Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by LulzCode6
reply to post by Annee

 

Your hot

Thanks.

You're dashing with an alluring eye

reply to post by LulzCode6


I like the analogy but it might not be sound. A Dictionary is a non-living creation based on the rules and laws present in this Universe. We still do not understand how Life was created or how an Intelligent Designer was created in order to create Life itself.

Atheism is a gray area, and gray area's don't exist, but do, in the mind of an atheist. Ever seen in indecisive atheist? How many times must you deny the existence of God becoming an atheist? Does it help doing it just once, or does he keep coming back. Ah yes, he doesn't exist. There he shows again. A personality build upon a denial of something. It's not you don't believe in God, you deny him. Then suddenly atheism becomes inexistent. I bet you can't keep up denying him one day long. Atheists, pain in the ass kiddos?

They are terrible, it starts when they are young. Our contradicting ADHA children cramock pins f sin complete see? do must see not do see dust mist nihil insdactifulicolly.

Hell, I'm sure of it. Do mist nut ki see dom nah

Originally posted by LulzCode6
To say that the universe was created by chance and that there was no guardian over it to control the course of events is like saying there was an explosion at a printing press and a dictionary was formed as the result of it. It is absolutely impossible. We accept that a master piece of literature cannot be produced without an intelligent writer how then can we accept that the universe was created without God?

Atheism has nothing to do with cosmological origins or issues.

Also, using a deity to explain the unknown has no explanatory power and actually makes such mysteries twice as difficult to solve.

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
Atheism is a gray area, and gray area's don't exist, but do, in the mind of an atheist. Ever seen in indecisive atheist? How many times must you deny the existence of God becoming an atheist? Does it help doing it just once, or does he keep coming back. Ah yes, he doesn't exist. There he shows again. A personality build upon a denial of something. It's not you don't believe in God, you deny him. Then suddenly atheism becomes inexistent. I bet you can't keep up denying him one day long. Atheists, pain in the ass kiddos?

You should probably actually research something about atheism before issuing such comments since they're all straw-man. Many posts in this very thread address the numerous misconceptions you have.

1) Is positivism a proven case?

2) Is materialism a proven case? And to enumerate on this further -

Science is based on an axiomatic system of inference which presupposes materialism/naturalism to be a proven case. As such, one can never hope to find evidence of the divine or supernatural since the system itself intrinsically excludes the possibility in its premise.

3) What is your basis for morality? As rational, higher functioning beings we have the capacity for moral thought - but why OUGHT there be moral standards? Simply because we can be moral creatures doesn't mean we should be.

4) The mind is also treated as a given in science, but is it a proven case (can we determine that our senses are interpreting the universe correctly?)?

5) If science doesn't give us a good reason to believe in something, does that necessarily mean that no good reason exists?

6) Is the uniformity of nature a proven case?

One more question if you don't mind:

What would you consider as evidence in support of a supernatural Creator? If He were to visit you personally it couldn't count because subjective anecdotal evidence is not admissible according to the rigid standards of empiricism. A video or recording wouldn't work because one could always claim it was modified. A prophecy or dream given to one of His followers wouldn't/doesn't seem to lend any legitimacy to His reality. I've asked many many atheists this question and have yet to be given an adequate answer. There have a been a rare few who have conceded that no evidence is possible according to their standards.

God revealed Himself to humanity over a long period of time in such a way that allowed for historical corroboration thereby providing us with compelling evidence of Him and His very active presence in human events. Barring this, I'm not sure what sort of evidence could satisfy a strict evidentialist.

reply to post by ptmckiou


wishful thinking

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Science is based on an axiomatic system of inference which presupposes materialism/naturalism to be a proven case. As such, one can never hope to find evidence of the divine or supernatural since the system itself intrinsically excludes the possibility in its premise.

That may be true, however, it's not the job of the sciences to either prove or disprove deities.

