Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Atheism is STUPID

For nearly most of my life I was an atheist.  I simply did not care for religious ideas and found them to be silly.  I could not wait to run into Jehovah's Witnesses at my home or on the street and corner them with questions I know they could not answer.

If they were not around, I would approach Pentecostals, Baptists and other Evangelicals who would stand on the sidewalk with a speaker and microphone shouting and warning everyone to prepare for the end of the world.  Their shouts and cries about 666 and how the government would instill chips in their bodies with this code would give me a chuckle and cause me to shake my head in disbelief.

In school and eventually college, I would run into Christian club members and question the heck out of them.  They all seem to give the same answers.  However, when I questioned the answers even more, they got annoyed and wanted to walk away.  To me this seemed strange.  Supposedly God would speak on their behalf and give them the answers right?

As I got older and focused more on physics, I began to realize that God may not be a bad explanation after all for the causality of everything.  Atheism started to make less sense.

Atheism - to be blunt - was a stupid concept.  Here's why:


  • Free Thought:  Atheists pride themselves in claiming that Atheism is all about free thought.  However, I began to question this for the mere fact that Atheists do not give time to the God concept.  They are quick to dismiss it as a "sky fairy" superstition.  As a science student, my career involved investigating, questioning and theorizing.  I could not simple state, "There is no God, it is superstition."  This would be intellectually dishonest and a cop out.  Atheism is NOT a haven for free thought.  
  • Denial of Causality:  Atheists are quick to dismiss God as the causal factor of all that exists without evidence to support this claim.  They hide behind the different theories surrounding the "Big Bang" or the "Big Splat."  However, they completely ignore that these events need a trigger.  Things do not just happen, there is reason for them.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.  Atheism does not answer the question of causality and therefore cannot be taken seriously, scientifically speaking.
  • Abuse of Science:  Atheists pretend to rely on science to support Atheism; however, nothing in science actually supports Atheism.  The "Big Bang" theory, Evolution - two ideas often cited - do not support Atheism.  The aforementioned are effects of a prior causal element.  Nothing in science suggests that God does not exist.  On the contrary, God is often defined in a deist manner in science.  Scientists who have trouble believing in God do so because they try to define God within the laws of physics.  By doing this, they define a limited God that is subject to the laws of physics instead of the author of them.  
  • Misrepresenting History:  Atheists will misconstrue historical events in order to make religion look primitive or immoral.  They will claim that the Catholic Church burned scientists and that the Church was against science in general.  This is untrue.  Leaders at the time used the capital punishment that was deemed appropriate for a particular crime.  The crimes of those who were put to death were disobedience and heresy, not scientific progress.  If I lived in those times and went to the Pope and told him that the Bible is wrong and needed to be edited, then of course the Pope and leaders of the time will have issue with that.  The same would happen today if I went to the president and told him that the Constitution is not real and that I had the real one which states that we need to have a king, not an electoral process that elects people into office.  Will the president be happy and quickly jump to believe me and make the changes?  History must be studied in-depth and conclusions must be made with the understanding of how people thought in those times.  Centuries from now, our generation will most likely be criticized for having the death penalty and abortion.  This criticism will most likely stem from advances that deem the use of the death penalty and abortion unnecessary.
  • Contrarian Position:  Atheists often will use the contrarian approach as a safety blanket.  They will deny whatever argument or evidence is presented to them.  This makes any discussion futile and only shows that the Atheist either cannot comprehend the arguments or simply is not interested and is just engaging in a discussion just for the sake of discussion.  He/she has no intention of finding the truth.  This position debunks the "free thinking" claim atheists present.  If one is a free thinker, then one would be objective and absorb whatever evidence or argument presented instead of finding any poor excuse in order to invalidate it.
  • Filter:   Atheists often use a mental filter in order to counter any arguments or evidence presented.  They will judge the aforementioned via this filter in order to avoid looking unprepared or foolish when strong arguments are presented.  Again, this filter does a disservice to the supposed "free thinking" that atheism is said to bring about.  If I enter a dialog already convinced that I am right, then I will not learn anything.  
  • Straw Man -  Atheists are well known for their reliance on the Straw man fallacy.  They misconstrue what they believe Faith and God is in order to for it to favor their ridicule.  When closely analyzed, their arguments and attempts to describe Faith, God and Religion are nothing more than misrepresentations.
  • Atheism is Stupid:   The idea that God does not exist or that there is no evidence is unfounded.  For centuries philosophers, religious thinkers and scientists have offered all kinds of proof for the existence of God.  The suggestion that there is no evidence for God is simply not true.  There is indeed evidence for God.  Whether or not one wants to accept it, then that is another issue.  Nevertheless, the rejection of evidence does not invalidate that evidence.  It merely shows sophophobia.  


As a student of science, a mere "I do not believe" is not enough for me.  I am a seeker of truth, not a denier of anything that might be truth.  Atheism was not for me.  Atheism is for the intellectual sloth who does not take the effort to find answers to questions.      

46 comments:

  1. 1. Holy Generalization. Many atheists were previously theists and gave up their faith through reasoned dialogue. I personally spent hours upon hours pouring over arguments (including having a meeting with a local priest), and recognized that the arguments for Theism were extremely lacking. Atheists are "free thought" because there are no limitations for exploring their beliefs. A Christian must stay within certain doctrines in order to remain in the club. There can be "free thought" Christians, it is not limited to Atheists. Atheists enjoy that term because a lot of religious thinking is not free thought.

    2. Christians really need to give up on this first cause debate. You say there must be a first cause that is uncaused, and decide that God will be your first cause. I ask "what caused God?", and you say "He is uncaused". Wonderful. It is a fancy game of playing with words.

