.
My point, though, is that it is pathetic for Christians to dump verbally on anyone, and it is particularly pathetic for them to dump on someone who is challenging them in good faith. I know you agree with me, but there are some here who don't.
But their are many on your side, I would include Ludwig among them, who aren't challenging in good faith.
But I would say Hitler's industrial-strength pogrom tips the balance towards my side of the argument.
See, I think their survival tips it towards mine. Oh well, to-may-to, to-mah-to.
Here's the real deal on all this "chosen people" business (click on link to read more):
GOD NAMES NEXT "CHOSEN PEOPLE"; IT'S JEWS AGAIN
"Oh S**t", Say Jews
Skeptical is not the same as denial. It just seems to me that there are a lot of atheists (Asimov et al) that are willing to postulate the possibility of life forms "out there" that are totally inexplicable to us (ie. silicon based) or other universes in other dimensions while at the same time willing to categorically deny the existence of God. Doesn't seem consistent.
Perhaps but look at the reasoning a bit more closely. We know that life on earth appears to be made out of certain types of matter, we observe that such matter appears to be common throughout the universe therefore we speculate that it is likely life exists elsewhere. The degree that we think life is more or less likely depends on what we think the balance of evidence says about the combinations of matter on earth and how unique or common it really is throughout the universe.
Let's go back to the tooth fairy. I've never been to Tibet and neither have you. Yet we know that Tibet is on earth and we know humans are on earth so we suspect Tibet is populated by human beigns and not tooth fairies.
I don't think people like Asimov are that inconsistent there. I would say, though, that they should be deeply skeptical about claims of beigns that are totally outside our understanding. This would include things such as 'energy beigns' or other dimensions etc. that are entirely outside what we know of reality. Generally the stuff of the less good Star Trek episodes.
Wow, what a perfect analogy. Yes, some small number of 100 randomly chosen stocks surviving something less than 80 years in one of the most pro-business climates the world has ever seen is exactly like a race of people that has survived 6000 years of persecution and attempted genocide while maintaining a unique, common culture. Seriously, I hope you don't spend too much time thinking this cow-flop up.
The bell curve has many applications ucfengr as you should know. Has the world ever seen a race that didn't suffer 6000 years of various persecutions, attempted genocides etc.? What race has always been on top throughout world history? None. I've provided you with a perfectly viable secular explanation. I seriously doubt we know anywhere near enough about the 'laws of history' (if history has laws) to say the story of the Jews somehow must violate them the way the story of Jesus walking on water violates the laws of physics.
When have Christians as a group ever shown hyper-skepticism with regard to "miracles" outside of God? In fact, the Bible is rife with miraculous events that were not initiated by God. Talking snakes, Egyptian priests mimicking Moses, demonic possession, et cetera.
But you have narrowed the testimony to just miracles. I was talking about the testimony of people in general. And now I'll include people of past and present. I can tell people like Ludwig about my personal experiences with God and they will continue to dismiss it out of hand even when they might admit that I am an otherwise credible person. It's not because of who I am or my level of credibility that makes my arguments moot to them, but the subject itself. That is where they are dishonest.
::Shrug:: Miracles alone do not prove or disprove God's existence and neither do I care to prove His existence with or without miracles.
You really seem stuck on this miracle thing. Strangely, Thomas Jefferson was able to still produce a whole book after taking out everything miraculous in the gospels.
I have no clue what Joe's intent was, but his argument seemed to be that there are a class of atheist who are dishonest in their arguments against God. It didn't seem that he was trying to convince atheists of God's existence, just of their own blindness to reason. At least that's what I got out of it.
When have Christians as a group ever shown hyper-skepticism with regard to "miracles" outside of God? In fact, the Bible is rife with miraculous events that were not initiated by God. Talking snakes, Egyptian priests mimicking Moses, demonic possession, et cetera.
kbiel,
These are all miracles within the Judeo-Christian storyline. If you don't believe Egyptian priests were able to do some magic tricks then you're doubting the Bible (or at least a fundamentalist reading of it). I'll make it even easier, don't you think even evangelicals treat claims of Virgin Mary visitation with more skepticism than, say, the 'stardard' Bible miracles of visits by Jesus after his death, walking on water etc.?
I can tell people like Ludwig about my personal experiences with God and they will continue to dismiss it out of hand even when they might admit that I am an otherwise credible person.
But there are Hindu's who claim experiences that fit to their faith as well. Assuming these people are no less trust worthy than you we should treat their claims equally. But logically both claims can't be true at the same time (although they can both be false) so I'd say while your claims shouldn't be dismissed they cannot be in themselves sufficient.
You really seem stuck on this miracle thing. Strangely, Thomas Jefferson was able to still produce a whole book after taking out everything miraculous in the gospels.
Perhaps but it was brought up as evidence of God. Yes Jefferson did produce a whole book but was it a Christian book?
As if I didn't already realize it... but pointing that out doesn't exactly help to invalidate my arguments against the existence of Atheists.
