5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Coito ergo sum]

Hello Ces

I think we may be starting to talk across each other a little here.

I don't think so.

Remember my position is that the "evidence" (scripture, history) only ever takes you as far as saying that Christianity cannot be excluded as a possibility - there's nothing that would directly contradict Christianity and we acknowledge (as I think you have) that Christianity provides an internally consistent interpretation of history (whether that comes from scriptures or elsewhere) and that scriptural history and non-scriptural history dovetail neatly which is not surprising as Christianity is a continuation from the Jewish faith and historical evidence points to Christianity emerging from that Jewish faith in the 1st century named after a person called the "Christ" (who we know as Jesus).

I didn't acknowledge anything. I merely stated that even if it is "internatlly consistent" that does not mean that there is a god. Lots of things are internally consistent, like the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Havamal.

However, that is as far as I would personally want to take the historical evidence (with a non-believer) - to point to the scriptures and say this fits with the emergence of the Church as we have historical evidence for, so don't dismiss scripture too hastily (if only to understand the historical roots of Christianity).

Who is dismissing anything? Not me.

And you reasonably ask what takes us further, why is it different to Thor etc? For me that is where faith and prayer and being drawn by God comes in, and those are experiences which are unlikely to hold much weight with a third party as they don't share that experience.

What "experience?" Can you be specific?

So, you do acknowledge that it is just as reasonable for someone else, like a Muslim, or an Odin worshiper, to have faith in their gods as you have in yours? Yes? No?

Though it also worth pondering if whether the drawing to a "Thor" was a search for that same god, part of the common sense of the numinous searching among the shadows.

Thor carries a hammer and makes thunder, but he is a god, some believe. Many went to their deaths firmly believing they would meet Thor in Valhalla, along with Odin, etc. They had the same kind of faith you say you have.

Even in what is largely a post-Christian society in the UK you witness a strong sense of people searching for something "god-like",

Yes, that does appear to be something humans are hard-wired to do - wonder why we are here, what the nature of existence is, and whether there is something responsible for it all being here. I'm engaged in that search right now. I have no problem, however, concluding that there is no evidence of a god. There may well be one. There just isn't any good evidence for it/he/she/it/they.

The things that you mention - scripture, historical events, etc., don't prove your god exists, and your faith - these "experiences" and "feelings" that you say you have - are clearly, and easily, explainable as functions of your brain. Lots of things give us visions and feelings of euphoria and passion and other such emotions. We can even now trigger religious feelings in people by sending the right impulses to the brain.

be it through the resurgence of pagan new-agey type stuff or the increasing conversion to Islam (which has many commonalities with Christianity as well as many significant differences). It's there, the drawing to something greater than ourselves, the sense of the numinous, in every society and in every age, and it's there in me (but not you).

I have sense of the numinous, in the sense of an awe and wonder at the universe, and an appreciation for its beauty and majesty. I just don't believe in a god or gods.

But I'm interested, does it bother you that some people are more "spiritual" than others?

I'll answer your questions, even though you ignored mine. I'll ask you to kindly reciprocate and answer my questions specifically, just as I do for you. Can you extend me that courtesy?

Does it bother me that some people are more "spiritual" than others? No. Like anything else, human behavior is basically on a bell curve, with most people ranging within a standard deviation or so from the "norm."

Do you actually object to "cults" in the broad sense of the word (a group of people who have a shared culture). Do you think faith should be suppressed?

No, I think that freedom of belief, thought, speech and expression should be nearly absolute. As such, I think it is fundamental that a human being may hold whatever belief they choose, and seek to persuade others that it is true, and it does not matter if it is demonstrably false or ludicrous.

P.S. I wasn't quite sure where you got that Odin was crucified from the quote you posted - it just seems to say that an unknown person hung from a tree and was wounded with a spear that was dedicated to Odin.

No - not correct. ODIN was hung on the tree and killed and came back to life in order to receive Wisdom and the Runes. The Havamal is not about some unknown person. It's about Odin. The old Norse "scriptures" are also internally consistent and consistent with historical evidence.

Anyway I think we can safely assume lots of people died from spears but I hope we can agree Roman crucifixion was something quite different.

Many thousands upon thousands of people were crucified by the Romans, and they didn't invent the practice first. We can safely assume than countless people have been crucified over the ages.

