5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're the one stating that bullshit is true. It's up to you to prove it.

Nope. Still nuthin'.

Maybe tomorrow...

Theists pick the fights they can win. Which is why they never get in fights.

[FBM]

You're the one stating that bullshit is true. It's up to you to prove it.

Nope. Still nuthin'.

Maybe tomorrow...

Theists pick the fights they can win. Which is why they never get in fights.

Sure they do. Didn't you see the vid of that crowd of theists fighting the 17-yr-old girl?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sure they do. Didn't you see the vid of that crowd of theists fighting the 17-yr-old girl?

Ah, very similar to the Custer thing?

[FBM]

Sure they do. Didn't you see the vid of that crowd of theists fighting the 17-yr-old girl?

Ah, very similar to the Custer thing?

Nah, just your average Tuesday morning in Allah-land.

[Theophilus]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

I would be happy to do this. However, can you provide a bit of clarification. By "disprove the existence of God" can you specify which god you mean?

Or, do you mean the existence of any god or gods at all in whatsoever form? Are you referring to the existence of a supernatural creator(S) of the universe?

But, let me take a crack at this, based on your requests to "use facts to disprove the existence of God."

1. Fact: we have many different religions (thousands) positing many different ideas about the nature of God. Many of these religions propose a God that are inconsistent with many other religions' concepts of God. At most, one (or a few) of them can be right. They all could be wrong. There is no way for me to distinguish which religion's god-concept, if any, is correct. Therefore, I am not justified in arbitrarily choosing one over another. To arbitrarily pick one over another would be irrational, therefore, my only rational decision is to suspend belief and wait for one of them to produce a persuasive case.

2. Fact: There was a point in time where humanity ascribed supernatural causes to many things in the world, and not just the creation of the universe and the origin of life. The planets were messengers of the gods, the stars were angels, gods controlled the thunder and the lightening, the wind and the rain. Gods caused volcanos to erupt, earthquakes to shake the ground, and tidal waves to crash into the land. Gods caused tornadoes and hurricanes - gods cause famines, droughts, pestilence as well as times of plenty, safety and health. Gods were in the rocks and the ground and the waters and the flames. Over time, as man's knowledge of the world around him increased, we began to eliminate where these gods were located. We eventually learned that the planets were orbs like Earth, that the stars were suns like the Sun, that thunder and lightening were controlled by natural processes, as were the wind, rain, volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, famines, droughts, pestilence and times of plenty, safety and health. We learned how the Earth and the celestial bodies operate and change over time all naturally and without the day to day intervention of any deities. Now we are asked by the clerics and the priests, and the devotees, to believe that there are still gods but they are now "outside the universe" and they are what the caused the universe "came to be" and how "life first started." Isn't it quite a coincidence that these are areas where man, like thunder and lightening in ancient times, has no natural explanation? So, given the long history of events and occurrences being attributed to gods, and then later being determined to be perfectly natural processes, is it not rational to surmise that the universe itself will have an explanation that is natural and that the origin of life will have a natural explanation?

3. Fact: an atheist basis his lack of belief on the fact that nobody has been able to demonstrate that any god or gods are distinguishable from make-believe. Given that you are unable to distinguish your god from make believe, is it not rational for an atheist to refrain from believing in your god?

Is that what you were looking for?

Coito ergo sum

Well done, I do like someone who has a stab at a challenge! And seeking clarity about the question as well – you are someone after my own heart indeed. Especially when discussing theology we all too often use terms in different ways assuming that the other person understands what we intend to mean by “God”. I am sure I do that as much as others. But it's good to pause and clarify the terms we are using.

I suppose I could answer "which God?" in two ways. I could go for a general theism approach of saying “I believe in a God who created and sustains the universe”. Or I could go for the specific God of the Nicene creed. But O.K. I’ll go for a more specific God – the God of the theologically rich Nicene creed that has been almost universal among Christians (bar the filoque clause; the Orthodox Church have the spirit proceeding from the father and not from the father and the son) for over 1600 years....

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

As for your other points. ....

Firstly I would say that none of them logically refute the Nicene creed (not that I gave you that before, so it's a tad harsh to criticize you for not directly refuting something you hadn't been shown). To refute, I would look to simple logic. I have given you the Nicene creed. Let’s call that “A”. To convince me A is not true would need to present just a single “B” where “B” (1) is shown beyond doubt to be true, either true historically if we are using history, such as "Jesus did not die when he was crucified", or always true in all circumstances if you are talking of a general truth, and (2) cannot possibly exist at the same time as “A”. So I’m not looking for an argument based on probabilities I’m looking for a single “B” which must be true and which is mutually exclusive with A, with absolutely no chance of A and B existing together (I believe a logician would call A and B an antonymic pair; if A is true B can’t be true and vice versa). As an example I could say "I have six fingers on my left hand" so an antonymic pairing could be "you have four fingers on your left hand" - they can't both be true.