3) What is your basis for morality? As rational, higher functioning beings we have the capacity for moral thought - but why OUGHT there be moral standards? Simply because we can be moral creatures doesn't mean we should be.

All social species require a degree of "morality" or code of behavior.

5) If science doesn't give us a good reason to believe in something, does that necessarily mean that no good reason exists?

No. Perhaps the good reason hasn't been established yet.

6) Is the uniformity of nature a proven case?

What do you mean?

Originally posted by followtheevidence
One more question if you don't mind:

What would you consider as evidence in support of a supernatural Creator? If He were to visit you personally it couldn't count because subjective anecdotal evidence is not admissible according to the rigid standards of empiricism. A video or recording wouldn't work because one could always claim it was modified. A prophecy or dream given to one of His followers wouldn't/doesn't seem to lend any legitimacy to His reality. I've asked many many atheists this question and have yet to be given an adequate answer. There have a been a rare few who have conceded that no evidence is possible according to their standards.

Any evidence that meets the accepted standards for establishing existence. I can only speak in generalities but such evidence must at least be tangible and testable.

God revealed Himself to humanity over a long period of time in such a way that allowed for historical corroboration thereby providing us with compelling evidence of Him and His very active presence in human events. Barring this, I'm not sure what sort of evidence could satisfy a strict evidentialist.

What historical corroboration exists that there actually is a deity and that deity has revealed itself to humans?

Phew. What a thread.

I congratulate you on your stamina, Drummer. Cultivating a thread like this would have driven me screaming mad.

Here’s a question from a fellow-atheist: have you ever felt the lack of Someone to praise or thank? You know, when the sheer marvellousness of everything overwhelms you, or you suddenly enjoy a piece of undeserved good luck, or a fortuitous last-minute reprieve from some impending disaster?

Hello OP! When you have time I would like for you to answer my simple question. My question if you had a chance to know everything and that is 100% fact on any faith what would that faith be? Doesn't mean the religion is right or wrong just if you knew everything about it. Like knowing about Islam, the laws, history, individuals, and so on. Understand?

reply to post by ManOfGod267


I’m curious as to what you mean by this question

Apart from maybe clearing up some of facts about Islam’s history what would be the point in this?

Given that islam is based solely on the word of one man, who claimed he was in contact with an angel and since atheist don’t usually believe in angels nor put much faith in to the uncorroborated testimony of just one man regarding angelic chit chat, then islam fails to pass even the first hurdle as far as an atheist might be concerned

So again, unless the atheist is a history buff what would be the point?

followthe evidence

What would you consider as evidence in support of a supernatural Creator? If He were to visit you personally it couldn't count because subjective anecdotal evidence is not admissible according to the rigid standards of empiricism.

You overstate the nature of the difficulty. All evidence is subjective (just to identify an objective circumstance as being evidence is a subjective act), so we can skip right past "subjectivity" as a defect.

Anecdotal evidence most assuredly is admissible - hardly anything else ever comes from eyewitnesses at trials. The usual problem with anecdotal evidence is applicability. Any kind of generalization is unlikely to be supported stongly by anecdote alone. Samples of size one tell little about general circumstances.

Furthermore, "anecdotal" is also sometimes used as shorthand for a package of other defects, for example, "casually" observed data (which all too often cashes out as maybe not observed at all), or an inability to question the source for additional information.

A video or recording wouldn't work because one could always claim it was modified.

That, and that no inanimate record accomplishes more than to make it easier to convey the particulars of whatever it was you experienced. Records are never more than exhibits, illustrations, or supplements to the only kind of testimony there is: human report.

A prophecy or dream given to one of His followers wouldn't/doesn't seem to lend any legitimacy to His reality.

There are two distinct problems in non-demonstrative reasoning: personal belief management and persuasion of other people. A dream may be useful for the dreamer to form or modify his or her own beliefs, but there is no real reason to expect that your dream will persuade me of anything.