    3. Any atheist (ugh i hate this term) who says Science disproves God can correctly be called an idiot. Science simply does not care. What science does do is give explanations for things that God used to be the explanation for. Your main arguments is "where did 'x' come from?". It used to life, disease, the weather, etc. Now you have to retreat to the beginning of the universe. Science does not disprove God, but it is based on a method that provides wonderful results. If the same method is applied to God, especially the Christian God, one has a lot of problems.

    4. You are COMPLETELY correct about the misrepresentation of History. Unfortunately, every single group does it. Christians do it just as much as Atheists do, so I consider that point to be moot. As a Catholic, I can understand why you are so pissed at this misrepresentation of history. I actually have a lot more respect for the Catholic Church than the typical Atheist.

    5. If by Contrarian position you mean the default position of disbelief, then guilty as charge. We do this in everything else. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. I am not claiming God exists, I am simply asking for the evidence. I will meet your arguments, analyze them, and give my responses. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, or giving up on truth. In fact, I care very much about truth. Just because I do not spend enough time worrying about whether YOUR god exists does not mean I do not care about anything.

    6. You say mental filter but do not describe what this filter is. What is it filtering out? When I go into a debate, I do believe I am right, but I am going into it to discover if I am actually right or not.

    7. Some people Straw Man, others do not. The typical religious person you think is a straw man does actually exist. I deal with these people every day. I have witnessed the straw man argument from the Christian side as well. Regardless, it does not make it right. Both sides should refrain from Straw Man arguments.

    8. You keep saying "Atheism is Stupid". The idea that something does not exist does not need to be founded in anything. It must be proven, not automatically assumed. You are correct, there have been plenty of ARGUMENTS for God in the past. Non-believers are stupid because they reject your arguments? There is some evidence, but I have only seen the recent work of Dr. Collins as anything even close to real evidence.

    I look forward to your response. I think it will be beneficial for both of us. If I put anything in there that does meet your "subject for approval" standards, just leave a comment saying what you found offensive and I will edit it out.

    Thanks
    Josh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ///1. Holy Generalization. Many atheists were previously theists and gave up their faith through reasoned dialogue. I personally spent hours upon hours pouring over arguments (including having a meeting with a local priest), and recognized that the arguments for Theism were extremely lacking. Atheists are "free thought" because there are no limitations for exploring their beliefs. A Christian must stay within certain doctrines in order to remain in the club. There can be "free thought" Christians, it is not limited to Atheists. Atheists enjoy that term because a lot of religious thinking is not free thought.////



      Yes, this is due to lack of knowledge on the faith or witnessing bad behavior from others; or a combination of both. How are the arguments lacking? To date, no atheist has proven God does not exist or was not a factor in the creation of all things. If atheists are "free thought" and there are no limitations to exploring their beliefs, then why do they shun God? Think about it.



      ////2. Christians really need to give up on this first cause debate. You say there must be a first cause that is uncaused, and decide that God will be your first cause. I ask "what caused God?", and you say "He is uncaused". Wonderful. It is a fancy game of playing with words.////



      Nothing caused God because God is outside of space and time. Time only exists in our universe. So someone without time has no beginning or end.






      ////3. Any atheist (ugh i hate this term) who says Science disproves God can correctly be called an idiot. Science simply does not care. What science does do is give explanations for things that God used to be the explanation for. Your main arguments is "where did 'x' come from?". It used to life, disease, the weather, etc. Now you have to retreat to the beginning of the universe. Science does not disprove God, but it is based on a method that provides wonderful results. If the same method is applied to God, especially the Christian God, one has a lot of problems.///



      I agree. Science cannot disprove God and as you say, does not care to. Science seeks knowledge of the natural world. Ancient religions credited every action in nature to God; however, a creator does not need to micro manage.




      ///4. You are COMPLETELY correct about the misrepresentation of History. Unfortunately, every single group does it. Christians do it just as much as Atheists do, so I consider that point to be moot. As a Catholic, I can understand why you are so pissed at this misrepresentation of history. I actually have a lot more respect for the Catholic Church than the typical Atheist.////


      Everyone misrepresents history; however, the Catholic Church is very careful with details. This is why we have the secret archives which are a treasure of human history.

      Delete



    2. ////5. If by Contrarian position you mean the default position of disbelief, then guilty as charge. We do this in everything else. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. I am not claiming God exists, I am simply asking for the evidence. I will meet your arguments, analyze them, and give my responses. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, or giving up on truth. In fact, I care very much about truth. Just because I do not spend enough time worrying about whether YOUR god exists does not mean I do not care about anything. ////



      No by contrarian I mean that the individual will continue to disagree despite being presented with evidence. The equivalent would be a creationist refusing to accept evolution despite the evidence before him/her. They will persist on the contrary and never open up to truth. Evidence for God exists. However, it is up to the seeker to be objective.



      ////6. You say mental filter but do not describe what this filter is. What is it filtering out? When I go into a debate, I do believe I am right, but I am going into it to discover if I am actually right or not. ///



      It is filtering out the evidence of God. It is like a mental block.




      ////7. Some people Straw Man, others do not. The typical religious person you think is a straw man does actually exist. I deal with these people every day. I have witnessed the straw man argument from the Christian side as well. Regardless, it does not make it right. Both sides should refrain from Straw Man arguments.///




      Yes religions folks do straw man once in a while; however, atheists do this more I've noticed. This is why I scout the net for atheist blogs to refute.




