On why Atheism is a Shite BELIEF System

[Svartalf]

it's not a religious belief, it's the simple fact that supernatural events have never been reliably observed and that in each occurrence Occam's razor dictates a simpler and non supernatural explanation... myth, delusion and plain fiction and lies are the stuff of religion... I've prayed often and never contacted god, I've done all I could to placate it, and my fate has been shitty... if there is a god, or supernatural beings in general, I'm staying open for business, but until I get proper evidence of them, I'll quote Laplace concerning the matter : "that factor was not necessary to make the hypothesis workl".

[Seth]

it's not a religious belief

No, it's a religious belief.

, it's the simple fact that supernatural events have never been reliably observed

According to whom, exactly? Who sets the universal rule for "reliable observation?" Moreover, merely because was not "reliably observed," indeed merely because an event, "supernatural" or otherwise, has not been observed at all by anyone does not mean the event did not take place.

and that in each occurrence Occam's razor dictates a simpler and non supernatural explanation

The assumption that the "simpler and non supernatural" explanation is always correct is not only wrong and irrational, it's a misstating of Occam's razor, which actually says:

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

The application of the principle can be used to shift the burden of proof in a discussion. However, Alan Baker, who suggests this in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is careful to point out that his suggestion should not be taken generally, but only as it applies in a particular context, that is: philosophers who argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve allegedly "superfluous ontological apparatus".[a] Baker then notices that principles, including Occam's razor, are often expressed in a way that is not clear regarding which facet of "simplicity"—parsimony or elegance—is being referred to, and that in a hypothetical formulation the facets of simplicity may work in different directions: a simpler description may refer to a more complex hypothesis, and a more complex description may refer to a simpler hypothesis. Source: Wikipedia

Please note the highlighted sentence. You're comparing apples to oranges because the "competing hypotheses" with respect to the existence of God and/or "supernatural" events are not predictively equal.

... myth, delusion and plain fiction and lies are the stuff of religion...

They are the stuff of every human belief, but they are not the ONLY stuff, of either every human belief or of religion specifically.

I've prayed often and never contacted god,

And you know this how, exactly? What you really mean is that God has never contacted you in a manner that you understand to be the product of divine communications.

I've done all I could to placate it, and my fate has been shitty...

How unfortunate. However, your failure to "placate" God says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of God.

if there is a god, or supernatural beings in general, I'm staying open for business, but until I get proper evidence of them, I'll quote Laplace concerning the matter : "that factor was not necessary to make the hypothesis workl".

What hypothesis? That God does not exist? Sloppy science there dude, sloppy indeed.

[Svartalf]

It's your religious belief that my reasoned opinion is of the same order as your faith, I'll no longer try to discuss with you.

[Tero]

Why should there be any hypothesis about god existing or not existing? There is no data. If you not expect any data, what is the point of a hypothesis?

[Svartalf]

The quote I mined was Laplace answering Napoleon about why he hadn't included god in his hypothesis about the working of the solar system, it was not about god.

[piscator]

"[Sire,] je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là."

"[Sire,] I had no need for that hypothesis."

?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I can say the same for any branch of science you yourself cannot (or do not) verify by your own hand. Does the Large Hadron Collider actually collide hadrons? You weren't there so you can't say, and I can say that they are all crazy cult leaders in a land full of 'em and be just exactly as correct as you are in your analysis of the anecdotal reports of the followers of Christ. And then there's the "garbled reports from self-interested participants" in the "global warming" scientific community...

What an utterly idiotic comparison. For a start, the activities at CERN are current, and thus not seen through the mists of history (my original comment, of course, applies to a greater or lesser extent to all examples of ancient history, although some have much more detailed, credible and multiple textual sources than the bible; a good example would be the copious literature and history of Rome...). Secondly, CERN is a collaboration of a large number of highly qualified people from a wide range of nationalities and professions, who share the vast amount of data they generate with an even larger world-wide scientific community, including all possible engineering details of the actual collider. The data is used by fiercely competitive groups, who take a certain pleasure in exposing the potential inaccuracies of rival concerns. All the papers generated are peer reviewed, and published in a wide range of professional journals, then further reported on by science journalists. Anyone with the time and expertise can both see the raw data, go on a tour of the collider, and make their own analysis of the material.

Learn to make comparisons which actually make sense, and perhaps you will be taken seriously...

