Do atheists read the primary sources?

[ReliStuPhD]

What about "Woods Fairies"? On the old house we had a rather large deck and one winter I made a shallow pond to do some Ice Skating for the daughters. In the spring when the water had melted the wind would cause swirls on the water, and I told the girls that I had seen evidence that "Woods Fairies" were dancing on the water. I'm not sure they believed my, but I had shown them the swirls on the water.

How do you know they weren't made by wood fairies? (Seriously)

That's the thing, my rational mind deduced that it was the wind, my spiritual or whimsical mind would say that it was Woods Fairies. Whether we admit it or not, each mind is made up of a rational part, and a more whimsical part. Which part rules your roost.

This is where we start to get into trouble. Our rational minds deduce all sorts of things that aren't true because we don't have enough information otherwise. Looking up at the sky, a rational mind might well deduce that the Sun circles the Earth (in fact they did, until Copernicus came along). That same rational mind would then understand that that perfectly rational belief was nevertheless mistaken once more evidence came to light.

So again, how do you *know* it wasn't wood fairies? If it's simply a deduction based only on what you have personally observed, you might be terribly mistaken. Have you never been wrong with respect to a deduction your rational mind made?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"shouldn't the atheist be familiar with the defenses of theism that claim to be rational?"

If the core of theism is 'the universe was designed, created, and is sustained, by god' then I'm not seeing why the nontheist has to futz around with the details of one religion or another.

For example: in another thread, folks are dickering around with the logic of god's ominpotence and omniscience. This, to me, is like asking how Santa delivers all those gifts in one night. That is: lot of energy devoted to discussing god's (or Santa's) nature or capabilitites when, instead, one could simply ask for an evidence of God (or Santa) existing.

If an evidence is offered (tangible, direct, with little room for interpretation) then all involved can have a fine time swinging the cat by the tail. But if no evidence is offered, then all involved are left dickering over the weight of ghost whispers.

I'm certainly willing to review any and all bits of evidence offered, but I have no time to have at it over spook speech.

Like the old lady used to say, "Where's the beef?" Without beef (evidence), you ain't got no burger (foundation for claiming god exists) and all the details of any religion you care to name will not change that.

Love this post.

[attofishpi]

Sure, that's all very well until 'it'...God...forces you to know its exists over a period of 18 years.

You see, an individual can be made aware of its existence, but then to prove it to others is near on impossible.

[thedoc]

Sure, that's all very well until 'it'...God...forces you to know its exists over a period of 18 years.

You see, an individual can be made aware of its existence, but then to prove it to others is near on impossible.

I have said before that such an experience is for the individual, if it were for everyone there would be some physical proof that could be shared. I believe that God will provide whatever proof or evidence that each person needs to believe. Some can believe with no proof or evidence at all, some need only one experience, some need several years to get the message, and others will reject everything they experience and continue to reject God. That is enough proof of free will for me, that some can choose to reject the obvious.

[Melchior]

Speaking only for me: my atheism has nuthin' to do with the failings of any one religion, or with religion in general.

My atheism is all about the (to me) apparent absence of a supranatural dimension to the world.

That is: I see no evidence that god (or any supranatural being) exists. I see no evidence the world has a designer/creator/sustainer.

Insofar as I can tell: the world is meaningless, amoral, and without direction (beyond what one expects from an on-going explosion).

I understand some atheists attempt to dismantle 'god' by way of dissecting religion, but this seems ass-backward to me. Why attack the middleman (religion) when it's more productive (and not nearly so time-consuming) to simply ask for conclusive, direct evidence? Since there is no such evidence, one can *shrug* and go about one's business.

I also understand some atheists get their panties in a twist about god (and god belief), but this is, to me, nutty. Seems to me: if the god believer isn't takin' food off your table, money out of your pocket, or shingles from the roof over your head, then it's probably best to just let them be and -- again -- go about one's business.

Yes, atheism is not anti-theism. We simply do not accept the existence of gods and find the notion absurd. I was raised Roman Catholic, and I simply dropped it. I saw that it could serve no useful function in my life, so I simply abandoned it. The burden of proof is not on us, it is on the religious. And that is a hopeless cause. There is no evidence for supernatural entities. None.

[henry quirk]

"Lack of evidence does not constitute non-existence."

Agreed.

And still: lack of evidence hobbles the believer more than the non-believer, yes?

#

"It does seem to me, however, that you ought to be informed with respect to the arguments for the evidence of God (so as to refute them)."