      ////8. You keep saying "Atheism is Stupid". The idea that something does not exist does not need to be founded in anything. It must be proven, not automatically assumed. You are correct, there have been plenty of ARGUMENTS for God in the past. Non-believers are stupid because they reject your arguments? There is some evidence, but I have only seen the recent work of Dr. Collins as anything even close to real evidence.////



      I say "atheism is stupid" from my perspective coming from it. I'm giving my reasons why I stop being atheist. To me it became a stupid philosophy to adhere to.




      ///I look forward to your response. I think it will be beneficial for both of us. If I put anything in there that does meet your "subject for approval" standards, just leave a comment saying what you found offensive and I will edit it out.///



      I have no issue with comments. My concern is when some people post spam, or insulting comments with foul language. I want people of all ages to come and read without having to read nasty comments that have no place here. If people behaved more, I wouldn't have to screen comments.

      Delete
  2. \\\\Yes, this is due to lack of knowledge on the faith or witnessing bad behavior from others; or a combination of both. How are the arguments lacking? To date, no atheist has proven God does not exist or was not a factor in the creation of all things. If atheists are "free thought" and there are no limitations to exploring their beliefs, then why do they shun God? Think about it. ////

    This is another gross generalization. A lack of knowledge of the faith or being hurt by Christians does not explain all people who lack religious belief. You are talking to someone who spent a considerable time learning about his faith, and your assumption that I do not believe your specific religion because I do not know it is quite arrogant. I feel like I have to bring up the cliché saying “You only reject one less God than I do, I reject your God for the same reason you reject the others”. This is all ad hominem and I refuse to debate it further. You walk up to someone who has never been introduced to theism or Christianity. If you tell them God exists, they will ask why? If you give a view pieces of evidence and an argument they find unconvincing, it is not because they are ignorant or stupid but because you have failed to convince them. That is what we ask; argue with us as if it was your job to convince us.
    There are absolutely no limitations on what an “atheist” can explore. They are perfectly allowed to explore theism; in fact most people who do not believe in theism would be fine with someone exploring that option. There is no heirarchry, no doctrine, no rules. A person can think whatever they want. I do not “shun God” in the same way that I do not shun Kant or Plantiga. I simply do not believe their arguments.
    Of course I cannot prove God does not exist. Do you now how hard it is to prove something does not exist? I can consider the possibility to be unlikely, but a lack of evidence does not mean non-existence. However, I am not going to believe something based on faith. When I say there is no evidence, I say there is no evidence that is good enough to convince me of your proposition. You can claim that any evidence ‘x’ is evidence for ‘y’. This does not mean it is good evidence. I also agree that I cannot disprove that God did not have a hand in creation or continues to have a hand in this world. In order for a hypothesis to be a good hypothesis, it must be able to be disproven. You make the hypothesis that “God was behind creation”. Ok well what evidence would disprove this hypothesis? How would we know when it is false? You cannot provide that.


    \\\\\Nothing caused God because God is outside of space and time. Time only exists in our universe. So someone without time has no beginning or end./////

    You assume that there is only one “first cause”. There could have been 100 first causes. Instead of the causal chain being one link, perhaps there are multiple chains that all lead back to their own first source. You also assume that the first cause has to be a person and not a thing. The first cause makes a strong argument that something had to cause our universe (assuming our universe is not eternally cyclical just as your God exists eternally). But it does not even remotely follow that a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ///This is another gross generalization. A lack of knowledge of the faith or being hurt by Christians does not explain all people who lack religious belief. You are talking to someone who spent a considerable time learning about his faith, and your assumption that I do not believe your specific religion because I do not know it is quite arrogant. I feel like I have to bring up the cliché saying “You only reject one less God than I do, I reject your God for the same reason you reject the others”. This is all ad hominem and I refuse to debate it further. You walk up to someone who has never been introduced to theism or Christianity. If you tell them God exists, they will ask why? If you give a view pieces of evidence and an argument they find unconvincing, it is not because they are ignorant or stupid but because you have failed to convince them. That is what we ask; argue with us as if it was your job to convince us.
      There are absolutely no limitations on what an “atheist” can explore. They are perfectly allowed to explore theism; in fact most people who do not believe in theism would be fine with someone exploring that option. There is no heirarchry, no doctrine, no rules. A person can think whatever they want. I do not “shun God” in the same way that I do not shun Kant or Plantiga. I simply do not believe their arguments.
      Of course I cannot prove God does not exist. Do you now how hard it is to prove something does not exist? I can consider the possibility to be unlikely, but a lack of evidence does not mean non-existence. However, I am not going to believe something based on faith. When I say there is no evidence, I say there is no evidence that is good enough to convince me of your proposition. You can claim that any evidence ‘x’ is evidence for ‘y’. This does not mean it is good evidence. I also agree that I cannot disprove that God did not have a hand in creation or continues to have a hand in this world. In order for a hypothesis to be a good hypothesis, it must be able to be disproven. You make the hypothesis that “God was behind creation”. Ok well what evidence would disprove this hypothesis? How would we know when it is false? You cannot provide that.////


      A majority of people who don't believe do so because they were discouraged. Christianity is pretty much global, so there is no reason for anyone not to know about it. Moreover, religion has always been at the heart of every civilization. This is why it was easy to convert locals of different countries. They already had an idea of God. This made it easy for missionaries to inculturate Christianity in a way that the locals would understand and would convert. Atheists who explore theism do so in order to try to disprove it. This is the mental block or filter I refer to. They research theism, not to learn about God and believe, but to find ways to shoot down doctrines and ideas regarding God. Atheism does have "sets of rules and doctrines." They have to be of a liberal or progressive stance, must support humanism and must be anti-religious. There is no freedom in this.