Most of the use of prophecy I have seen fails on one of two counts: lack of specifity in the prediction ("The stock market will fluctuate." Yes, it will.), or use of a prophecy past its last sale date. Any prophecy expires when the event foretold comes to pass. After that, "I foresaw it" is uninteresting, and surely, on its face, no longer a prediction.

There is, of course, a third way to fail: the prophecy didn't come to pass. For example, Jesus said he was coming back in the lifetime of his first followers. We have canonical witness (John 21) that that was how his chief disciple, Peter, interpreted the prediction. Jesus didn't come back. But no problem, what he really meant was...

At best, when you change the meaning of the prediction, then there was no prediction in the first place. At worst, the gentleman got it wrong. As a Jewish prophet, he is rightly judged by Jewish standards of prophecy: one strike and you're out.

Next.

I've asked many many atheists this question and have yet to be given an adequate answer.

They really have no obligation to advise you about how to persuade them. If it were a natural controversy, then scientists do extend one another the courtesy of tolerating the question "What experimental outcome will convince you that you are wrong?"

But the controversy here is supernatural. So far, there are no experimental outcomes of much interest one way or ther other. The atheist, as atheist, does not claim any special knowledge of supernatural investigative procedures. The question, then, is simply misdirected.

There have a been a rare few who have conceded that no evidence is possible according to their standards.

Why is that a "concession?" It simply restates your position. Your opponent has "conceded" that he or she understands what you're talking about.


ManofGod267

Like knowing about Islam, the laws, history, individuals, and so on.

What we know about Islam reminds me of the old joke about a bikini bathing suit: what it reveals is interesting; what it conceals is crucial.

We know there was an actual man, Mohammed, and we know that he won a civil war in Arabia to replace tribal paganism with his particular vision of national monotheism. But we don't know when the Koran was first written down, how "quality control" from Gabriel to the page was achieved, etc. We know that the hadith were cranked out for all sorts of purposes, and have no idea about the historicity of some of the stories.

I suppose if I were looking for a religion where almost all of the earthly facts were historically established, I'd be looking at Christian Sience or Mormonism.

But somehow, I don't sense any inclination to become a Mormon or a Chrsitian Scientist. Besides, maybe a little mystery is better for attracting converts than a too solid familiarity with the actual facts.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
All too often I see remarks lodged against atheists in general. Very rarely do I find anyone asking an atheist for opinions and facts about their non-beliefs.

Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs. This can only help, as an overwhelming majority of negative comments about atheists and atheism are tragically incorrect.

Feel free to ask anything. Thanks for your time and have a great day.

Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?

reply to post by eight bits

All evidence is subjective (just to identify an objective circumstance as being evidence is a subjective act), so we can skip right past "subjectivity" as a defect.

A qualitative distinction between subjective and objective evidence is commonly made by atheists and scientists writ large. I only mention it because the apparent disparity between the two is a source of debate. As a theist trying to understand the atheist worldview, your statement is confusing.

Anecdotal evidence most assuredly is admissible - hardly anything else ever comes from eyewitnesses at trials.

I’ve heard it argued that anecdotal evidence is not admissible as evidence, in any capacity as it is too unreliable. Given your stance, how do you yourself determine whether or not said anecdotal claim merits further inquiry?

The usual problem with anecdotal evidence is applicability. Any kind of generalization is unlikely to be supported stongly by anecdote alone. Samples of size one tell little about general circumstances.

Yes of course. But what happens when you have a sample size of hundreds, thousands?

Furthermore, "anecdotal" is also sometimes used as shorthand for a package of other defects, for example, "casually" observed data (which all too often cashes out as maybe not observed at all), or an inability to question the source for additional information.

If a given piece of anecdotal evidence does not violate the stipulations above – what then?

That, and that no inanimate record accomplishes more than to make it easier to convey the particulars of whatever it was you experienced. Records are never more than exhibits, illustrations, or supplements to the only kind of testimony there is: human report.