#1 Does not pass the antonymic pair test. #1 is essentially saying “I can’t decide if any are true so they must all be wrong”, but that certain conclusion does not logically follow from the uncertainty you are in. You have also rejected the general from rejecting the particular. As we try to be more precise we are more likely to have something wrong and we always need to be careful about rejecting the general from rejecting the particular (I had a friend who, at a scientific conference, reported two measurements for the same thing using two different methods. He was inevitably asked “which is right?” and replied “the only thing I can be sure of is that both will be precisely wrong, so perhaps all I can comment on is which is likely to be least wrong”).I think you also focus on the differences, where I would also want to look at the commonalities present (the apparent universal sense of the numinous) rather than totally dismissing all religion.

#2 Does not pass the antonymic pair test. You and I both reject the idea of a God of the unexplained. Either God is author and sustainer of all or he is not. He’s either at the centre of everything (mundane and “miraculous”) or he’s not there. I, like you, have no time for any straw man of a God who only does things we can’t explain. So on that one you’d definitely be arguing against a notion of God I would not subscribe to (which is fair enough because we hadn’t clarified what I meant by God). But I will accept that the idea of God has developed over time (though I, and many, still adhere to the Nicene creed which is 4th century, so way way before the enlightenment).

#3 Does not pass the antonymic pair test. I would half agree with you but I would not therefore say it is disproof of God. If you don’t see evidence for God either around you or in your own experiences then I would say you shouldn’t, indeed you can’t, believe in God. I don’t buy Pascal’s wager or anybody who says “you should believe” because that is not how belief works (at least it doesn’t for me). So I will agree with you and say that I think it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in God. If you’re not convinced by what you read in and about scripture and history then you’re not convinced. I don’t have a problem with that. But I would not be prepared to say that because you are not convinced of God that therefore everyone else must come to that conclusion. You, or any number of people, not believing the Nicene creed is not mutually exclusive with the Nicene creed being true. We all have different data sets. I am realistic and consider personal testimonies week evidence in the eyes of others, but you’ll appreciate that if you are the person with the particular experiences then you give weight to those experiences.

But thank you for engaging

[Theophilus]

I would be interested to hear the exact difference between proof and evidence in a non-mathmatical context. I don't think there is a bit of difference to be honest. Unless you claim personal revelation to be proof whereas there is no evidence. In any case I want to know what you call proof.

Fair question.

What I meant was that evidence could be presented that was not conclusive, just as in a court case both sides present "evidence". I was using "proof" to mean evidence that conclusively forces one conclusion. So for example having tooth-like marks in my cheese could be evidence that a mouse was getting at it (though perhaps it was just the cheese cutting process that left them there) but a video of a mouse eating my beloved cheese would probably be taken as proof and the mouse summarily sentenced to execution.

Thankyou for asking for clarification about what I meant.

[FBM]

...So for example having tooth-like marks in my cheese could be evidence that a mouse was getting at it (though perhaps it was just the cheese cutting process that left them there) but a video of a mouse eating my beloved cheese would probably be taken as proof and the mouse summarily sentenced to execution.

No, that's just XC.

[Coito ergo sum]

Theophilus wrote

#1 Does not pass the antonymic pair test. #1 is essentially saying “I can’t decide if any are true so they must all be wrong”, but that certain conclusion does not logically follow from the uncertainty you are in. You have also rejected the general from rejecting the particular. As we try to be more precise we are more likely to have something wrong and we always need to be careful about rejecting the general from rejecting the particular (I had a friend who, at a scientific conference, reported two measurements for the same thing using two different methods. He was inevitably asked “which is right?” and replied “the only thing I can be sure of is that both will be precisely wrong, so perhaps all I can comment on is which is likely to be least wrong”).I think you also focus on the differences, where I would also want to look at the commonalities present (the apparent universal sense of the numinous) rather than totally dismissing all religion.

No - you've mischaracterized what I wrote. I did not say, "I can't decide if any are true, so they must all be wrong." I wrote that none of the asserted gods have been established as true, and there is no reason to accept one above the other, therefore the only logical choice is to not accept any of them. It's the same reason why you reject a native American Indian's claim that their creator god created the universe and the happy hunting grounds. They haven't established that as true, and there is no reason to accept it as true, so the only logical choice is to not accept it. Line up the 1000 different god-concepts, or so, existing today and each of them, individually, has not been established as true, and there is no reason to accept any one of them, therefore the only logical choice is not accept any one of them.

I have not rejected the general from the particular. I have rejected each offered god-concept of which I am aware. If you have a more general concept to offer, you'd need to describe it so that I can answer whether I think it exists or not.

I didn't dismiss all religion. I dismissed all religious concepts of god. Some forms of Buddhism, for example, are atheistic.

