5 reasons atheism is irrational

[cowiz]

Stopping the sun in its tracks would count as a miracle IMHO

[FBM]

Now, now FBM. Behave or it will be the naughty step for you.

I get a little grumpy late at night. So, uhm...got any miracles for us?

[JimC]

Well, many historians would disagree with you of course - it is a very small minority who reject the historicity of Jesus, and then you're left in the difficult position of trying to say who was real and who was not and how Christianity began without a Christ of some sort at least.

The rules are the rules, if you don't follow them you are a hysterian, not a historian. And the special pleading position will get you nowhere.

Just to be clear - is it your assertion that there was no Jesus who originated Christianity?

I think it is highly likely there was a historical Jesus, one of the many religiously inspired orators from that culture and that religion, and that, for a variety of reasons that careful sociological research may tease out, his followers hit upon a recipe for growing a religion which worked much better than most.

-0Nor do I deny that there are some useful aspects of christianity to cherry-pick at times, or that many christians have done positive good works in the world.

In addition, christianity is deeply entwined in the cultural and architectural heritage of the west, deserving of study as such, and in recent years, many christian theists have developed a much more liberal and tolerant theology than in earlier times. (Although this was partially a forced move, having to accomodate aspects of enlightenment thinking, and move with the changing zeitgeist)

None of the above is incompatible with my complete and total atheism...

[charlou]

@Theophilus: it might be good if you address some of the points people have raised by way of argument to your stance, rather than ignoring their valid criticisms and continuing on your (predictable, I'm sorry to say) religious track.

Well, I am trying to pick up things as we go along, so apologies for things I have not covered yet. Hopefully we'll get to everything in due time.

Women, sex and humanity would be good.

[FBM]

Roman documents are used as evidence to support/refute theories about events in Roman history, not the veracity of the documents themselves. Would you accept the existence of Roman gods based on those documents? Try again.

Bingo, the supernatural filter kicks in again. Evidence for natural history is accepted; evidence for supernatural history is automatically rejected. I have to say I think that is a "reasonable" position to take, but why dress it up as something else which can't be objectively consistent (as Gawdzilla's acceptance/rejection of sources of evidence for Jesus showed)?

So you would believe in the Roman gods based on the documents? That leave you in a rather precarious position, don't you think? Or, if you really think it's a reasonable position to take, then why would you swallow the myths of your preferred documents over equally-valid Roman myths? Cultural bias? Certainty bias? Or do you have some actual evidence that you're eventually going to spring on us? We're waiting...

I know you're busy, I just want to help you remember the questions before the others pull you too far away.

[charlou]

Theists should be happy their delusion is not real, or we'd be hiding from Mammon and the other monsters instead of going to work.

Quoteworthy.

[charlou]

Miracles next

Speaking of 'miracles' ...

After a public lecture, Professor Dawkins was asked whether ''credulous'' media reporting and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's welcoming of last month's canonisation of Mary MacKillop as Australia's first Catholic saint were discouraging. Professor Dawkins replied that he did find it discouraging.

''The whole idea of creating saints, it's pure Monty Python,'' he said. ''They have to clock up two miracles. These are people we are supposed to take seriously.

''When I'm accused, 'Why are you going after easy targets, the fundamentalist nutbags, why don't you take on the real theologians?', well, the real theologians like Pope Nazi believe in miracles.''

Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Joseph Ratzinger, was conscripted into Hitler Youth, as were all German boys, when he turned 14.

''It's just surreal and completely gives the lie to the claim that the sophisticated theologians should look down on fundamentalist wingnuts. They are all the same.''

''It's just surreal and completely gives the lie to the claim that the sophisticated theologians should look down on fundamentalist wingnuts. They are all the same.''

Indeed.

[FBM]

Miracles next

Mind if I wedge myself in here?

[JimC]

Miracles next

Speaking of 'miracles' ...

After a public lecture, Professor Dawkins was asked whether ''credulous'' media reporting and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's welcoming of last month's canonisation of Mary MacKillop as Australia's first Catholic saint were discouraging. Professor Dawkins replied that he did find it discouraging.

