Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[SMOGZINN]

I wonder why agnosticism is never brought up in these threads

Because it is not really useful to mention.

Agnosticism has one of two definitions:

Agnosticism is the position that you don't have a position because you don't know what position you should have. Which is just silly, and you should probably take some more time to think about that before posting.

or

Agnosticism is the opinion that truth of the existence a deity can not be known. Which is the position that nearly all atheists and some theists hold. It still does not answer the basic question that these thread are talking about: should you believe in a deity.

 

[PingviN]

I agree. Jesus existing isn't evidence he was the Son of God. But what it does prove is that the Bible is being truthful, and when I see that it is telling me the truth about something, then I know I can trust it when it comes to other things.

Wait, what? Because there might've been a guy named Jesus the Bible is truthful? The statement that he was water-walking, turned water to wine, resurrected from the dead and fed 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish is truthful because...?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Rob M., you can absolutely use the types of analogies he used, it is completely acceptable. Even christianity had it's beginnings which are some pretty wild tales, so talking about unicorns in a comparison to religion makes sense on some levels. Just because you don't like your god paired up with the tooth fairy or unicorns doesn't mean there aren't many parallels. And even if we use your rules, still nothing is presented that makes the christian story more compelling or convincing than any other religion. Even if I choose to believe that there has to be a higher power, a god, what would make me feel jesus is the son of god more than his mom was just a lying slut and some other religion has it right?

 

[Retro Rob]

Would you apply the same "well, some of it is true, so the rest of it is true as well" to other religions as well?

False, as I am not obligated to speak to the credibility of other religions. All I have to do is show why I think I have the more credible one.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I understand, but I did once explain why these kind of analogies are not applicable. Firstly, they are arbitrary. You cannot make something up (as in the case with unicorns and bread causing cancer) and try to compare that with something that has a deep, long history behind it, like belief in God. Those persons who wrote their 'alleged' experiences with the supernatrual obviously said they had reasons....those reasons must be considered on their own merits. Even if you did find a deep histroy with belief in invisible Unicorns, falsifying that doesn't automatically falisfy the existence of God.

I'm not sure why a "history of belief" makes anything more true than another idea. I suppose acupuncture would be something that would be more analagous, as people have been practicing that (I would argue devoutly so) for at least as long as Christianity has been around.

Again, though, I'm not falsifying anything. Proving non-existence of anything is impossible. It is just that I must set a threshold for belief. If I determine that I am willing to believe anything that I cannot prove untrue, I will become lost in an infinite sea of equivalent possibilities. If there is no distinguishable difference between 0, 1, or 10 Gods, then why bother with any of them? Life is sufficiently complicated dealing just with the information I can demonstrate as useful. Yes, this is an arbitrary standard, but it seems the most reasonable option available.

I'm sorry for not being clear. No, I don't believe in feelings of divine presence, as feelings are emotional, and emotions aren't evidence...but what I mean is that when I look at things, I can see intelligence behind it...depending on what I am looking at.

How do you demonstrate that intelligence? Humans are well trained to see patterns everywhere. It's a necessary trait for survival, but it means that we tend to see trends in places they don't exist as well. See my earlier posts about over-fitting why "apparent patterns" need to be predictive to be useful.

I agree. Jesus existing isn't evidence he was the Son of God. But what it does prove is that the Bible is being truthful, and when I see that it is telling me the truth about something, then I know I can trust it when it comes to other things.

Again, I don't understand why that's particularly relevant. Most people (including, I'm sure, myself) are right about some things and wrong about others. I'd never say that because the Bible got one thing wrong it's all impossible, and likewise I don't see how being right about one thing makes it more likely to be right about anything else.

At times, too...this is when faith becomes important, because we cannot reproduce miracles, etc. However, we need reasons to believe they can and have happened, thus, making faith stronger and easier.

Faith is never something I did particularly well with. I'm much too much of an empiricist.

False, as I am not obligated to speak to the credibility of other religions. All I have to do is show why I think I have the more credible one.

But such a valuation requires differentiation. If there is no compelling reason to choose one above the other, then why bother considering the choice?

 

[PingviN]

False, as I am not obligated to speak to the credibility of other religions. All I have to do is show why I think I have the more credible one.

Why do you think Christianity is more credible than Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Greece/Roman/Norse mythology?

 

[Kadarin]

Agnosticism is the opinion that truth of the existence a deity can not be known. Which is the position that nearly all atheists and some theists hold. It still does not answer the basic question that these thread are talking about: should you believe in a deity.

If I could offer a correction: Agnosticism is the opinion that truth of the existence of a deity (or deities) is not yet known.