And you know that none of the generally accepted Hindu scripture (such as the Gita) have a crucified Krishna, that seems to be a post-Christian syncretism that developed and is not present in mainstream Hindu belief (and even then I don't think anywhere says Krishna was actually crucified, rather than wounded with a spear).

Not true. In any case, if you dismiss Krishna, I have a dozen other gods that were crucified.

I didn't look at the others as I assumed you put your best examples first.

Nope. I just gave you random examples. I am very familiar with Norse mythology, so I started with that one just because I'm most familiar with it. I make no representation as to which is the best example.

But you don't really want to go down the "Jesus was a gnostic Egyptian sun-worshipping Freemason" route do you?

No. I don't. Why? What I would really like would be my very simple questions to be answered, just as I have courteously and politely answered yours.

Yes Christianity has many similarities with another religion, but that religion is Judaism which it grew from in the 1st century (dull and no fascinating conspiracy theories, but simple and true), I really don't see how anyone who is familiar with old and new testaments and with 1st and 2nd century Christian history can give any credence to the wacky stories that suggest a non-Jewish root of Christianity.

I've never suggested a non-Jewish root of Christianity, nor is that relevant to the question at hand: whether a god or gods exist and whether atheism is irrational.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you would - can you answer these questions?

A couple of questions, if you would be so kind as to answer them in a straightforward yes/no manner. If you need to explain beyond "yes/no" please do - I understand that you may want to qualify or expand on the answer. But these are yes/no questions and are not trick questions:

Can you disprove the existence Odin to anyone? (yes/no) If yes, how?

Does the same type of evidence support Odin's existence as supports your God's existence? (yes/no) If no, what's the difference?

[Theophilus]

If you would - can you answer these questions?

A couple of questions, if you would be so kind as to answer them in a straightforward yes/no manner. If you need to explain beyond "yes/no" please do - I understand that you may want to qualify or expand on the answer. But these are yes/no questions and are not trick questions:

Can you disprove the existence Odin to anyone? (yes/no) If yes, how?

Does the same type of evidence support Odin's existence as supports your God's existence? (yes/no) If no, what's the difference?

Hello Ces

We may be able to disprove Odin if there are specific claims made where we can identify and find mutually exclusive truths. I know very little about Odin so I'm not sure what claims they make. So potentially "yes", depending on the claims for Odin that are made. I don't fall into the "you can never prove any negative" camp (for example I can prove to my complete satisfaction that there is not a tin of beans in my fridge) but it depends on the specific claims made. I imagine with the rise of paganism we could actually find someone again who believes in Odin, perhaps we could then enquire about their specific claims?

In terms of evidence, I would say folk mythology is quite different to Christianity in terms of the evidence available; Christianity makes historic claims of particular people (Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc...) and we have letters and Gospels attesting to those historic claims (indeed written by those historic people). Most, if not almost all, historians accept the historicity of Jesus, Peter & Paul, so I would say there does appear to be a significant difference between Judaism and Christianity which are historically-rooted and folk-religions which don't usually make claims of historical people; folk religions seem to be more mythological, though I am no expert on folk religion. Perhaps a closer comparison would be Islam, though as I've touched on before that is purportedly based on the words of a single prophet so even that is not too easily compared with Christianity (though I believe that is discredited by the specific claims about Jesus that it makes 600 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, which contradict much earlier descriptions of the events of 1st century Palestine, descriptions made during the lifetime of eye-witnesses to the events).

[Coito ergo sum]

If you would - can you answer these questions?

A couple of questions, if you would be so kind as to answer them in a straightforward yes/no manner. If you need to explain beyond "yes/no" please do - I understand that you may want to qualify or expand on the answer. But these are yes/no questions and are not trick questions:

Can you disprove the existence Odin to anyone? (yes/no) If yes, how?

Does the same type of evidence support Odin's existence as supports your God's existence? (yes/no) If no, what's the difference?

Hello Ces

We may be able to disprove Odin if there are specific claims made where we can identify and find mutually exclusive truths. I know very little about Odin so I'm not sure what claims they make. So potentially "yes", depending on the claims for Odin that are made. I don't fall into the "you can never prove a negative" (for example I can prove to my complete satisfaction that there is not a tin of beans in my fridge) but it depends on the specific claims made. I imagine with the rise of paganism we could actually find someone again who believes in Odin, perhaps we could then enquire about their specific claims?

