I want to second (or third or fourth) a point made by Princhester et al. The strawmen arguments about Neptune and about your lunch don’t really work for two reasons. First, neither are unique. A complete dismissal of Neptune would have to have been made while acknowledging that 7 other planets did exist, including one that the a-Neptunist would have been standing on. By the sake token, however, if you were to insist that a tenth, or perhaps ninth planet exists with no more evidence than your say-so, would I be justified in being skeptical?
As to your lunch, given that millions of lunches in lunch boxes exist and have existed, your claim to have one is hardly remarkable. However, what position would you take if I said that my lunch commands that you not eat peppers on Thursday, and if you agree, my lunch will let you live forever in eternity as a pimento in a magical far away Muppet Show lunchbox?
The said part is that you, Calculon, have a room full of really smart people patiently explaining things for you, but you are able to dismiss them all as parrots squawking. At the same time, you appear to give no thought to what is being said to you, but rather keep repeating tired and obviously fatuous nonsense.
I often style myself a theological non cognitivist. I find the arguments in favor of it interesting and to some extent basic.
That said, I’m not sure how convincing it is. I’ve argued it with dozens of people (even on this board and IIRC, even one time with Liberal).
I find atheological arguments combined with anti-theological arguments compelling. In particular: The argument from hiddenness, the argument from evil, the argument from non cognitivism (obviously). However, when I look at what impacted me the most, it wasn’t philosophical arguments. It was actually learning about the history of early Christianity.
Once you ‘lose your grip’ on a religion, THEN the philosophical arguments have more of an impact, IMO.
All of this said, I do find some theistic arguments interesting and I think that theists can be rational. I think some of their arguments are reasonable if you accept their premises. Ultimately though, I do not find any of them compelling enough for me to believe.
This is my view, I find it difficult to take someone seriously when they are arguing from the position of a particular religion, given how straightforward it is to identify evidence of historical drift in beliefs, expedient interpretations and blatant contradictions in religious dogma, quite aside from the obvious weakness’s associated with “the religion in which I have been born and raised, nevertheless happens to represent the real truth”
I think that there are plenty of interesting philisophical discussions to be had about the possible existence of god, or the nature of reality, but they don’t seem to happen because religion seems to discourage theological speculation beyond a certain threshold, amongst their adherants.
I find that even when theists have trouble accepting a particular concept (such as omnipotence, for example), they are still very unlikely to actually proceed to considering the implications of it’s possible lack of validity.
I would agree with this. Not to sound like a broken record, but something that I’ve been bringing up in a few threads now is that the reasons for accepting the Gospels, as given, can be used to support belief in other Ancient miracle claims.
One of the things that I just didn’t understand about the ancient world was how vastly different it was from ours. Religion was segregated to one part of your life, it was ever present, as was it’s effects. We can make jokes about Zeus throwing lightning bolts and all that - but the ancients truly believe this. There were no ‘accidents’. These people were not dumb, btw. I’ve read a few different books/essays from ancient people (read a bit of Josephus, Justin the Martyr, for instance) and it’s astonishing to me how different they viewed the world.
I would recommend this site as a starting point - the sources the author has can be found (often free online) and are a helpful starting point. You don’t have to agree with his conclusions, but I think that his site is a great starting point.
I think that happens here and other places because it’s hard to argue passionately while also being philosophically charitable. I’m attempting to do better at doing just that, but it’s difficult.
Yes, this can be true. I think this happens a lot when atheists argue theological non cognitivism. The definition of God is assumed and the fall back is ‘mystery’. That said, I think William Lane Craig makes a good point in the Cambridge guide to Atheism when he says something (roughly) to the effect that atheists are helping theists refine and reshape the definition of God.
While I think he’s right, I also think he’s escaping to the non falsifiable.
Yeah, but people on this board are pretty aggressive with any ridiculous beliefs. Take a look at any thread where someone tried to support an anti-vaccination belief, or a belief that the US government pulled off the 9/11 attacks. The whole raison d’etre of the Straight Dope is fighting ignorance.
One reason why I’m atheist/agnostic/unbeliever or whatever (for Calculon):
Niether you nor any other religious person has made a unique argument- for example, every argument you’ve made about why you accept the Bible and Jesus could easily be made (with variations only to the texts in question) by a devout Muslim about the Quran and Muhammed, a devout Mormon about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, etc.