I would argue that a video for example lends additional credence and further verification to a claim, while also making it easier to convey the specifics.

Point being, a rigid empiricist still couldn't accept a video depicting a supernatural event as admissible on principle (as it wouldn't be a testable and repeatable event), even though it could make logical sense to do so.

There are two distinct problems in : personal belief management and persuasion of other people. A dream may be useful for the dreamer to form or modify his or her own beliefs, but there is no real reason to expect that your dream will persuade me of anything.

It’s not a matter of persuading you one way or another. It is a matter of asking you whether or not dreams and visions among many other claims of supernatural activity suggest the possibility of a supernatural reality. Ideally, this question should be considered within the context of the entire human corpus as there are untold numbers of historical and contemporary examples of such accounts.

Most of the use of prophecy I have seen fails on one of two counts: lack of specifity in the prediction ("The stock market will fluctuate." Yes, it will.), or use of a prophecy past its last sale date. Any prophecy expires when the event foretold comes to pass. After that, "I foresaw it" is uninteresting, and surely, on its face, no longer a prediction.

What of the prophecies which don’t fail on those counts?

There is, of course, a third way to fail: the prophecy didn't come to pass. For example, Jesus said he was coming back in the lifetime of his first followers. We have canonical witness (John 21) that that was how his chief disciple, Peter, interpreted the prediction. Jesus didn't come back. But no problem, what he really meant was...

All bodies of literature require contextual inference for correct interpretation. Please review Mark 13:24-37 carefully for clarification on the above referenced passage.

At best, when you change the meaning of the prediction, then there was no prediction in the first place. At worst, the gentleman got it wrong. As a Jewish prophet, he is rightly judged by Jewish standards of prophecy: one strike and you're out.

No altering of the original meaning is necessary, only careful and prayerful study.

They really have no obligation to advise you about how to persuade them. If it were a natural controversy, then scientists do extend one another the courtesy of tolerating the question "What experimental outcome will convince you that you are wrong?"

Again, it’s not about persuading anyone. It is a matter of clearly understanding the commonly accepted standards for evidence within the parameters of . In my estimation, there is little consensus, as the answers have fluctuated considerably. Of course this doesn’t necessarily mean there is no consensus; perhaps I am simply asking the wrong individuals.

The atheist, as atheist, does not claim any special knowledge of supernatural investigative procedures.

Enough to axiomatically exclude supernatural investigation from the exact sciences and to presuppose that:

Materialism/physicalism is a proven case.
Positivism is a proven case.
The whole can be analyzed if we examine its parts.

In that context, no wonder scientists cannot find 'evidence' for God or clues for the existence of any kind of 'purpose' in our existence. After you have axiomatically accepted that a system consists of A, B and C only, how do you expect to find D anywhere?

The question, then, is simply misdirected.

I am often asked when discussing origins with an atheist: what supportive evidence is there for a supernatural Creator? I then curb the question with: what qualifies as evidence? The original question precipitates my response. It is not misdirected. It is a logical query, asked in the appropriate context and sequence. Ultimately and admittedly it is an appeal, hopefully prompting further dialogue. A crude example:

T) I believe a supernatural Being created all that is.
A) Do you know of any evidence in favor of a Creator? (A question I have been asked repeatedly)
T) Yes. Although some of what I consider evidence you may not, such as my personal experience with God. Given that, I need to know what you consider admissible as evidence.
A) Multiple answers given which are inconsistent, but most commonly: Science doesn’t investigate the possibility of a supernatural reality. Therefore, I know of no evidence and cannot conceive of such evidence.
T) Why did you ask me for evidence in the first place?
A) To illustrate that you have no demonstrable evidence in favor of a supernatural reality. As such, my lack of belief in the theistic claim remains unaffected

So, here is my closing question:

If science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, does that mean that no good reason exists? If so, can you prove it? If not, why remain closed to the possibility that there are alternative processes to understanding reality that you have not explored?