What's with this "antonymic base pair" test? Antonymic base pairs are gradable opposites - like long and short. What sort of "test" are you applying here and why must an argument on the existence of god be a product of antonymic base pairs?

[Tigger]

@Theo:

Now, we've had all the explanations about the definitions of miracles etc etc, how you interpret them to be miracles yada yada yada, how about now not skirting the questions and actually coming up with some real stuff; evidence, proof, examples and not from biblical tales. I don't believe Aesop, and I don't believe the bible. Convert me.

Or are you the perfect politician and won't answer a direct question?

If your next response to this is some more waffle, then I assume the latter. I make large presumptions that you will even reply to this post.

[Coito ergo sum]

Theophilus wrote:

#2 Does not pass the antonymic pair test. You and I both reject the idea of a God of the unexplained. Either God is author and sustainer of all or he is not. He’s either at the centre of everything (mundane and “miraculous”) or he’s not there. I, like you, have no time for any straw man of a God who only does things we can’t explain. So on that one you’d definitely be arguing against a notion of God I would not subscribe to (which is fair enough because we hadn’t clarified what I meant by God). But I will accept that the idea of God has developed over time (though I, and many, still adhere to the Nicene creed which is 4th century, so way way before the enlightenment).

I don't believe you've rebutted my argument.

We obviously know how natural phenomena, once ascribed to a god, are now known and explained. Bodies are not held in space by the hand of god - they interact via Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. There is no evidence that any deity is needed for any phenomena that we see in the universe. The only thing that theists assert he's need for now is the deist creator function of "setting it all in motion" and answering the question of "where did it all come from", and then some are still asserting that the "spark of life" can't be replicated by man, so it must have been god's intervention that made non-life become life.

Well, modern science is fast carrying us toward synthetic life. Anyone following modern biology in the last 10 years knows that we are on the cusp of doing it. We're working on it. So, as that progresses we hear less and less from theists about how there must be a god because "how did life begin?"

My point here did not fail any "antonymic pair test." I did not fail to appropriately juxtapose two gradable opposites.

[Coito ergo sum]

Theophilus wrote:

#3 Does not pass the antonymic pair test.

Yes, it did [edited - I meant that it did not fail whatever this antonymic pair test is]. Well, I'll let you define your test, but I did not fail to properly apply any gradable opposites - light/dark - up/down - high/low - big/small. So, you'll need to explain which antonymic pairs I haven't appropriately juxtaposed.

I would half agree with you but I would not therefore say it is disproof of God. If you don’t see evidence for God either around you or in your own experiences then I would say you shouldn’t, indeed you can’t, believe in God.

Bingo.

I don’t buy Pascal’s wager or anybody who says “you should believe” because that is not how belief works (at least it doesn’t for me). So I will agree with you and say that I think it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in God.

Bingo.

If you’re not convinced by what you read in and about scripture and history then you’re not convinced.

Not only am I not convinced, but I have yet to hear even a moderately persuasive argument why I should even suspect that the "scripture" (whichever ones you are are referring to) demonstrates the existence of any god, let alone your god.

I don’t have a problem with that. But I would not be prepared to say that because you are not convinced of God that therefore everyone else must come to that conclusion.

Anyone can come to any conclusion they like. However, what tends to happen in this argument is that people accept as conclusively persuasive "evidence" certain things that in any other context are not accepted. That's where there is additional trouble with these arguments. Theists accept certain arguments as conclusive proof of the existence of their god, but reject similar arguments as proof of other gods.

You, or any number of people, not believing the Nicene creed is not mutually exclusive with the Nicene creed being true.

I never said it was. By the same token, the fact that someone wrote down the Nicene Creed 1600-odd years ago is not evidence of its truth, nor is the number of people believing in its truth evidence of its truth.

We all have different data sets.

Not necessarily. I haven't heard your data set, yet. Can you summarize your data set?

I am realistic and consider personal testimonies week evidence in the eyes of others,

As well you should, since there are "personal testimonies" of the existence of the Shinto deities too, and of Allah, and there are records of the personal testimonies of the Greek gods and goddesses, the Norse gods and goddesses, etc. It's not just weak evidence "in the eyes of others." It should be weak evidence to everyone because it is weak evidence. If someone comes up to you and says, "Hallelujah, I saw a vision of the Lord when I looked up into the sky and saw a bright light," you should not believe that person, just as if someone came to you said that they had a vision of a Shinto deity when they looked up into the sky and saw a bright light.

Why? Because the evidence is unverifiable and vague, as well as attributable to natural phenomena having nothing to do with deities.

but you’ll appreciate that if you are the person with the particular experiences then you give weight to those experiences.

Of course, if you have an experience then you can certainly give it weight. However, if you wake up one day feeling eerily like you were taken aboard a spacecraft and given an examination by aliens, perhaps you might consider whether it might have been a dream rather than an actual abduction (especially when there is no forensic evidence that it occurred. Similarly, when people have religious visions and epiphanies, they may "feel" very strongly about them. But, so do millions of other people in thousands of other religions.