Why would I believe you, but deny the rest? Why should I believe any one of them, but deny yours? I can’t figure out what makes a particular religion special, except that your parents/community happened to have that religion and teach it to you (in most cases, though not all). When I was younger, I did search. I prayed. I tried sincerely to find answers. Whenever I tell a religious person this, they tell me that I must not have tried hard enough, or prayed hard enough. Or that the answer was in front of me, but I missed it. Or that God will speak to me when the time is right. Well, I’m open to answers.
I have realized that I’m happy without god or religion. I’m still open to answers in everything, even religion. But I know that my life is good because (in addition to the amazing luck of being born to well adjusted, middle class Americans) I made it good. God had nothing to do with it.
My best argument for no God (at least of the omniscient, omnipotent variety)? He lets terrible, awful, worst-nightmare-imaginable stuff happen to little children. Anyone who does that is a miserable, evil, pathetic creature worthy of no respect, no devotion, and no recognition. I think it’s more likely that there is no god, than god is that miserable, evil SOB.
No, it’s not used to show anything. That’s the part you keep getting wrong. It’s a provisional assumption. X is assumed not to exist unless and until some evidence or necessity is shown to the contrary. The null is not a proof, nor is anyone trying to say it’s a proof. It’s a starting assumption.
Now sometimes the odds are so low of the null being falsified that we may functionally regard them as unworthy of any serious consideration. Russell’s Teapot and the Canaanite sky god, Yahweh, are both in this category. The assumption is still technically provisional, though. It changes with evidence.
I agree that it’s not alway valid to waste time considering patantly ridiculous arguments against your position. However, I consider myself a fairly smart person and I spend quite a lot more time thinking about this stuff than I probably should. I feel confident in rejecting the specific subsets of belief that exactly represent the default religous positions for the reasons I have set out above.
I do not feel similarly assured in entirely rejecting the possibility of any kind of god like entity, certainly not to the level of assurance that might compel me to show any less respect, to the general concept of theistic belief, than I would hope those theists would show towards my own beliefs.
Assume that we’re aliens from another planet, coming to Earth to learn of humans. We learn that some humans follow Christianity, others follow Islam, and so on. We learn that many humans follow no religion. We have no knowledge at all of any god or gods (even the concept is new to us). We ask you why you believe in your god. Do you have any evidence that might persuade these hypothetical alien scientists that god exists?
To you extend the same courtesy to people who believe in astrology, ghosts, the healing power of crystals, dowsing, or anti-vaxxers?
The fact that we can never be absolutely sure about anything does not mean that we should respect random, unsupported beliefs on the off chance they may turn out to be correct. Even if at some point in the future we do have evidence for a real deity, today’s crop of believers are still making unwarranted assumptions about the nature of reality.
Now, I respect the right of an individual to believe as they they do, but I’m not going to respect beliefs that are harmful and are contradicted by good evidence.
Like I said, I do not feel able to completely discard the notion of a God, because I believe that there are reasonable and logical arguments as to the nature of existence that are compatible with, or even reliant on, the existence of one.
Just as I am happy to discard the validity of, say, the Catholic doctrine on the basis of it’s lack of consistency with its own assumptions.
I really don’t want the thread to get hijacked but…
The simulation argument, for example, makes what is, at the least, a reasonably considered argument that the world as we perceive it is simulated.
This would seem to suggest the existence of a creator of some type, and creator could reasonably be expected to be capable of exerting, if not supernatural, then metanatural power over our reality, even if that would require us to start making up new words
My point is, I am pretty confident that I am living in a world that is really fucking weird, and a lot of physicists seem to agree with me. I don’t consider myself in possesion of enough facts to start throwing away any major interpretations apart from the really specific and internally contradictory ones.
This is a philosophical hypothesis, not an argument. It has no basis in evidence, nor is it necessary to explain anything. It’s also regressive (now the simulators have to be explained), and still does not necessitate anything supernatural or any “gods.”
As **DtC **says, It’s not an argument. It’s an hypothesis. And one that is completely unsupported. It COULD be true, just as it COULD be true that an invisible unicorn lives in my garage, but barring any evidence, neither idea is useful as anything other than a philosophical curiosity. They don’t EXPLAIN anything.