So, at present, you can't prove that he doesn't exist. You simply speculate that you might be able to.

And, note that your analysis is the same thing that we do with the Christian God. We look at the claims made and see if there is evidence for them. I find it odd that you don't allow for "faith" in this instance regarding Odin. What about the "personal experiences" that people had and/or have about "Odin?"

In terms of evidence, I would say folk mythology is quite different to Christianity in terms of the evidence available; Christianity makes historic claims of particular people (Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc...)

So do the Norse historical texts, Eddas, Havamal, Heimskringla, etc. They make historic claims about particular people, and gods.

and we have letters and Gospels attesting to those historic claims (indeed written by those historic people). Most, if not almost all, historians accept the historicity of Jesus, Peter & Paul, so I would say there does appear to be a significant difference between Judaism and Christianity which are historically-rooted and folk-religions which don't usually make claims of historical people; folk religions seem to be more mythological, though I am no expert on folk religion. Perhaps a closer comparison would be Islam, though as I've touched on before that is purportedly based on the words of a single prophet so even that is not too easily compared with Christianity (though I believe that is discredited by the claims it makes 600 year after the crucifixion of Jesus which contradicts much earlier descriptions of the events of 1st century Palestine, descriptions made during the lifetime of witnesses to the events).

You've simply skirted the issue.

Christianity has writings.
Old Norse religion has writings.
You have faith.
The followers of Odin had/have faith.

What's the difference?

And, calling it "folk religion" is just a means of denigrating it without addressing it. Millions of people over centuries worshiped Odin and company, and they firmly and faithfully believed these gods existed. It's merely your own bias that has you calling them "folk" religions.

[AshtonBlack]

ODIN!!!



By the way, I'm really enjoying this conversation. Cheers guys.

[Theophilus]

So, at present, you can't prove that he doesn't exist. You simply speculate that you might be able to.

That is a fair summary, yes. If someone persuaded me to look into it in more detail then maybe I would decide there were refutable claims or maybe I would decide there were no refutable claims. Having seen the feasting in Ashton Black's video I may develop an interest (thanks for the Vid AB; you are now my "go to" man on Odin).

But Ces, I make no presence to even shallow knowledge about Odin, and I have never felt drawn to find out more, or to pray to Odin (though I'm a little tempted to open a bottle of beer to Odin ). We could carry on some more about Odin but I think you'll get a lot of "I don't know" answers from me I'm afraid. I assume your approach is that I should not have faith in Christianity until I have excluded all other religions, but that doesn't reflect how I personally approach Christianity (just as I didn't feel a need to check out lots of other women once I fell in love with my wife). I did dabble in Buddhism for a short while; that was interesting though I don't think I ever really understood it. I wonder if that is a source of frustration for some atheists, that Christians don't accept/reject Christianity using the criteria that an atheist would? I'd never really thought about it that way before (I just though you all had dull senses for God ). I may give that further some thought.

Thanks for the comment Ashton. I'm enjoying it as well; I've always found it more interesting to talk to people with different views than people with similar views (besides you have probably seen the way Christians can argue about the most trivial of matters and I usually get called a heretic as I don't easily fall into any if the Calvinist, Arminian, Evangelical or Catholic camps so usually end up upsetting them all).

[Coito ergo sum]

So, at present, you can't prove that he doesn't exist. You simply speculate that you might be able to.

That is a fair summary, yes. If someone persuaded me to look into it in more detail then maybe I would decide there were refutable claims or maybe I would decide there were no refutable claims. Having seen the feasting in Ashton Black's video I may develop an interest (thanks for the Vid AB; you are now my "go to" man on Odin).

So, you reject Odin, do you? Why?

But Ces, I make no presence to even shallow knowledge about Odin, and I have never felt drawn to find out more, or to pray to Odin (though I'm a little tempted to open a bottle of beer to Odin ).

So? Why would you reject him if you can't prove him wrong? Why not accept him?

We could carry on some more about Odin but I think you'll get a lot of "I don't know" answers from me I'm afraid.

And, in your view, people who give a lot of I don't know answers about Christ, and don't accept him as you don't accept Odin, are wrong. They should know that Christ is real, but not Odin. Yes?