Why is that a "concession?" It simply restates your position. Your opponent has "conceded" that he or she understands what you're talking about.

It is a “concession” because evidence is always demanded first even though said atheist subsequently admits no such evidence exists (according to them)…the whole point in asking the question is mute.

If this highly complex, mathematically precise, elegant, and intricately patterned universe does not inherently suggest intelligence - what sort of universe would?

reply to post by eight bits

You overstate the nature of the difficulty. All evidence is subjective (just to identify an objective circumstance as being evidence is a subjective act), so we can skip right past "subjectivity" as a defect.

There are, as any police detective or scientist will tell you, relative levels of confidence. Technically, all evidence is subjective, but in fact a sufficiently high level of confidence may be treated as certainty.

Your position in this thread – repeated in the quote above – is semantically unimpeachable but nonsense in pragmatic terms. True; I cannot be certain the sun will rise tomorrow, notwithstanding the testimony of all human experience. Well, a fig for that; I know the sun will rise tomorrow and so do you. You know it as well as I do, however you may protest otherwise, so lets have an end, please, to philosophical bloviating and hairsplitting.

If there is a God who enjoys all the attributes traditionally associated with Him, it is clear that the question of what kind of proof of His existence would be uncontroversial can safely be left to Him. And if He chooses to hide, no-one will ever find him. I do not believe such a God exists, and that makes me an atheist. Call me an agnostic instead if it makes you happy; an atheist I remain nonetheless, and so does the OP.

I suspect, however, that nothing makes you happier than showing other people what a deep-thinking fellow you are. Well, consider it shown, for I shall not afford you further opportunity to demonstrate it.

followthe evidence

A qualitative distinction between subjective and objective evidence is commonly made by atheists and scientists writ large.

That's interesting. It sounds like what lawyers call "a distinction without a difference." By its nature, evidence is an objective circumstance, something that happened and was perceived to have happened, about which a subjective claim is made, that what happened bears on some uncertain controversy.

That leaves little room for some evidence to be objective, and other evidence to be subjective. All evidence has both aspects.

As a theist trying to understand the atheist worldview, your statement is confusing.

That might be because I'm not an atheist.

Given your stance, how do you yourself determine whether or not said anecdotal claim merits further inquiry?

Well, it wasn't so much a "stance," as it was an observation that anecdotal evidence is admitted routinely in court.

How much weight it gets, including as a springboard to further inquiry, probably depends on the question and what the observation says about the question. For example, if the question is "Are all Swedes blond(e)?" then "My friend Sven is Swedish, and he's blond," doesn't get us very far.

On the other hand, "My friend Ingrid is Swedish, and she has black hair," decides the question, up to the credibility of the report. Both statements are anecdotal, so, just being anecdotal doesn't tell me much about how much weight to give the report.

Then, change the question to "Are most Swedes blond(e)?" and the two statements are on a par. Neither is much help.

But what happens when you have a sample size of hundreds, thousands?

Depends on how the sample was constructed.

It's sort of like the old joke, "Do you have ten years of experience, or one year of experience ten times?" So, are we talking about one sample of a size in the thousands, or thousands of samples of size one?

If a given piece of anecdotal evidence does not violate the stipulations above – what then?

Those were examples of only some of the things that can really be wrong when somebody says "That's just anecdotal."

A lot can go wrong, even in professionally designed and executed experiments. So, it's not hard to understand why isolated and heavily interpreted reports of casually observed events often face an uphill climb.

I would argue that a video for example lends additional credence and further verification to a claim, while also making it easier to convey the specifics.

But in your earlier post, you noted that a video can be faked. In the end, the core reason why I would believe that a video depicts something which actually happened is that a human being is there to answer questions about the event and the making of the video.

What of the prophecies which don’t fail on those counts?

Bring one on, and we'll talk.

Please review Mark 13:24-37 carefully for clarification on the above referenced passage.