Stating that such truth can not be known is wrong, because what if at some point such a deity makes itself known in some way?

To address the larger issue in the thread, people either believe in some form of higher power (or powers) without objective observable, measurable evidence, or they do not. For those who do, such belief can and do take any number of forms codified in religious texts and traditions or otherwise. Humanity takes these beliefs seriously enough that wars are fought over them.

Atheists assert that since there is no observational, measurable, objective evidence of any higher power whatsoever at this point in time, there must be no such thing. Agnostics don't make that assertion.

 

[Kadarin]

Jesus existing isn't evidence he was the Son of God. But what it does prove is that the Bible is being truthful, and when I see that it is telling me the truth about something, then I know I can trust it when it comes to other things.

So what you're saying here is that if part of something is true, then the whole of that thing must also be truthful?

The movie Titanic features the ship that sank after hitting an iceberg in 1912. That this happened is historical fact, documented in many ways. Therefore, Jack Dawson must have existed and it is a historical fact that he fell in love with Rose DeWitt Bukater and subsequently perished in that sinking.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Atheists assert that since there is no observational, measurable, objective evidence of any higher power whatsoever at this point in time, there must be no such thing. Agnostics don't make that assertion.

Now if I may make a correction. Atheist do not make the claim that since there is no evidence there must be no such thing. Atheists make the claim that since there is no evidence there is no reason to believe in any such thing.

We make the unicorn and and tooth fairy arguments not as metaphors but because they are exactly the same thing. You don't start out with a belief in something. You need a reason to believe in something, not a reason not too. Infinitely more thing don't exist then exist.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You are not Christian

that's not true at all!

I think what everyone fails to understand is that you are not a Christian in your own mind you are correct. I am not going to judge you or question you in a belittling manner.

On the same token I feel that I am right. Yet my upbringing as a Christian tells me to live the example. Talk is cheap.

You have your right to believe as you please....but with that choice to believe as you please comes consequences. Same thing goes for Christians. Consequences do not have to be bad. Consequences can be good!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If there is no reason to believe in God, what reason is there to reject God?

Atheists do not reject any gods. They reject poor arguments in favor of a god's existence.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So what you're saying here is that if part of something is true, then the whole of that thing must also be truthful?

The movie Titanic features the ship that sank after hitting an iceberg in 1912. That this happened is historical fact, documented in many ways. Therefore, Jack Dawson must have existed and it is a historical fact that he fell in love with Rose DeWitt Bukater and subsequently perished in that sinking.

That is not what he is saying -- you are turning what he is saying into what you want him to be saying!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Atheists do not reject any gods. They reject poor arguments in favor of a god's existence.

Rob M. was totally correct. You on the other hand have your mind made up and judging by your past posts you do not believe that any God exists at all.....without as you claim -- a good argument for...

 

[Kadarin]

That is not what he is saying -- you are turning what he is saying into what you want him to be saying!

On rereading what he said...

So the movie Titanic featured the historical ship Titanic, which proves the movie is being truthful. When I see that it's telling me the truth about something, then I know I can trust it when it comes to other things. Therefore, I choose to believe that Jack Dawson and Rose were fact as well.

It's a nuance, but my choice is still equally stupid.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Rob M. was totally correct. You on the other hand have your mind made up and judging by your past posts you do not believe that any God exists at all.....without as you claim -- a good argument for...

I realize this is off-topic, but I feel compelled to ask: are you an elderly person?

 

[Kadarin]

Now if I may make a correction. Atheist do not make the claim that since there is no evidence there must be no such thing. Atheists make the claim that since there is no evidence there is no reason to believe in any such thing

I tend to think of atheism in a more narrow sense, the assertion that there are no deities. I'm a non-theistic agnostic, which is my term for what you're stating above. Until such a deity manifests its existence, I choose to not waste time or energy believing in it. But I do acknowledge that such a thing could happen, however remote the probability.

 

[Retro Rob]

Atheists do not reject any gods. They reject poor arguments in favor of a god's existence.

Well, I agree that you don't seem to outright reject God(s), but the tone of many atheists posts strongly suggests that they go well beyond just rejecting arguments, hence, why I bluntly asked crashtestdummy is there reason to reject God(s).

You cannot tell me with statements like "I contend we're both atheists...I just reject one more God than you do"...or how ever the quote goes, that atheists aren't under the opinion that there is no God.

No, I wouldn't go as far as to say all atheists share this sentiment, but I think its naïve to say atheists don't.

 

[sandorski]

I tend to think of atheism in a more narrow sense, the assertion that there are no deities. I'm a non-theistic agnostic, which is my term for what you're stating above. Until such a deity manifests its existence, I choose to not waste time or energy believing in it. But I do acknowledge that such a thing could happen, however remote the probability.