      //You assume that there is only one “first cause”. There could have been 100 first causes. Instead of the causal chain being one link, perhaps there are multiple chains that all lead back to their own first source. You also assume that the first cause has to be a person and not a thing. The first cause makes a strong argument that something had to cause our universe (assuming our universe is not eternally cyclical just as your God exists eternally). But it does not even remotely follow that a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists. ///

      Delete
    2. "They have to be of a liberal or progressive stance, must support humanism and must be anti-religious."

      I'm an atheist and I'm not anti-religious, I just dislike hateful acts in the name of a religion. I would dislike hateful acts in the name of atheism as much as a catholic would dislike hateful acts in the name of his religion. Religion is fine as long as it doesn't hinder the success of people or hurt them in any way. I'm completely okay with monks, nuns, popes, and any other category of religious person. An atheist has no restrictions except the fact that he/she has to not believe in God, that does not mean that atheists can't ponder the existence of God.

      Delete
    3. The Catholic Church helps others succeed more than any other institution. We have the best education system, and assist people of all walks of life.

      Delete

  3. \\\\I agree. Science cannot disprove God and as you say, does not care to. Science seeks knowledge of the natural world. Ancient religions credited every action in nature to God; however, a creator does not need to micro manage./////

    Wonderful. Glad we agree. Maybe we can be friends after all.

    \\\\Everyone misrepresents history; however, the Catholic Church is very careful with details. This is why we have the secret archives which are a treasure of human history. ////

    Good job, Catholic Church. Thank you for helping out.

    \\\\No by contrarian I mean that the individual will continue to disagree despite being presented with evidence. The equivalent would be a creationist refusing to accept evolution despite the evidence before him/her. They will persist on the contrary and never open up to truth. Evidence for God exists. However, it is up to the seeker to be objective./////

    It is not disagreement despite of evidence. It is a refusal to accept evidence that you claim is good enough to prove God. I recognize the evidence you put forth, and may even accept all your premises, but I do not accept the conclusion. Some many persist on the contrary no matter what, but this is not only a problem of non-believers. So many believers do this as well, you cannot honestly say that only non-believers refuse to search for truth and see evidence. You claim that evidence for God exists; please show it to me. First Cause, Fine-Tuning, Moral-Argument, Pre-suppositional argument, Ontological Argument, Argument from religious experience. We can go through all of those. I will argue that none of those arguments/pieces of evidence are good enough to accept the existence of God.

    \\\\It is filtering out the evidence of God. It is like a mental block.////

    I do not “filter it out”; I examine it and reject it as good enough evidence. If I come to you and say “eating a chocolate cured my cough. I ate it yesterday, and now I feel better”. You would not filter out the evidence, you would reject it based on the false cause fallacy.

    \\\\Yes religions folks do straw man once in a while; however, atheists do this more I've noticed. This is why I scout the net for atheist blogs to refute. ////

    This is just the exchange of ad hominem. You do it more, no you do it more, no you do it more. I don't really care who does it more because it does not mean that a group is wrong. By the way, the reason I hate the term atheist is that you cannot say “atheists believe or do ‘x’”. A group that is “united” by simply not believing in something cannot be characterized at all (besides not believing in my beliefs). You can say that humanists do this, or Satanists do that. Atheist is a term, it is not an –ism.

    \\\\I say "atheism is stupid" from my perspective coming from it. I'm giving my reasons why I stop being atheist. To me it became a stupid philosophy to adhere to. ////

    Atheism isn’t a philosophy or a religion that can be adhered to. There is nothing to adhere to. You just have to believe that there is no God in the same way you do not believe in dragons or werewolves (not that belief in God is the same as belief in werewolves, not trying to be a jerk). It only exists as a philosophy because theism exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ///Wonderful. Glad we agree. Maybe we can be friends after all.///

      I see no reason why not. I have friends from all walks of life. I learn from them and hopefully they get something from me.


      ////Good job, Catholic Church. Thank you for helping out.///

      Yes, the Church has done and does a lot of good. Unfortunately, some bad eggs in the Church ruin her reputation.


      ////It is not disagreement despite of evidence. It is a refusal to accept evidence that you claim is good enough to prove God. I recognize the evidence you put forth, and may even accept all your premises, but I do not accept the conclusion. Some many persist on the contrary no matter what, but this is not only a problem of non-believers. So many believers do this as well, you cannot honestly say that only non-believers refuse to search for truth and see evidence. You claim that evidence for God exists; please show it to me. First Cause, Fine-Tuning, Moral-Argument, Pre-suppositional argument, Ontological Argument, Argument from religious experience. We can go through all of those. I will argue that none of those arguments/pieces of evidence are good enough to accept the existence of God. ///


      What is "good enough?" That is subjective. Is a witness account enough to convict a murderer or do you need an actual video of the crime? Tell me why the evidence arguments you have listed don't work for you. Maybe they weren't presented to you correctly.


      //I do not “filter it out”; I examine it and reject it as good enough evidence. If I come to you and say “eating a chocolate cured my cough. I ate it yesterday, and now I feel better”. You would not filter out the evidence, you would reject it based on the false cause fallacy.////



      Well I am not saying you, but most atheists do this. They just don't want to hera it. They are convinced that they cannot be convinced.


      ///This is just the exchange of ad hominem. You do it more, no you do it more, no you do it more. I don't really care who does it more because it does not mean that a group is wrong. By the way, the reason I hate the term atheist is that you cannot say “atheists believe or do ‘x’”. A group that is “united” by simply not believing in something cannot be characterized at all (besides not believing in my beliefs). You can say that humanists do this, or Satanists do that. Atheist is a term, it is not an –ism. ///


      Yes, its part of the stupidity of all human beings. We love to argue - most of the time about nothing. Atheism comes in many forms.