There are many explanations for why people have various visions. Things happen in the brain. People hallucinate. People have dreams they feel are real. People can have emotional reactions that "feel" this way or that way. However, it doesn't mean they happened.

So, having said that - what experiences are you referring to? Can you describe the experience?

[Coito ergo sum]

Theophilus quoted the Nicene creed:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

We have many different religions (thousands) positing many different ideas about the nature of God. Many of these religions propose a God that is inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. At most, one (or a few) of them can be right. They all could be wrong. There is no way for anyone to distinguish which religion's god-concept, if any, is correct. Therefore, I we are not justified in arbitrarily choosing one over another. To arbitrarily pick one over another would be irrational, therefore, my only rational decision is to suspend belief and wait for one of them to produce a persuasive case.

In other words, you "believe" in the statements of the Nicene Creed, but other than your statement that the Nicene Creed can't be "proven wrong," you have no reason to believe it that does not apply equally to Hinduism, Shintoism, ancient Greek religion, ancient Norse religion, etc. The same kind of evidence you provide for your belief, we can see in the religions of Islam, the Druze, the Zoroastrians, the Aztec, the Inca, etc.

The one thing you imply that you can add is "personal experience." As you yourself mentioned, personal experience is very weak evidence. The fact that you think you may have experienced some sort of epiphany indicating the truth of your beliefs is hardly something that you would suggest is persuasive in any other context but your own beliefs. Right?

In addition, it is impossible to distinguish the god of your creed from make-believe. Can you? How, exactly? I do not believe anything else that I can't distinguish from make-believe, why should your religion be treated any differently?

[Theophilus]

Thankyou for your thoughtful responses Ces. I'll have another look through and pick some bits we may make some progress on.

What fascinates me is the dismissal of scripture from most people here, something not shared with atheist history scholars such as James Crossley who love to engage with scripture. From my point of view scripture is a collection of 1st century literature on Jesus and the early church. And yet what I often here is "show me evidence about Jesus, but don't use that collection of historical material about Jesus you've got because we don't think you can use it". That, I think, is a culture that has developed here and is a little odd because usually if you are against something you would, I would normally presume, want to engage with it at its heart rather than only engaging with peripheral aspects. It was also noted by Christian scholars that Dawkins himself never engaged with the heart of Christianity, the resurrection, in any level of depth. I presume that was because either he was being tactful, or he knew that was an area that he didn't have the scholarship to engage with the historians on (which is reasonable, the man only has so many hours in a day and none of us can engage with everything in depth).

Anyway, you may be aware that one of the foremost scholars on 1st century Judaism and Christianity is N.T.Wright. Now it is possible you won't give him any credence because he is a Christian, but I would hope both Christian and non-Christian scholars are listened to. Below is a link to a couple of articles by N.T.Wright (they are quite lengthy, especially the first). If these spark any interest in 1st century Christian history (as I think Christians and non-Christians would agree that the resurrection of Christ is of key importance; without it Christianity holds no water) then you may be interested in picking up some of N.T.Wright's books.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesu ... ection.htm
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm

Catch you later, and I'll see if there is anything in our posts that I think can get us past the "prove it, no you prove it, no you prove it, no you prove it......" point. I do wonder occasionally if there is an experiment that could disprove God, but I haven't though of one yet. Finding something that could never possibly happen if there was a God (which is the antonym we would need) is not easy when the proposition of God is one who is omniscient, all powerful and refuses to be put to the test. (On a first read through your replies, I still did not see any mutual exclusivity with the presence of God in any of your points I'm afraid).

Good talking to you Ces.

[Theophilus]

@Theo:

Now, we've had all the explanations about the definitions of miracles etc etc, how you interpret them to be miracles yada yada yada, how about now not skirting the questions and actually coming up with some real stuff; evidence, proof, examples and not from biblical tales. I don't believe Aesop, and I don't believe the bible. Convert me.

Or are you the perfect politician and won't answer a direct question?

If your next response to this is some more waffle, then I assume the latter. I make large presumptions that you will even reply to this post.

Not forgotten Tigger, but I'm off out to play some music now. Catch you tomorrow evening (or maybe lunchtime).

(But I'm not trying to convert you, I'm usually in the Calvinist "only God converts people" camp).

[JimC]

First thedistillers, now Theo. Is this the best they've got?

To be fair, Theo is a much more civilised and amiable participant than the distillers, and I think that we owe it to him to be equally civil in our replies (which we mostly have been, with the odd one perhaps getting close to being uncivil)

That, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that none of his arguments seem persuasive in the slightest.

However, they are an interesting exposition of a certain branch of theism, and so a very useful addition to this sub-forum.