I acknowledged the use of the second person. I don’t think a reasonable person would have inferred what you did–a point reinforced by your reaction to Liberal’s similar general claims that were clearly not an accusation of your post.
Whatever.
While we are noticing things, however, I will notice that you have ignored on multiple occasions that I answered your question while continuing to go on about your hurt feelings.
It is only the people on the “religious” side of the discussion whom you are falsely accusing of having attacked you, so that would follow.
I have not attacked you.
I have not claimed to have been attacked.
I have taken no offense at anything posted in this thread.
You do not seem to be actually reading or interacting with the actual words of other posters, only the words you wish to see.
It’s the point of this OP. That’s why I’m limiting it to that. I could bring up baseball, but I won’t here even if someone else does.
As for you, specifically, I’ll answer your question about evidence for god because I don’t get a sense of personal hostility from you: no, I would not consider passages in the bible as evidence of god unless they are arguments that can stand on their own at which point I’d judge them on their merits. In other words, if the bible contains a good argument for god, I’m not going to dismiss it just because it came from the bible. A good argument is a good argument. On the other hand, I’m not going to consider that because it came from the bible that gives it more weight since that, it seems to me, would be sort of redundant and presumes I already believe in the bible as the word of the (theoretical) god under discussion.
Oh, and if we’re referring to being offended as “hurt feelings,” I’ll keep that in mind when one of the religious folk are offended. I’ll be sure to refer to their little hurt feelings. When in Rome. Real nice moderating tenor and language you introduce, thanks!
It is nteresting how you’ve upped the ante by adding a deliberately insulting adjective.
You are the one who took offense when none was offered.
You are the one who has ignored actual statements by other posters when responding to them.
You are the one who first (and most often) raised the issue of offense.
(You are also the one who has wrested the discussion away from the OP to your own discussion and now keep insisting that you are the one sticking to the OP when actually you have changed it from a discussion of why people on all sides of the god discussion get defensive to one about how or whether you can make claims about religion in an inoffensive manner.)
As it happens, there is a fair amount of general insult directed against belief on this forum all the time (and a smaller number of insults are directed against unbelief). The rule is that such opinions are permitted as long as they are not directed as personal attacks against other posters.
Okay, I’ll refer to Liberal’s being offended as “hurt feelings” then. Better?
Since you clearly didn’t mean it as insulting.
Wondering how to make claims about religion in an inoffensive manner strikes me as very much germane to the OP. Maybe the OP can chime in and let us know.
And by the way, you just ‘ignored actual statements’ by this ‘poster’ when ‘responding’ to me insofar as who brought up “attack” (not offense) first. It was you. And if discussing such is off thread, then you are guilty of it as well which is probably even more egregious in your case since you’re a moderator.
I read over the evidence you presented, and (no surprises here) am not moved from my conviction in the truth of atheism. Since you didn’t ask, I’ll keep it short, but are a couple of things I take to be central to my belief in atheism.
Philosophical arguments.
Contrary to you, I find the philosophical arguments of the atheists to be much more compelling. (You mention Suber a couple of times; he is not a good representative of the atheist movement; I would very much consider him an also-ran. Much more impressive and compelling are Mackie, Flew, Scriven, and of course classics like Hume.) I think traditional Western theism simply has too many problems. For example, just to solve the problem of evil, the theist must embrace libertarianism (the free will position, not the political position), which most philosophers (including myself) agree is incoherent. Libertarianism really can’t be true unless dualism is true, which modern neuroscience (and philosophy) tell us it is not. Etc. Other familiar problems, such as the problem so elegantly extended to its logical conclusion in Dawkins’ Ultimate 747 Argument, have no answer from the theist.
Personal experience.
My experience of the universe in general and the natural world in particular is that it is massively, implacably indifferent to all human striving and endeavor. I don’t see or feel the hand of God, or the love of a Supreme Being. In fact, when I felt my faith withering on the vine (I was a theist of at least some description for the first 20 years of my life), I prayed to God to give me some sign or strengthen my faith, but of course there was nothing but silence in response. And though you may feel your prayers are answered, I cannot help but notice those millions around the world whose prayers are daily met with agonizing and frequently disastrous silence, too.
Both of the above are probably influenced by my prior belief in atheism (my belief in atheism came before the above post hoc justifications), but they provide evidence for a position I came to through what I like to think was not a wholly irrational process in the first place.
Kudos on staying above the/my/our fray. Without your qualifications (I’m not remotely as well-read as you guys), I’m chiming in on the Personal Experience category you put forth. Actually, for me, the absence of a Supreme Being is wonderfully inspiring and life-affirming. I’m almost closer to Hitchen’s anti-theist position than to atheism, in fact (though I identify as an agnostic). When I had my ‘awakening’ from religion, it was truly thrilling.
BTW, Liberal, I wouldn’t consider the fact that the thesis of falsifiability is not falsifiable to be a legitimate criticism of it. Falsifiability primarily is a criterion applied to factual claims. But the claim that real theories ought in principle to be falsifiable is not a factual or descriptive claim; it is a normative claim about the requirements of evidence. It is a claim about how we *ought * to evaluate evidence and theories. Unless you are an outright reductive naturalist (which I’m pretty sure you are not), you wouldn’t think that normative claims are verifiable or falsifiable in the same way as descriptive claims.
Since it is a claim about the legitimacy of evidence and theories, the thesis of falsifiability can be wielded against theistic theories. As I have argued before, several times, for the theist to claim different evidential standards for his theories than for other, non-theistic theories (both scientific and non-scientific) is an unacceptable case of special pleading.
I went back and forth at first. At first, the acceptance that there was no God was exhilirating and freeing; I felt as though shackles had been removed from me.