As I say: I’ll examine any and all evidence presented.

So: who’s got some?

#

"God's existence is a meta-physical question"

With profoundly practical and physical implications. The existence of god is not the same as the existence of shadow (is shadow a thing in itself or simply an absence?). No, god's existence (if god does exist) would inform the essence of the human individual (organic and a bit shoddy). Can't retreat to the subtitles of metaphysics but must rather embrace the gross blatancy of what it means to be created, to live in a creation, to be answerable to 'god'.

Of course (again): gotta get at the root of it first, 'does god exist?'

Evidence please.

#

"In effect, the atheist is no more rational to state "I don't believe in God" than is the theist who responds "I do" "

Joe sez 'There's a fire behind that door'. Stan sez (after sniffing the air and touching the door [and finding it cool]) 'There's no evidence of a fire behind that door'. Now, there may be a fire behind that door, but -- based on available evidence -- Stan has the firmer footing. Can Stan speak with certainty? Nope. Can he speak to probabilities? Yep.

#

"if neither can offer support for their position. And since evidence is in short supply for both positions, logical & metaphysical arguments are all that's left.

Which is fine...folks will do what they do and I wouldn't stop them even if I could.

If folks wanna debate the method by which Santa makes his deliveries, who am I to interfere?

##

"Love this post."



##

"an individual can be made aware of (god's) existence, but then to prove it to others is near on impossible"

Agreed, so why try?

[henry quirk]

"atheism is not anti-theism"

Agreed.

Sure, some atheists are anti-theistic but atheists are no more a block vote than theists...grand mistake to take the view of one as the view of all.

[henry quirk]

Doc,

Yep (excepting, of course, for those who are open to the evidence, who find none, and who just get on with the business of living in an apparently amoral, purposeless, reality... ).

[thedoc]

"Lack of evidence does not constitute non-existence."

Agreed.

And still: lack of evidence hobbles the believer more than the non-believer, yes?

Good question, but we must consider the possibilities to determine who is hobbled the most. Let us set aside evidence for now, and narrow it down to two possibilities.

Obviously if there is no God the believer could be most at a disadvantage.

If there is a God, would it not be the non-believer who is at the disadvantage.

In the latter case, allowing for God's existence would also allow for an afterlife, and this must then be included in the consideration of who is most at the disadvantage.

One final thought on this, what an individual believes, does not determine reality, it only determines what that individual believes to be reality.

[thedoc]

I only expressed two situations in the previous post, but I am sure there are people with good imaginations who could devise more variations than these two.

There is no God, is really very simple and doesn't leave much room for variety, but if you come up with something, please do so.

If there is a God, there is a lot more room for various scenarios. For example, there is a God but he created the Universe, and now doesn't give a shit, and we are no better off than if there were no God.

Other scenarios are welcome.

[thedoc]

Doc,

Yep (excepting, of course, for those who are open to the evidence, who find none, and who just get on with the business of living in an apparently amoral, purposeless, reality... ).

Henry, over the years I have come to know that your life is definitely not purposeless.

[henry quirk]

In reverse order...

"your life is definitely not purposeless"

Definitely not...but the purpose I bring to it, that my nephew brings to it, is mine, not the universe's (or god's).

That is: I (like every other agent) am responsible for myself and responsible for crafting meaning where I can and am able.

'course, if you're a small kitchen appliance like 'he would who would put the world on ignore' you can throw yourself on the mercy of reality and hope for the best.

#

"god created the Universe, and now doesn't give a shit"

Possible. I wrote sumthin' containing that notion...got no clue where it is...know I posted it on the couch and on the cellar...mebbe I can find it and reproduce it here...everyone: hold your breath (and pass out).

#

"allowing for God's existence would also allow for an afterlife"

You mean I should feign belief to ensure I go the happy place rather than the woeful one (assuming either or both exist)?

Seems to me: any god worth his salt would see through that ploy and put me under the basement.

#

"what an individual believes, does not determine reality, it only determines what that individual believes to be reality."

Sure. Further: the more closely one's perspective adheres to 'what is', the better off he or she is...that is: survival and success belong to the realist.

[ReliStuPhD]

lack of evidence hobbles the believer more than the non-believer, yes?

Yes, I would think so. Of course, the believer says there is evidence, so the non-believer will eventually have to deal with those claims.

Can't retreat to the subtitles of metaphysics but must rather embrace the gross blatancy of what it means to be created, to live in a creation, to be answerable to 'god'.