      //Atheism isn’t a philosophy or a religion that can be adhered to. There is nothing to adhere to. You just have to believe that there is no God in the same way you do not believe in dragons or werewolves (not that belief in God is the same as belief in werewolves, not trying to be a jerk). It only exists as a philosophy because theism exists. //


      I disagree. Atheism is both a philosophy and religion in its own fashion. A religion doesn't need a deity. Take Buddhism for example. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. It is a construction or set of ideas.

      Delete
  4. \\I disagree. Atheism is both a philosophy and religion in its own fashion. A religion doesn't need a deity. Take Buddhism for example. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. It is a construction or set of ideas.//

    I am not sure if this point can be hashed out any longer. It is not a construction of ideas. What ideas are constructed? It does not even have an idea, it has a lack of an idea. Are all non-christians part of the "Achristianism" religion? Are all non- Hindus part of the Ahinduism religion? Of course not. Buddhism does not have a diety but it has a complete metaphysical framework, ethical theory, etc. There is nothing you can know about an atheist besides that they do not hold a belief in a God. They do not even claim to know that God doesnt exist, unlike the other religions that claim knowledge. It is like claiming that someone who does not care about football or have a favorite football team is still a football fan. They are not a type of sports fan that does not like sports, they are simply not a sports fan.

    \\Tell me why the evidence arguments you have listed don't work for you. Maybe they weren't presented to you correctly. //

    I would love to say "pick your favorite one", but I guess I have to prove that I have gone through the arguments so you do not claim that I am just angry at God or was hurt by Christians. I will go in order from most ridiculous to most plausible.

    Pre-suppositional argument: "You accept math and logic as axiomatic. I choose God to be axiomatic." Fine, that can be an argument for anything. This argument can be used for anything so it is completely useless.

    Ontological Argument - Not even worth putting up here. Existence is not a predicate, it is a mathematical quantifier. Also depends on the idea that existence is better than non-existence, which needs an argument of itself.

    Moral Argument - Classic Euthyphro problem. Eventually it forces one to choose Divine Command Theory or accept that there is some standard for good outside of God. Regardless, the argument is typically an argument from emotion in which God is needed for morals (false), and disbelieving God means disbelieving morals. This is not a conclusion we want, so we believe in God.

    First Cause-I addressed this already. It makes tons of assumptions about what this first cause has to be like. It also assumes that the world is not eternally cyclical.

    Argument from Religious Experience - Every religion has religious experiences, including Buddhism. Also, all of the religious experiences I have had in the past 8 years are easily explained by great music or highly emotional states. I believe that people have religious experiences, but since experiences are subjective and the human brain does a very good job of fooling itself, it simply is not enough evidence. Especially since I have had these experiences that people talk about; I was a hardcore Christian.

    Fine-tuning argument- The only one that has some merit. The laws of physics appear fine tuned because there an infinite amount of possibilities, but only a ridiculously small amount of those possibilities can produce life. It makes the assumption that something that appears designed must be designed. We used to think the same thing with biology, but discovered evolution. The problem is that if the Universe is so completely unlikely, than the God that created it would have to even more unlikely. We know the universe exists, no matter how rare, because we are in it. However, we do not know that God exists. There is also the multi-universe theory, which I do not really have an opinion on because I am not a physicist. It also worth noting that we adapted to the Universe, so it makes sense that the laws in this universe would be needed for life.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ////I am not sure if this point can be hashed out any longer. It is not a construction of ideas. What ideas are constructed? It does not even have an idea, it has a lack of an idea. Are all non-christians part of the "Achristianism" religion? Are all non- Hindus part of the Ahinduism religion? Of course not. Buddhism does not have a diety but it has a complete metaphysical framework, ethical theory, etc. There is nothing you can know about an atheist besides that they do not hold a belief in a God. They do not even claim to know that God doesnt exist, unlike the other religions that claim knowledge. It is like claiming that someone who does not care about football or have a favorite football team is still a football fan. They are not a type of sports fan that does not like sports, they are simply not a sports fan.///



      The idea is that God does not exist. This is what the very word means. Atheists can add all kinds of meanings to the word, but the word's definition still stands. Holding that God does not exist is a position or set of beliefs. It is an opinion that when challenged should be defended rationally. Atheism in this sense is a religion or philosophy. Some courts have even labeled it as such when atheist chaplains complained they were not treated equally as other chaplains. Football and sports is not related to atheism, so your analogy does not fit well. What you're discribing is indifferentism. Atheists are not indifferent; they reject the God hypothesis. There is a difference between not caring for something and denying something.



      ////I would love to say "pick your favorite one", but I guess I have to prove that I have gone through the arguments so you do not claim that I am just angry at God or was hurt by Christians. I will go in order from most ridiculous to most plausible.///



      Well sometimes math is presented to kids in a bad way and they become frustrated and reject math altogether. It is possible arguments in favor of God may have been presented wrongly causing confusion.



      ////Pre-suppositional argument: "You accept math and logic as axiomatic. I choose God to be axiomatic." Fine, that can be an argument for anything. This argument can be used for anything so it is completely useless. //


      It can, but if the argument goes on further then it has substance to it.






      ////Ontological Argument - Not even worth putting up here. Existence is not a predicate, it is a mathematical quantifier. Also depends on the idea that existence is better than non-existence, which needs an argument of itself. ///



      Explain how it fails in regards to God.