That's quite presumptuous of you to state what my belief is with so little to base it on, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Why would I make an assumption that you believe in and worship one metaphysical being when you categorically and emphatically deny the existence of all metaphysical beings because of the faith you place in your own mythology? Now whether you are evil or not is an entirely different argument from whether you are an Atheist. Without knowing you personally I'm not prepared to argue your state of evilness one way or the other.
I didn't realize atheism was a question or challenge that had to be answered specifically. How exactly does atheism question or challenge believers in God for an answer? Why do you find yourself so compelled to argue against the existence of God? Is it to convince others, or yourself?
Actually Joe is the one who brought the topic up here, not atheists.
Here's the real deal on all this "chosen people" business (click on link to read more):
Amusing, but I don't expect to get the "real deal" on anything from a source named "SatireWeb".
Has the world ever seen a race that didn't suffer 6000 years of various persecutions, attempted genocides etc.?
Name another one then. I'm feeling generous so how about we lower the bar to 1000 years.
What race has always been on top throughout world history?
Where did I say the Jews have "always been on top"? My argument has always been that their survival and prosperity in spite of persecution is miraculous.
Ucfengr,
Amusing...
It's amusing 'cause it's true.
... but I don't expect to get the "real deal" on anything from a source named "SatireWeb".
There is no truth in satire? That's news to me (and to Aristophanes, Chaucer, Jonathan Swift, and Mark Twain).
"Has the world ever seen a race that didn't suffer 6000 years of various persecutions, attempted genocides etc.?"
Name another one then. I'm feeling generous so how about we lower the bar to 1000 years.
"What race has always been on top throughout world history?"
Where did I say the Jews have "always been on top"? My argument has always been that their survival and prosperity in spite of persecution is miraculous.
The Jews are not, and have never been, a "race". In fact, it is not at all clear that, aside from the human "race" itself, that the concept of "race" is something that can be defined in any useful way.
Two thousand years ago, the Jews used to be an a Semitic ethnic group which was more or less bound together by language, culture, religion, and a homeland with semi-autonomous political institutions.
Nowadays, the culture is still strong and the religion survives, and the homeland has been reconstituted with a new version of the old language. But the bloodlines of the old ethnic group have been hopelessly intermingled with the bloodlines of many other ethnic groups. And thanks to historical mass conversions, the majority of "Jews" today may have no direct biological ancestry from the Judeans and the Israelis of the Old Testament.
This dilution of the family tree has no bearing, of course, on the merits of Judaism as a religion. The fact that you think this whole issue is relevant to whether or not the God of Abraham is real is a profound fallacy on your part. It is a close cousin to the Islamist world view of jihad, Islamo-fascism, and terror.
How do you make a distinction between your touting of the survival of the Jews, and the Islamists' celebration of martyrdom on behalf of a new Caliphate (assuming that you're not a secret Islamist yourself)?
Smmtheory,
I didn't realize atheism was a question or challenge that had to be answered specifically. How exactly does atheism question or challenge believers in God for an answer? Why do you find yourself so compelled to argue against the existence of God? Is it to convince others, or yourself?
You raise an important and interesting question.
What exactly should be the relationship between Christianity and other creeds, or between atheism and other creeds?
Should people of different beliefs go around trying to convert each other, or should we all just agree to disagree and revel in the glorious plurality of it all?
As long as one is respectful and civil, there is no harm in proselytizing. But what should be the motivation for it?
These are very broad questions, and there are probably many valid answers and combinations of answers. So I will just share my own view about converting people to atheism.
I don't care what any particular person thinks. I would find it comforting if atheism were a strong, healthy growing world-view and religion were in general decline. But I don't think faith trends (or faithless trends) are nearly as important as trends in morality, democracy, prosperity, and technology.
Debating religion and atheism is a lot of fun (if one has a positive attitude). It is usually quite thought-provoking about a lot of interesting topics, such as cosmology, psychology, science, and various topics in philosophy such as ethics. But while the entertainment and educational value of examining these questions can be quite high, I don't think it is wise to be overly serious about the stakes, as if converting the world one way or the other is going to save it or damn it.
Life just doesn't work that way -- knowledge is a vast collaborative mosaic which only manages to capture a fraction of the reality out there in the universe. Science and religion and other human fields of endeavor are mere candles in our long dark night of ignorance. I just think that science's candle is about 10,000 times more illuminating than religion's.
Name another one then. I'm feeling generous so how about we lower the bar to 1000 years.
Italians, Irish, Russians, just about everyone...even the British (under the Roman Empire). The flip side is name one group that has been on top for the last 2000 years (I'll raise the bar up a bit). No one has which means at any given point in history anyone you can say was doing real good at...say 200 AD eventually got roughed up a bit at some other point in history.
Where did I say the Jews have "always been on top"? My argument has always been that their survival and prosperity in spite of persecution is miraculous.
No you're not getting it. If X has always been persecuted it follows that Y has always been in the position to persecute. But there is no Y who throughout history has always been persecuting. Every group you can reasonably identify has had periods when it has been on top has eventually seen periods where they were on the bottom.