I assume your approach is that I should not have faith in Christianity until I have excluded all other religions, but that doesn't reflect how I personally approach Christianity (just as I didn't feel a need to check out lots of other women once I fell in love with my wife).

Right - "personal approach." The key to your beliefs, based on what you've said, is that this is something personal to you and internal to you - something you've "experienced" that you can't demonstrate. That, you have acknowledged, is no reason for a third party to believe you.

So, the fact that another person has the same personal belief, internal to them, and experienced things that they can't demonstrate, should similarly be enough for them (say, about Odin or Allah), but not enough for a third party to believe them.

So, basically, we all just go by our personal beliefs and inner experiences, if we have them or attribute them to one deity or another. That is what you're saying, right? You believe what you believe because you believe it based on your internal feelings, right?

I did dabble in Buddhism for a short while; that was interesting though I don't think I ever really understood it. I wonder if that is a source of frustration for some atheists, that Christians don't accept/reject Christianity using the criteria that an atheist would?

Well, not just the criteria that an atheist would - Christians use a different standard to evaluate the reality of their Christian belief than even they use to evaluate any other belief.

I'd never really thought about it that way before (I just though you all had dull senses for God ). I may give that further some thought.

Maybe we do have dull senses for god. However, I have yet to meet a Christian, including yourself - no offense, who can articulate in any understandable way just why they believe what they believe beyond: I believe because I feel it inside. I believe in the scriptures because they seem more true to me than the scriptures of other religions.

[Theophilus]

I can only speak for myself Ces, but I wouldn't say I believe just based on feeling; it has to make sense and fit with history. I don't completely leave my brain at the door

But yes, there is something beyond that, there is faith. But that's not startling news (you'll probably be aware of St. Paul's famous verse in 1 Corinthians 1:23 we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, and the writer to the Hebrews famously writes in Hebrews 1:11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen). So I would indeed expect all Christians to come back to faith in things not seen. Now you may find some scholars who have sufficient scholarly knowledge that they rest their faith entirely on reasoning and history, though I think most would also be wise enough to know that prayer plays an important role.

Is it just a warm fuzzy feeling? For me, no. I would want to describe it more in the context of "trust" rather than some emotional high. I'm not given to emotional highs; I'm a very typical scientist - when I get excited I may look at someone else's feet instead of my own. The last place on earth you'd find me is in a charismatic Pentecostal church - I'd probably be out of there much faster than you! So it's not an emotional feeling (for me). I'm much more a monastic "Be still, and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10) type of person. That feeling of trust and peace has grown over time, but it is not dependent on the constant feeling of the presence of God (and I've never heard voices in my head, apart from the one that constantly says "of course you can have another Jaffa cake, there's only 1g of fat per cake" and I suspect that's not God speaking).

So yes, it is personal (and there is a strong subjective element to it) so I can only really present the way I experience faith and I would not want to generalise too much.

Does any of that make any sense?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

[Theophilus]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

Faith is an excuse, not an answer. It's an excuse for not thinking about something.

[AshtonBlack]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

At least it's not a philosophy thread. I couldn't take any more "meta". This ("Theism" Vs "The Real World.") subject can get that way too, but I can get me head round the logical bits.

[Theophilus]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

Faith is an excuse, not an answer. It's an excuse for not thinking about something.

Very pithy. I can imagine that in the Reader's Digest. But I think it's a tad disingenuous - there have been many deep "thinkers" in the Church from all sorts of different theological positions, from Aquinas to Calvin, from Newman to Barth.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

Faith is an excuse, not an answer. It's an excuse for not thinking about something.

Very pithy. I can imagine that in the Reader's Digest. But I think it's a tad disingenuous - there have been many deep "thinkers" in the Church from all sorts of different theological positions, from Aquinas to Calvin, from Newman to Barth.

You'll find "faith" in Reader's Rejects. That some smart men have "faith" doesn't mean it's smart to have faith. Newton believed in God and pissed away the last years of his life chasing him.

[Theophilus]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

At least it's not a philosophy thread. I couldn't take any more "meta". This ("Theism" Vs "The Real World.") subject can get that way too, but I can get me head round the logical bits.

I once read Russel's "a history of western philosophy". That put me off philosophy for life.