      Delete



    2. ///Moral Argument - Classic Euthyphro problem. Eventually it forces one to choose Divine Command Theory or accept that there is some standard for good outside of God. Regardless, the argument is typically an argument from emotion in which God is needed for morals (false), and disbelieving God means disbelieving morals. This is not a conclusion we want, so we believe in God.///



      Well morality is still a big question atheists have trouble answering. Biologists and psychologists have trouble pinpointing its origin. The fact that morality seems to be universal is also a big question that atheists struggle with. Why does it exist? Why do only human animals have it? How do we know what is really is 'right' and 'wrong?' Is natural selection sophisticated enough as an unconcious agent to instill a conscious awareness of morality into man?




      ///First Cause-I addressed this already. It makes tons of assumptions about what this first cause has to be like. It also assumes that the world is not eternally cyclical.///



      Science does not dispute that there is a first cause. The question is, was it God or did it happen on its own. Mathematically speaking, the probablity of this universe forming the way it did by mere chance is impossible.



      ///Argument from Religious Experience - Every religion has religious experiences, including Buddhism. Also, all of the religious experiences I have had in the past 8 years are easily explained by great music or highly emotional states. I believe that people have religious experiences, but since experiences are subjective and the human brain does a very good job of fooling itself, it simply is not enough evidence. Especially since I have had these experiences that people talk about; I was a hardcore Christian.///



      It depends what kind of religious experience we're addressing. Buddhism focuses more on spiritual experiences. The religious experiences that Christians experience is a bit more personal. They feel connected to a personhood that is beyond themselves. The experiences can be so powerful that they can alter reality ie miracles. This is not a consequence of the human mind playing tricks. Our minds cannot manipulate matter like in the "Matrix" movie with the bending of the spoon.



      ////Fine-tuning argument- The only one that has some merit. The laws of physics appear fine tuned because there an infinite amount of possibilities, but only a ridiculously small amount of those possibilities can produce life. It makes the assumption that something that appears designed must be designed. We used to think the same thing with biology, but discovered evolution. The problem is that if the Universe is so completely unlikely, than the God that created it would have to even more unlikely. We know the universe exists, no matter how rare, because we are in it. However, we do not know that God exists. There is also the multi-universe theory, which I do not really have an opinion on because I am not a physicist. It also worth noting that we adapted to the Universe, so it makes sense that the laws in this universe would be needed for life.////





      As stated above, the math does not add up in regards to the probablity of a anthropic universe. Everything in this universe is "designed." Like a clock, DVD player or computer, the universe has components that operate in a specific manner in order to whole all things together. Evolution shows this as well. In evolution we see order. We see the intent of designing new life forms using patterns from the old. There is a study I will be writing on that shows evidence that our universe might be a computer program! Now if it is a computer program, then logically it needs a programmer.

      Delete
  5. \\\Atheism does have "sets of rules and doctrines." They have to be of a liberal or progressive stance, must support humanism and must be anti-religious. There is no freedom in this. ///

    I totally missed this one, sorry. There is not single person that I have to be liberal, progressive, a humanist, or anti-religious. I have a close friend that does not believe in God, has no idea what humanism is, is not anti-religious, and is a conservative who hates Obama. I am actually surprised by this comment you make. I feel like I have to give you a grammar lesson. The prefix "a-" means "not, non". Theism means belief in God. Therefore, atheism means no belief in God. I never thought I would have to have this much debate over semantics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well your friend is an exception to the rule which does happen. If you conduct a survey, you will see what I mean. I invite you to poll your atheist friends and those on twitter or facebook and you will see that a majority will side with liberalism and progressivism. "A-theos" means without god and in ancient Greece described those who rejected the gods. The word has nothing to do with belief.

      Delete
  6. \\\Explain how [Ontological Argument] fails in regards to God. ///

    I told you, it relies on the premise that it is better to exist than not to exist. God is the most perfect being, but would not be perfect if he did not exist. Therefore, he must exist in order to be perfect. Existence is not a property that can be predicated. It is a quantifier. Read Bertrand Russell. Also, It is unsubstantiated that existence is better than non-existence. I am not filtering out this evidence, I am simply refusing that the argument is sound.

    \\\\Well morality is still a big question atheists have trouble answering. Biologists and psychologists have trouble pinpointing its origin. The fact that morality seems to be universal is also a big question that atheists struggle with. Why does it exist? Why do only human animals have it? How do we know what is really is 'right' and 'wrong?' Is natural selection sophisticated enough as an unconcious agent to instill a conscious awareness of morality into man? ////

    But Christianity does not have a better answer. When asked why morality is the way it is, one either has to say that “God says so” or that “God does what is good”. Well what standard is God using to create what is good? Biologists are not really concerned with pinpointing where a specific social norm came from. That would be the job of cultural anthropologists and historians. Morality does not seem to be universal. Morality is constantly changing as time goes on. Slavery used to be considered moral, now it is not. Discrimination based on race used to be considered moral when my father was alive, now it is typically not (maybe it still is in the south). The issue of consciousness being created by evolutionary processes is a biological concern but has nothing to do with the moral debate. Regardless, even if there were no morals without religion, it would not make religion true. It would only mean that it is unfortunate if religion isn’t true.

    \\\\Science does not dispute that there is a first cause. The question is, was it God or did it happen on its own. Mathematically speaking, the probability of this universe forming the way it did by mere chance is impossible. /////

    Science does not dispute that our universe did begin at one point, but the religions that believe in an eternally cyclical universe can still believe that the universe is destroyed and rebuilt over and over again. Your question is a false dichotomy: either God did it or it happened completely randomly by chance. It ignores other possible explanations as well, some we may not have even thought of yet. So the first cause argument basically argues “there must be a first cause, so therefore there is a first cause”. This is not helpful at all (God = first cause) because God can literally mean whatever was the first cause. And the probability is not impossible; it is improbable. But there are many theories that deal with this situation including the multi-verse.