''The whole idea of creating saints, it's pure Monty Python,'' he said. ''They have to clock up two miracles. These are people we are supposed to take seriously.

''When I'm accused, 'Why are you going after easy targets, the fundamentalist nutbags, why don't you take on the real theologians?', well, the real theologians like Pope Nazi believe in miracles.''

Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Joseph Ratzinger, was conscripted into Hitler Youth, as were all German boys, when he turned 14.

''It's just surreal and completely gives the lie to the claim that the sophisticated theologians should look down on fundamentalist wingnuts. They are all the same.''

''It's just surreal and completely gives the lie to the claim that the sophisticated theologians should look down on fundamentalist wingnuts. They are all the same.''

Indeed.

Actually, I would partly disagree with RD here, essentially on the position that catholic theologians belong in the category "sophisticated"

Modern protestant theologians of a liberal nature would see the proclaiming of saints in this day and age an unimportant historical vestige...

Not that that makes the McKillop thing any less an example of woo...

[macdoc]

Science admits to unknowns....that is profound on it's own as nothing is "written in stone" for the suckers to swallow whole....proof is required, evidence and theory have to coincide and the book is never closed.
Einstein and Darwin and Bernoulli remain vibrantly alive and tested

you are quite free to provide the verifiable reproducible evidence of a miraculous event that contradicts known laws..
( hint... the cold fusion crowd hasn't done too well either )

The barrier of evidence quality to break known physical laws is exceptionally high
that barrier is not present at all for historical record accuracy..
it's chalk and cheese and really a puerile approach

give it up - sophistry is exceedingly useless.

[Theophilus]

I know you're busy, I just want to help you remember the questions before the others pull you too far away.

Will do (but I'm just about to start for for the day), but have you noticed that so far the only rebuttals of using the Gospels and epistles as any kind of evidence (remember I wasn't saying they prove anything, just that they are worthy of being considered as evidence as you would other ancient manuscripts such as the descriptions of Roman wars by Roman historians) have simply been axiomatic and presuppositional?

No specific replies to my post on miracles yet either I notice, apart from a couple saying can I demonstrate a miracle which kinda shows they didn't actually read my post, as I did name a specific one that I believe meets Gawdzilla's definition of a miracle.

[Theophilus]

Well, I am trying to pick up things as we go along, so apologies for things I have not covered yet. Hopefully we'll get to everything in due time.

Women, sex and humanity would be good.

O.K. Charlou. Should we narrow that a little? I raised women in the context of my belief that pornography degrades women. Is that what you wanted to follow up, or would you like to pick on something different? I'm happy either way, but I do think we need to narrow down a tad.

[FBM]

Will do (but I'm just about to start for for the day), but have you noticed that so far the only rebuttals of using the Gospels and epistles as any kind of evidence (remember I wasn't saying they prove anything, just that they are worthy of being considered as evidence as you would other ancient manuscripts such as the descriptions of Roman wars by Roman historians) have simply been axiomatic and presuppositional?

What I've noticed is that you seem to be evading the point. Documents can be used as evidence for or against other things, but not for evidence of their own veracity (inconsistencies within it can reveal flaws, however). If that were true, I could just write a story, include the words 'This story is true', and nobody would have grounds to question it. Consider: "This sentence is a lie." Is it? That's why scholars cross-check various sources as much as possible. Whether you consider the gospels as strong or weak evidence for historical events isn't the issue. The bible claims to be the word of a god. The only 'evidence' you have of that veracity is in the bible, and that's not evidence at all. "The bible is the word of god. I know this because it says so in the bible" or "I know there's a god because it says so in the bible. I know the bible is true because it's the word of god." Nero, please. We've already mentioned circular reasoning, IIRC. If anything, the bible works against itself due to the overwhelming number of inconsistencies and contradictions, even within the gospels themselves. Would you like me to do a 10-second Google and come up with a few hundred? In short, you have produced no evidence and what you're trying to use as 'evidence', however weak, works against your premise, not for it.