To be rigerous here, we have been using miraculous to describe things that defy natural laws. This is in contrast to our everyday use of the word that sometimes includes stuff that is not supernatural but just surprising or unexpected (as in "that he lost 20 pounds is a miracle" or "it's a miracle that my son finally passed history") The problems with your argument are:
1. You don't know any 'natural laws' of history (if they even exist) that would preclude a scenero like the history of the Jewish people from happening. You don't tell us why Jewish history isn't simply exceptional but has to be miraculous.
2. The fact that the Jews were dispersed seems to account for both their long period of persecution as well as their survival. Why?
2 a - By being dispersed there were always Jews somewhere in the world. They could not be wiped out unless a determined anti-semite literally conquered the entire world. While Jews suffered in Russa, for example, others prospered in America or England.
2 b - By not having a single geographic place that they could uniquely call home for much of their history they could concentrate all their energy on preserving their culture rather than defending a geographic region. Since much energy is spent by us humans fighting over real estate this does free up quite a bit resource. However it comes with a cost. Since Jews rarely ever made up a majority in any one area and since they were good at preserving their culture they were easy targets for discrimination.
Boonton
"But there are Hindu's who claim experiences that fit to their faith as well. Assuming these people are no less trust worthy than you we should treat their claims equally. But logically both claims can't be true at the same time (although they can both be false) so I'd say while your claims shouldn't be dismissed they cannot be in themselves sufficient."
The claims of the various religions can not be used as support for or against the existence of God. They can be argued once one has an acceptance of spiritual beings, but not before. It would be like saying that an argument over who won the 1957 World Series proves that baseball does not exist.
If a being such as God exists, he is perfectly capable of being what the Bible describes him to be. It all comes back to whether he exists or not. You're right, though, that all the claims of all the religions can't all be true at the same time.
By the way, the Milwaukee Braves won the '57 series. Not the Yankees.
MK,
If a being such as God exists, he is perfectly capable of being what the Bible describes him to be.
The Bible is a very, very mixed anthology.
The only being that would be "perfectly capable" of being what the Bible describes would have to be an absolutely omnipotent (omnipotent in the sense of being perfectly unconstrained by any physical laws or reality whatsoever) with the tragic flaws of tyrannical jealousy and an unimaginably sadistic propensity to indulge in terror and torture.
There are many versions of God and gods in the history of human civilizations, but the God of the Old and the New Testaments is actually not even in the top ten of credible candidates for the position.
So why do so many people believe in him?
Because if mom and dad and most of your neighbors believe something, you're going to grow up believing it too, even if it involves little green men eating fondue on the far side of the moon.
If I had to pick a single illustration of why I have zero respect for the God of the Bible, I would cite the story of Genesis, Chapter 22. Genesis 22 relates how God tested Abraham by ordering him to kill his son Isaac with a knife as a special sacrifice.
I would spit in the face of a God who gave me such an order, yet Abraham's willingness to obey is held up as a model of devotion and faith in the three great religions of the Book, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is beyond barbaric to me, it is absolutely insane.
Anyhow, that's how I see it. Take it for what it's worth, your mileage may vary.
"If a being such as God exists, he is perfectly capable of being what the Bible describes him to be."
which then brings us to the inevitable following point...namely that if God exists,IT is also perfectly capable of being like nothing the bible describes it to be...and given the human need to bias everything he writes ina way that suits his own perspective,i would tend to believe the later .
"It all comes back to whether he exists or not. You're right, though, that all the claims of all the religions can't all be true at the same time."
yes but here where the kick in the head comes in....they can ALL be WRONG.
Matthew Groggins
"As long as one is respectful and civil, there is no harm in proselytizing. But what should be the motivation for it?"
"I would spit in the face of a God who gave me such an order, yet Abraham's willingness to obey is held up as a model of devotion and faith in the three great religions of the Book, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is beyond barbaric to me, it is absolutely insane."
Okay, Matthew. Which part is the respectful and civil?
Wow, just think how horrible the Holocaust would have been if the Jews hadn't been God's specially protected people. They sure are lucky!
MK,
I am respectful and civil to Christians and all other religious people.
I am not respectful or civil to the God of the Bible.
Fortunately for me, the God of the Bible has shown great restraint with me (so far!) and has refrained from smiting me with thunderbolts (or leprosy or what have you). But I of course chalk that up to His being existentially-challenged (i.e. purely mythical).
I apologize if I went too far in my last post and offended you. I usually qualify my diatribes with the disclaimer that while I loathe the Bible God, I respect and admire and love Christians just as much as I do anyone else. So please forgive me if you judge me to have been rude.
Yet my point stands, and a very important one it is too: the God of the Bible should not be worshipped, but abhorred. I don't expect you to agree with me, but you should be able to acknowledge the logic and force of my critique, and perhaps even admit that it is reasonable.
Matthew Goggins,
There were several items you got wrong in your response to me, but I'll just clarify one, for the most part.
This 93 year old atheist was not a bitter old man pining away for the innocence of youth. His father was an atheist and he says he was an atheist since his teen years. He wasn't bitter then, he isn't bitter now. He was simply saying he felt he had no market cornered on the truth, and he certainly felt in no position to argue others out of their faith.
It is a wonder that you feel so str