    \\\It depends what kind of religious experience we're addressing. Buddhism focuses more on spiritual experiences. The religious experiences that Christians experience is a bit more personal. They feel connected to a personhood that is beyond themselves. The experiences can be so powerful that they can alter reality ie miracles. This is not a consequence of the human mind playing tricks. Our minds cannot manipulate matter like in the "Matrix" movie with the bending of the spoon. ///

    Christian religious experiences do not get special privilege in this debate at all. I enjoy your straw man of the argument that the mind is very powerful. No one argues that the mind manipulates matter like the Matrix. I have never seen a miracle or a video of a miracle that could not easily be faked. When we say the power of the mind we are talking about events such as the placebo affect. Religious experiences are not unique to one religion, so it either means that God is trying to fool us intentionally (its working) or they do not point to any specific religion being correct.



    @philofalconry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ///I told you, it relies on the premise that it is better to exist than not to exist. God is the most perfect being, but would not be perfect if he did not exist. Therefore, he must exist in order to be perfect. Existence is not a property that can be predicated. It is a quantifier. Read Bertrand Russell. Also, It is unsubstantiated that existence is better than non-existence. I am not filtering out this evidence, I am simply refusing that the argument is sound. ///


      Not necessarily. St. Anselm's argument is that if the mind can process the concept of God, then that concept must exist since the mind can only process things that it can be aware of. Scientists do this all the time. They develop a hypothesis which meets the parameter of experience and they test it to see if it is valid.


      ///But Christianity does not have a better answer. When asked why morality is the way it is, one either has to say that “God says so” or that “God does what is good”. Well what standard is God using to create what is good? Biologists are not really concerned with pinpointing where a specific social norm came from. That would be the job of cultural anthropologists and historians. Morality does not seem to be universal. Morality is constantly changing as time goes on. Slavery used to be considered moral, now it is not. Discrimination based on race used to be considered moral when my father was alive, now it is typically not (maybe it still is in the south). The issue of consciousness being created by evolutionary processes is a biological concern but has nothing to do with the moral debate. Regardless, even if there were no morals without religion, it would not make religion true. It would only mean that it is unfortunate if religion isn’t true. ///


      Morality is not a "social norm." Morality is build in us. Scripture states that God wrote laws into us. We know right from wrong because of this natural law that is written in our hearts. Morality is indeed universal. Stealing, killing, abuse are always frowned upon. Slavery was seen as moral because of the understanding that people of other races were inferior, or animals. If a person is a mere animal or property, then you are not doing anything immoral by putting that "thing" to work. This is how people thought back in the day. Nevertheless, the concept rubbed many in the wrong way and now it is a thing of the past.

      Delete




    2. ///Science does not dispute that our universe did begin at one point, but the religions that believe in an eternally cyclical universe can still believe that the universe is destroyed and rebuilt over and over again. Your question is a false dichotomy: either God did it or it happened completely randomly by chance. It ignores other possible explanations as well, some we may not have even thought of yet. So the first cause argument basically argues “there must be a first cause, so therefore there is a first cause”. This is not helpful at all (God = first cause) because God can literally mean whatever was the first cause. And the probability is not impossible; it is improbable. But there are many theories that deal with this situation including the multi-verse.////




      What other possible explanations are there? My question deals with the current knowledge we possess. We can only formulate questions based on the data available. God is mentioned as the first cause because of the probability of an anthropic universe forming by chance is impossible. Despite what we perceive to be imperfections in the universe, it is a work of art that is precise and mathematical. Mathematics cannot create itself. It needs a conscious intelligence to formulate mathematical concepts. Any theory, whether the "big bang," "big splat," or multiverse will see need a first cause.



      ///Christian religious experiences do not get special privilege in this debate at all. I enjoy your straw man of the argument that the mind is very powerful. No one argues that the mind manipulates matter like the Matrix. I have never seen a miracle or a video of a miracle that could not easily be faked. When we say the power of the mind we are talking about events such as the placebo affect. Religious experiences are not unique to one religion, so it either means that God is trying to fool us intentionally (its working) or they do not point to any specific religion being correct. ///

      What straw man? I was just making an analogy based on your previous comment. Placebos are not a factor in real miracles. While religious experiences may occur in other faiths, the ones that show to be of supernatural origin are the ones which should be taken into account. So far, the Catholic Church has been the only religion to exhibit this phenomenon.

      Delete
  7. "However, I began to question this for the mere fact that Atheists do not give time to the God concept"
    I'll give it time right now. Convince me.

    "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
    On what do you base this claim?

    "Atheists pretend to rely on science to support Atheism; however, nothing in science actually supports Atheism"
    That's because atheism is not a claim. It's a conclusion, based on the failure of those making god claims to support them with evidence.

    "On the contrary, God is often defined in a deist manner in science"
    Source?

    "They will deny whatever argument or evidence is presented to them. "
    No, they will refute arguments that are invalid; I have yet to see actual evidence.

    "He/she has no intention of finding the truth."
    Nonsense. The reason I engage in discussion with religious people is to better understand my own position and to make sure I can support it.

    "The idea that God does not exist or that there is no evidence is unfounded. For centuries philosophers, religious thinkers and scientists have offered all kinds of proof for the existence of God."
    They have all been refuted or were unsupported to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. //I'll give it time right now. Convince me.//

      See my atheism dilemma series.