But then sometimes I admit to feeling like Samuel Beckett–“God doesn’t exist, the bastard!” Mostly I feel like this when I realize that the massive, grave injustice in the world will never be set right, that many wicked people will go to their graves having known lives of prosperity and happiness, and that many good people will go to their (often early) graves having known nothing but torment and pain. One of my most frequently-uttered expressions (especially when reading the news is), “I wish there were a God so that people like that could go to Hell.”
I went through that. For me, and not to sound superior – but “lord” knows I have no idea how to not offend it seems LOL – there came another feeling after that one eventually. A sort of buddhist detachment (speaking in terms of my subjective feelings about such things as you mention, and not to detract from their objective horror) on par with integrating the suffering of the ‘dumb’ animal being ripped to shreds alive in a hunt and the overarching reality of that including human beings. I know a human’s suffering is to be valued over an animal’s, but the animal’s suffering seems real to me and it’s not as if anyone would think or hope that the attacking animal would be punished for that. Yes, it’s a necessity but it’s not as if the kills are all done in the most “humane” way possible, that doesn’t seem to be much of a consideration and the amazing thing is that I think in a very twisted way the atrocities committed by humans can be felt to be about ‘survival’ and of necessity to the perpetrators on some level employing, of course unlike the animal, their higher level reasoning.
I end up at almost like a (to borrow the xian phrase) “we know not what we do” type of thing for me. I read about Stalin, Hitler, Goebbels, and others and when you start from the beginning of their lives and watch things play out you can often see how astonishing it is that we (humans) seem to always be bent towards wanting to correct things or fix things or are moved to some horrible place through a whole series of details of how our lives are ‘moved’ forwards by our interpretations and understandings of how the world works.
I eventually feel/felt sympathy for the whole shebang. Stalin to Mother Theresa. It’s a super-detached almost floating point of view. It’s out there and not something I’d blurt out in the public square but at some point it seems to me that we’re often doing the best we can and the repulsive results are no less repulsive for that awareness/point of view.
I actually find righteous anger to be dangerous, as I do the idea of justice.
Based on those two pieces of evidence, it certainly makes sense why you believe the way you do. It might be a matter to discuss elsewhere, but my take on the free will “problem” you mention is that what concerns God is not freedom to make mechanical decisions, but freedom to make moral decisions, where morality is aesthetical (not ethical) in nature. It seems to me that the perfect context for exercizing free moral will is an amoral universe. That’s why I said that the universe serves God’s purpose whether He created it or not. There was no intention to imply that I am any more important than anyone else. In fact, I believe we all have our subjective realities that are our moral interpretations of the atoms and what they form.
Oh, lordy, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not criticizing it; just contextualizing it. I’m a big fan of Popper, and consider much of the criticism of him to be rather random. It’s just that sometimes one encounters the physicalist who demands evidence by the scientific method as though it were underpinned by absolute truth. It’s no criticism to say that falsifiability is not falsifiable any more than it’s a criticism to say that a premise in logic is unproved — it’s just the reason why it’s a premise.
I hear you. Personally, if I fantasized a god he’d see beyond justice which strikes me as a very narrow, invested, earthbound point of view. Sounds bizarre, I’m sure; the closest I can think of as an example might be if all of Seko’s victims collectively forgave him in the next life and saw Seko in themselves and vice versa to varying degrees and in their own subjective ways or at least the Seko potential in themselves.
Reminds me of acting I’ve done; different people approach it differently but one approach is to find the thing in yourself and not merely a substitution. So, if I’m playing the part of an evil person I’d find the evil impulse in me. The premise is that it’s there though I may not have ever acted on it but I recognize it in me. And I try to get as broad as possible to include those parts of me that I wouldn’t think I could find: the terrorist, the child molester, the dictator, the sadist, the rapist, etc.
That probably sounds weird, it’s hard to put it in words but it’s something like that.
I remember getting props for not doing drugs in high school from someone that grew up in a bad neighborhood. But what I pointed out was that when I was in high school, I didn’t KNOW anybody that did drugs. Not one person. Nobody offered me drugs, I never saw anybody doing drugs. Nobody I knew wanted to do drugs. So I can’t really get props for that. I feel some version of that about people that become monsters. I’m not them, I’m not a monster but I didn’t have the thoughts they had one after the other and I didn’t string them together in the way they did and make the conclusions they did and see things the way they did. And my reason for not having done so isn’t something I can assign to virtue in my opinion speaking for myself. There are too many elements of chance, conditioning, hell maybe even genetics for all I know. That’s only offensive as a notion to me if I’m imputing a christian-style duality of right and wrong to things, but I don’t and try to see it fresh from afar as just what it is.
One criticism of the death penalty is that it in no way makes the families and loved ones of victims whole. How does knowing Mobutu Sese Seko is burning in hell help his victims? It is even worse in this case, since the criminal justice system cannot practically prevent or mitigate crimes, but God can.
Plus we have another problem. Since we know that God creates morality, we cannot be sure that this guy isn’t sitting pretty in heaven, along with other murderers who asked Jesus for forgiveness after dying. I don’t know what religion he was, but when I lived in the Congo it was heavily Catholic, due to the Belgian influence, so it is possible he repented his sins.
Well, that’s why God’s a bastard for not existing. An omniscient, all-good, all-powerful being wouldn’t allow Mobutu Sese Seko to do what he did. (Like I said, I think the problem of evil is decisive against traditional Western theism.)
Without your qualifications (I’m not remotely as well-read as you guys), I’m chiming in on the Personal Experience category you put forth. Actually, for me, the absence of a Supreme Being is wonderfully inspiring and life-affirming. I’m almost closer to Hitchen’s anti-theist position than to atheism, in fact (though I identify as an agnostic). When I had my ‘awakening’ from religion, it was truly thrilling.