You're an Atheist.

 

[Kadarin]

You're an Atheist.

By the most inclusive definition of atheist (per wikipedia), yes.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I tend to think of atheism in a more narrow sense, the assertion that there are no deities. I'm a non-theistic agnostic, which is my term for what you're stating above. Until such a deity manifests its existence, I choose to not waste time or energy believing in it. But I do acknowledge that such a thing could happen, however remote the probability.

While I think that the odds of a god existing is very slight, I can not outright reject that any god exists. There is always a non-zero chance that one does.

What I can do is look at specific claims of religions and determine if those claims are reasonable. What I have found is that most of the claims by the religions that I have studied are not reasonable. They are all flawed in some fundamental way that leaves me to not accept the greater claim of that specific god. So, I say that (for example) the Christian God as described to me by his followers does not exist.

This is atheism.

 

[sandorski]

By the most inclusive definition of atheist (per wikipedia), yes.

Even by your own term "non-theistic". That term is literally exactly the same as "Atheistic".

 

[Retro Rob]

So what you're saying here is that if part of something is true, then the whole of that thing must also be truthful?

Nope. I'm saying that if you find truth in some parts of whatever, then you can reasonably expect truth to continue -- and this is with anything.

Jack Dawson, on the other hand, is simply a fictional character....arbitrarily created as such, never said to real, never expected to be.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, I agree that you don't seem to outright reject God(s), but the tone of many atheists posts strongly suggests that they go well beyond just rejecting arguments, hence, why I bluntly asked crashtestdummy is there reason to reject God(s).

You cannot tell me with statements like "I contend we're both atheists...I just reject one more God than you do"...or how ever the quote goes, that atheists aren't under the opinion that there is no God.

I know the quote, and I think I get where you're coming from, but you have to keep in mind that you're talking about what basically amounts to a bumper sticker slogan, not a thoroughly considered rational statement.

Strictly speaking, I don't think it is coherent to talk about rejecting something that doesn't exist, or at least that a supposed "rejecter" does not believe to exist. Rejection requires an object of that rejection. I cannot reject an offer you have not given me. Until I can be convinced that I have been given an offer, it is erroneous to suggest I could have rejected it.

No, I wouldn't go as far as to say all atheists share this sentiment, but I think its naïve to say atheists don't.

Sure, I'll stipulate that there are some atheists who will affirm that precisely zero gods exist, but as above, I submit that this isn't the same thing as "rejecting gods," but rather "rejecting the ideas of gods"

 

[crashtestdummy]

While I think that the odds of a god existing is very slight, I can not outright reject that any god exists. There is always a non-zero chance that one does.

What I can do is look at specific claims of religions and determine if those claims are reasonable. What I have found is that most of the claims by the religions that I have studied are not reasonable. They are all flawed in some fundamental way that leaves me to not accept the greater claim of that specific god. So, I say that (for example) the Christian God as described to me by his followers does not exist.

This is atheism.

I've always been troubled by the bolded statement (which I've heard many times from others). What do you mean when you say that there is a very slight chance God exists? Are you just saying that the concept of God makes no sense to you, or are you assigning a semi-quantitative reasoning to that statement? I can't think of a way to say that the probability of God existing is anything other than indeterminate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nope. I'm saying that if you find truth in some parts of whatever, then you can reasonably expect truth to continue -- and this is with anything.

I don't think it is quite that simple.

I think it is reasonable to provisionally stipulate the unverified truth of certain facts contained in a narrative where certain distinct facts have been independently verified, but only where those unverified alleged facts are otherwise trivial or commonplace. Where those unverified alleged facts are unusual or extraordinary, the value of the verified truth of proximal claims diminishes rapidly in an inverse relationship to the relative uniqueness of the unverified claim.

To illustrate, I don't think it is reasonable to believe me when I tell you I caught a 300lb bass in the creek down by the old oak tree, even if I can show you the old oak tree by the creek. It might be more reasonable to believe me if I told you I caught a frog, while still being something that is reasonably doubtful without verification of the frog's existence, for example.

To suggest that it is reasonable to believe that Jesus walked on water because we can verify the existence of places like Jerusalem or Bethlehem (as an example, and not necessarily indicative of a particular claim by you) is more akin to the example of the 300lb bass than the ordinary frog.

Jack Dawson, on the other hand, is simply a fictional character....arbitrarily created as such, never said to real, never expected to be.

I think your pointing out this fact is indicative of a failure to properly consider the analogy on its own merits. It is irrelevant to the principle of the analogy, and instead seems to try to side-step it with a red herring.