Of course (again): gotta get at the root of it first, 'does god exist?'

Evidence please.

This is why it's not retreating. The evidence will consist of answers to metaphysical questions as well. Does the existence of "God" more adequately answer metaphysical questions that does the absence? (For my part, the answer is yes.)

"In effect, the atheist is no more rational to state "I don't believe in God" than is the theist who responds "I do" "

Joe sez 'There's a fire behind that door'. Stan sez (after sniffing the air and touching the door [and finding it cool]) 'There's no evidence of a fire behind that door'. Now, there may be a fire behind that door, but -- based on available evidence -- Stan has the firmer footing. Can Stan speak with certainty? Nope. Can he speak to probabilities? Yep.

Joe says "the wold around us cannot exist without a non-contingent source of its being." Stan says "I see no evidence for our world existing..."

The fire analogy breaks down because it does not address the metaphysical questions. Evidentialism won't get you very far (and, as I said, is often self-refuting).

"an individual can be made aware of (god's) existence, but then to prove it to others is near on impossible"

Agreed, so why try?

I know this wasn't my comment, but I think the answer is fairly simple: because you think Truth is important and wish to share it with others. It seems to me that's something of a virtue (so long as one isn't being an ass about it).

[henry quirk]

"the believer says there is evidence, so the non-believer will eventually have to deal with those claims"

Well, let's have it, then.

#

"Does the existence of "God" more adequately answer metaphysical questions that does the absence?"

Ask me one of those questions...let's see how I do.

#

"Joe says "the world around us cannot exist without a non-contingent source of its being." Stan says "I see no evidence for our world existing..." "

HA!

Try this: Joe sez, the world as we know it cannot exist without god. I say, where's the beef, Joe? How do you arrive at such a stance and how do you support such a stance?

#

"The fire analogy breaks down..."

I disagree.

If god exists then he is real, is a person, and is measurable, in the world, by way of his presence. This is not a metaphysical question, but a commonsensical inquiry.

#

Evidentialism: had to look it up. Highbrowish stuff...way above my pay grade. I know only this: if there's a fire, there will be evidence of it. If there is god, there will be evidence of him. Does a bear shit in the woods? Go into the woods and look. Does god exist? I've looked...*shrug*

#

"as one isn't being an ass about it"

HA!

That's the thing: zealotry makes for poor self-moderation.

[ReliStuPhD]

"the believer says there is evidence, so the non-believer will eventually have to deal with those claims"

Well, let's have it, then.

Simply put, if we're going to avoid an infinite regress of causation, there has to be a non-contingent ground of being. That is typically called "God" (nb not necessarily the Christian God). Now, if I were a Christian (which I'm not), I'd say the various stories in the Bible provide testimonial evidence, so that would need to be dealt with as well. I can argue those positions if you want to have a go at that, so long as it's clear it's not my position (at least not currently).

"Does the existence of "God" more adequately answer metaphysical questions that does the absence?"

Ask me one of those questions...let's see how I do.

The question above about infinite regress of causation is one. Or Leibniz's question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (which presupposes the corollary, "Nothing comes from nothing.")

Try this: Joe sez, the world as we know it cannot exist without god. I say, where's the beef, Joe? How do you arrive at such a stance and how do you support such a stance?

Right on! But yeah, the question above about non-contingency (among others) is what leads to this position.

If god exists then he is real, is a person, and is measurable, in the world, by way of his presence. This is not a metaphysical question, but a commonsensical inquiry.

No, most certainly not. It is absolutely metaphysical. If God is the ground of all that exists (the usual definition of "God") "he" is absolutely not something measurable. "He" certainly couldn't be a person since persons are contingent beings. So, how would you measure something that necessarily exists in all possible realities? Certainly not through any sort of scientific inquiry. Your presence point is a good one, but how does one measure that if (I assume) you would deny the believer's testimony that he feels God's presence?

Evidentialism: had to look it up. Highbrowish stuff...way above my pay grade. I know only this: if there's a fire, there will be evidence of it. If there is god, there will be evidence of him. Does a bear shit in the woods? Go into the woods and look. Does god exist? I've looked...*shrug*

Fire, yes. God, not necessarily. Since God is the ground of everything that exists, all of said existence is the evidence. But to even arrive at that understanding, one has to engage the metaphysical questions.

That's the thing: zealotry makes for poor self-moderation.

I agree 110%