No specific replies to my post on miracles yet either I notice, apart from a couple saying can I demonstrate a miracle which kinda shows they didn't actually read my post, as I did name a specific one that I believe meet Gawdzilla's definition of a miracle.

What, this?:

1) I think the adverb "known" is important....2) The verb "violates" is also important.

1) Is just semantics and furthermore, it's based on the assumption that the universe was created, which is far from known. No evidence for the event, no evidence to support your assumption that the universe must have been created, no evidence for your creator. Nothing. Nada. It only works if we buy into your assumptions, but no dice. Try again. There's no reason to assume that it simply hasn't always existed. Time doesn't necessarily have to have a beginning, nor space. 2) doesn't even offer anything resembling a miracle; just more circular reasoning and wordplay.

So... Got miracle?

[Animavore]

No specific replies to my post on miracles yet either I notice, apart from a couple saying can I demonstrate a miracle which kinda shows they didn't actually read my post, as I did name a specific one that I believe meets Gawdzilla's definition of a miracle.

How can we answer specifically to something so vague?

Maybe though what appears miraculous today will later be explained.

You mean like the graves in Jerusalem opening and the dad walking amongst the living at the time Christ died? You think we'll come up with a mundane explanation for that?
You do realise that there is a serious flaw here? The whole point of Christianity is that you believe in the miracle of the Resurrection. If it turns out it was something mundane, like say he took a substance to make his heart slow down so much it gave the appearance of death, then it is no longer a miracle, it is but a trick, Jesus is a con-man and the whole of Christianity is in ruins.

EDIT: Did you spot it too?

[Tigger]

A miracle is a supernatural event that violates the known physical laws of the universe.

O.K. just a couple of thoughts on this to kick us off.....

1) I think the adverb "known" is important. If we keep that adverb there (and as I say I'm happy to go by any definition you wish to pick) then miracles definitely exist. One key example I would pick is the creation of the universe, which would appear on face value to violate what we know about thermodynamics. There are no known physical laws of the universe that describe ex nihilo creation (assuming we accept the scientific "big bang" hypothesis). We can't say in what circumstances ex nihilo creation occurs, we can't say how it occurs and we can't predict when it will next occur or even if it will occur again. According to our current set of laws "something out of nothing" should not happen. Our knowledge of physical laws simply does not extend to how creation began, or what caused the big bang if you prefer. Some things happen which we just don't understand and appear to violate our existing laws, though that simply drives scientists to explore what is missing in our current laws which could explain these unexplained events. If they are miracles (and one may call ex nihilo creation a miracle I think) then miracles exist and I have hopefully given you an acceptable example. Maybe though what appears miraculous today will later be explained.

2) The verb "violates" is also important. If one were to say that a miracle is something that must violate natural/physical laws (now assuming we have a complete set of natural/physical laws) then I think this could be a short discussion, as I will agree with you and say "I don't think they happen". If God is creator of the universe, then that includes creator of how the universe works and I can't see it as an acceptable position to say that God would violate his own natural/physical laws of the universe. For me anything that appears as a miracle must essentially work in harmony with creation and not against it. We may not understand "how" (e.g. how Christ was resurrected) but I would not want to say Christ was resurrected and it violated the physical laws of the universe.

Essentially I believe that ultimately natural (events) and "supernatural" (miracles) are all part of the same creation and the distinction is largely based on the state of our knowledge. The miraculous may become mundane once explained; though ultimately I believe we will see it all as one beautiful harmony and recognise the miraculous in things we today consider mundane.

( [pedant] “known” is an adjective [/pedant])

Just because it can’t be explained yet, doesn’t make it a miracle. How many times has progress been halted by the religious “explanation” God did it? Just because you think ex nihilo creation should be labelled a miracle, doesn’t make it one. That’s terribly subjective and not an empirical example. We want proper woo here. Turn toast into bread or something. Or Bacon into cheese. That’d do it!

Also, if science progresses far enough, and it shows every indication of so doing, all we need to do is to await the march of progress and your God will be driven asymptotically to non-existence. God is now so much smaller than “He” used to be because of the rationality of atheism, it only takes a small inductive step for even you to abandon your desperate clinging to a futile belief system.