Perhaps I was unclear. I had in mind John 21: 20-23:

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

At the very mildest level of criticism, this says that the apostolic generation couldn't distinguish between predictions and other kinds of remarks, even with the guidance of Peter. Since other kinds of remarks were made (according to the passage), it follows that no proper predictions were made. Jesus woolgathered about the future, his best friends did what they could to understand his talk, then some of it happened, and some of it didn't.

While I thank you for the pointer to Mark, it is unclear that this incident is being discussed there.

No altering of the original meaning is necessary, only careful and prayerful study.

Then the case is hopeless. A prediction is clear, unambiguous, and not in need of prayer. Besides, I doubt many of us could do a better job in that department than Peter.

Materialism/physicalism is a proven case.
Positivism is a proven case.
The whole can be analyzed if we examine its parts.

None of that has much relevance to the merits of science. Its chosen subject matter is material. If there is something else, then it's somebody else's professional or avocational concern. Or, it might even be some scientists' avocational concern.

This is like complaining that a historian of Victorian politics doesn't investigate string theory. Which maybe she does on weekends, but it doesn't come up much in her professional work. Nor should it.

(Positivism probably had more folowers among philosophers of science than among scientists. Scientists do synthesis as well as analysis, so I am unsure where that third point goes for you.)

So, here is my closing question:

Lol, I count four question marks between here and the end Let me take one and its follow-up.

If science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, does that mean that no good reason exists?

No. Science gives no reason to believe in mathematics either. And neither science nor mathematics gives us good reason to believe that the P=NP conjecture is false, although many people have a strong opinion about it.

If not, why remain closed to the possibility that there are alternative processes to understanding reality that you have not explored?

The answer to that will vary from person to person, starting with how "closed" any individual is. You might also remember that you are not advocating "alternative processes to understanding reality" in general, but a particular variety. It could easily be that any individual atheist you talk with might have explored your process already and been less satisfied with the results than you are.


Astyanax

If you don't like what I post, then don't read it. Now, wasn't that easy?

reply to post by followtheevidence


I just jump into this thread, breaking my own usual rule of reading everything in it first. But I feel that your post is a legitimate platform to start from in itself.

I have some sympathy for the thoughts, you express in your post (I'm a rational metaphysicist myself), and many of your questions and methodology considerations are legitimate and pleasantly above the standard: "Yes, no, yes, no" posts too often manifesting on this forum.

I will personally applaud you for your initial understanding of 'agnostic' positions and subjective/objective analysis.

But then, why the bleep do you END your post with a version of 'intelligent design'? It almost ruins the good impression of your comptence (not quite though).

The ID concept is so weak, that when it's presented, it backlashes rather than support any theist position on that point. At least on the competence-level you manifest.

I here refer to this quote from your post:

[" If this highly complex, mathematically precise, elegant, and intricately patterned universe does not inherently suggest intelligence - what sort of universe would"]

where the most reasonable part is "suggest". There are, as you probably know, 13 'suggestions' a dozen.

reply to post by bogomil

The ID concept is so weak, that when it's presented, it backlashes rather than support any theist position on that point. At least on the competence-level you manifest.

It was not my intention to support my argument with this question. It was, as it were, simply a question absent of any implicit purpose. I truly am curious to hear the answer.

But then, why the bleep do you END your post with a version of 'intelligent design'? It almost ruins the good impression of your comptence (not quite though).

A consequence I am willing to face, if only my question were to be answered in the process. Indeed, as it is so primitive a question, I see no reason why it could not easily be answered as promptly as it was discounted.

I have some sympathy for the thoughts, you express in your post (I'm a rational metaphysicist myself), and many of your questions and methodology considerations are legitimate and pleasantly above the standard: "Yes, no, yes, no" posts too often manifesting on this forum. I will personally applaud you for your initial understanding of 'agnostic' positions and subjective/objective analysis.

I listen to my opponents closely. Truly, the credit is theirs. Thank you, however.