[laklak]

Buncha quite possibly fictitious piss stained goat herders supposedly claim some improbable bullshit happened. Ignorant morons take this as Absolute Truth, and "prove" their contentions by saying "but you weren't there" or "you can't know that". Color me skeptical, but I'll ignore their mushroom induced ravings. I also don't credit reports of Bigfoot or faeries at the bottom of the garden. If that's what passes for religion these days then religion is some pretty small fucking beer, and isn't worth consideration. People who decide that atheism is somehow comparable with theism based on nonsensical, useless, irrelevant comparisons of "metaphysical evidence" with actual, real, scientific data are as full of shit as the proverbial Christmas Turkey. No wall of philosophical babble will change that, but it it makes you feel better to believe it then have at it, mate. To each their own.

[piscator]

Better act right though.

[JimC]

One of the issues raised in this thread is to what extent the material in the Old Testament can be used as part of a critique against christianity. Note that the critique does not have to come exclusively from atheists; it could come from other religions, or from a christian reform group that wants to modernise and improve the christian tradition.

Firstly, it is abundantly clear that great chunks of the Old Testament are utterly appalling from any reasonable moral or ethical perspective, and are wildly at odds with the standard messages of "love one another" that christians assert are central to their belief system. I don't think I have to discuss the main examples; I assume we already know about the bears eating little children, the opposing tribes being systematically killed and raped, and all the rest of the vicious paean to a tribal war god...

Firstly, no matter how much Seth and others may wiggle, the words attributed to Jesus about the words of the prophets of his people are very, very clear; he was not there to change them.

Secondly, christians keep including the Old Testament in their bible, which is regarded as the word of god. If christianity had truly abandoned the Old Testament, it could be easily removed and left as an appendix for curious historians.

Thirdly, preachers of all denominations continue to quote from both testaments in their sermons. It is, of course, quite noteworthy that the majority are rather selective when quoting from the old testament, although the hell and brimstone brigade sometimes delight in the nastier patches.

[laklak]

Yeah, well, but no TRUE Christian....

[pErvinalia]

I've never read anything that Jesus wrote. I believe there's some stuff written by some social engineers 300 years or so later.

Jesus didn't write stuff, he said stuff.

You were there, were you?

Nobody was there, but all the Jesus stuff we have comes from either self claimed witnesses, or people who took the sayings from the same, there are no gospels attributed to Jesus himself.

True. But then again billions of people over the ages claim personal communications with God/Jesus. Why should one not accept that "eyewitness testimony" as being true?

"billions of people....claim"? Where did you pull this shit from?

[pErvinalia]

Because self induced hallucinations and mass delirium are a likely enough hypothesis to easily trump the possibility of it being true... after all, all witnesses haz driving intersts in their witnessing, and patriot as I am, I'd more likely ascribe Joan of Arc's voices to delusion or manipulation than to actual supernatural communication... same for Teresa of Avila's ecsteasies, or the Marial apparitions in Lourdes or Fatima.

But you don't know, and you cannot prove your hypothesis even in the slightest,

Yes he can. Just because you don't accept his evidence is no repudiation. You are just being irrational.

Why the fuck am I talking to you again? FFS, you can't even construct a simple argument.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...billions of people over the ages claim personal communications with God/Jesus. Why should one not accept that "eyewitness testimony" as being true?

The billions is utter bullshit, of course. Only a small minority of christians unequivocally claim that god speaks to them...

Leaving that to one side, it is not credible evidence for a number of quite obvious reasons:

1. Hearing voices is a well known psychiatric condition; the condition is taken seriously, but the putative objective existence of the sources of the voices is not.

2. Personal experience that others cannot experience or observe may be interesting, and valuable in its own right, but it is not evidence in any real sense of the word; it would not be accepted in a court of law.

3. People lie, people fantasise, people have wish fulfilment issues. Without additional supplementary evidence, such possibilities always remain.

4. People from other religions may have similar experiences, where their own religious figures speak to them. Typically, the tenets of competing religions are mutually exclusive - a christian could not accept the existence of the panoply of hindu gods, a hindu could not accept that the only way to salvation is via Jesus. Accepting a personal revelation in any one religious tradition as valid evidence privileges it above all the others. Either you accept them all as valid, which leads to clear logical inconsistencies, or you reject them all as sources of credible evidence.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

But then again billions of people over the ages claim personal communications with God/Jesus/Set/Quetzlcoatl/Apollo/Allah/Baal/Odin/Zarathustra/The Great White Elk/Krishna/Isis/The ghost of their dead grandmother/Fairies at the bottom of the garden/Trolls/Elves/Pixies/Banshees/Kelpies/Republicans/Gingerbread men/Talking wombats/Intelligent grapes/Aliens/Darth Vader/Mr Magoo/Their feminine side/The Borg/The spirits of dead foetuses/Vampires/Satan/Honest realtors/etc. Why should one not accept that "eyewitness testimony" as being true?