      ///On what do you base this claim?///

      The principle of causation.

      ///That's because atheism is not a claim. It's a conclusion, based on the failure of those making god claims to support them with evidence.//

      It is a claim because it posits a position that cannot be verified. Atheists decide there is no God despite evidence presented. Whether or not one likes the evidence does not prove non-existence.

      ////No, they will refute arguments that are invalid; I have yet to see actual evidence.//

      Define invalid? This is the filter I write about in my post. You are defining an answer without proposing a question.


      ///Nonsense. The reason I engage in discussion with religious people is to better understand my own position and to make sure I can support it.
      ///

      To date, no atheist has validly supported atheism. Recently, two of the biggest atheists have lost debates with prominent religious debaters.


      //They have all been refuted or were unsupported to begin with.///


      None have been refuted. Setting aside arguments does not mean they are refuted.

      Delete
  8. What is the "principle of causation?"

    Atheism does not posit anything; you are misrepresenting it. Atheists conclude that there is no god because those claiming that there is a god cannot support that claim.

    Do you believe that invisible pink unicorns exist, since the evidence does not prove non-existence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "principle of causation" or "law of causation/cause and effect" is used in science, particularly physics. It describes the need for a cause to exist prior to an effect.

      You have just contradicted yourself. You say "atheist does not posit" and then say "Atheists conclude that there is no god."

      Well I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns not solely because I can't see them, but because I know their origin.

      Delete
    2. Why would something need to "begin" to exist in order for the principle of causation to apply?

      "Conclude" and "posit" do not mean the same thing.

      What is the origin of invisible pink unicorns?

      Delete
    3. Because the laws of physics has it set up that way. Every thing that exists, has a beginning. Conclude and posit are pretty much synonymous. One is holding onto a particular premise.

      The origin of the invisible pink unicorn comes from atheiest satire in the early 90's.

      Delete
    4. Excellent. Since you believe that God exists, God must have a beginning and thus requires a cause. What is it?

      Please cite the dictionary you're using to define conclude and posit. Can't? That's because you're making up your own definitions.

      Thank you for establishing that invisible pink unicorns have an origin. The Judeo-Christian God also has an origin, in the mythology of ancient Hebrew people. Now, what's your evidence that invisible pink unicorns exist?

      Delete
    5. Remember, God created all things. All things had a beginning in time. Since they had a beginning in time and God created them, then time did not exist. Therefore, God does not have a beginning. He is outside of space and time. See the Oxford or even Merriam's dictionary to assist you in proper definitions. There is no evidence that the Judeo-Christian God has an origin.

      Delete
  9. Here are some funny comments from Reddit showing EXACTLY what I described in my post!!!


    [–]picado 6 points 2 hours ago
    You don't need to read past
    For nearly most of my life I was an atheist. I simply did not care for religious ideas and found them to be silly.
    to see this is going to be a "was lost and now am saved story".
    It's a simple narrative arc, almost universal in religious testimonial: if God can reach someone like me, it must be true.
    I once was a hard core X (bad) who hated God, now I've seen the error of my ways. Fit for a revival meeting.
    permalink
    [–]squigs -1 points 2 hours ago
    You don't need to read past
    Actually you kinda do.
    He presents some arguments for atheism being stupid.They're reasonably well considered arguments.
    permalinkparent
    [–]picado 3 points 2 hours ago
    I skimmed but it seemed same old and it was a huge wall text, I'm a bit lazy. Since you've read it and some points stuck out for you, would you mind pointing them out?
    permalinkparent
    [–]squigs 1 point 1 hour ago
    Well, the ones that really jumped out at me was this one
    Filter: Atheists often use a mental filter in order to counter any arguments or evidence presented. They will judge the aforementioned via this filter in order to avoid looking unprepared or foolish when strong arguments are presented.
    Straw Man - Atheists are well known for their reliance on the Straw man fallacy. They misconstrue what they believe Faith and God is in order to for it to favor their ridicule. When closely analyzed, their arguments and attempts to describe Faith, God and Religion are nothing more than misrepresentations.
    Now his arguments are actually targeted at a lot of atheists rather than atheism itself, but I come across these issues here way too often, and it makes us look stupid.
    permalinkparent
    [–]connedbyreligion 3 points 1 hour ago
    They're reasonably well considered arguments.
    No, they aren't. Most of them are straw man arguments, the rest are full of factual errors.
    permalinkparent
    [–]squigs 0 points 1 hour ago
    I've certainly seen a lot of the filtering and strawmanning he mentions amongst other atheists.
    So what did cause the big bang? What's the simplest explanation for it? You presumably have a hypothesis. He has a hypothesis. Maybe his hypothesis is wrong but he considers it the best we have. If you can;t provide an alternative hypothesis then why should we not go with the only one we have?
    permalinkparent
    [–]connedbyreligion 2 points 1 hour ago
    So what did cause the big bang? What's the simplest explanation for it? You presumably have a hypothesis. He has a hypothesis. Maybe his hypothesis is wrong but he considers it the best we have. If you can;t provide an alternative hypothesis then why should we not go with the only one we have?
    Oh, you got so many things wrong in such a small paragraph.
    1) Even if we didn't have a hypothesis, it doesn't automatically make "magic man did it" a valid explanation. When you don't know something, the only right answer is "I don't know".
    2) A hypothesis is just that - it does NOT reflect reality, unless it is thoroughly tested and not proven to be wrong.
    3) This is a classic cosmological argument, which was debunked a thousand times.
    4) We recently discovered that causality in our universe is much stranger than you may think:
    A causes B causes A.
    permalinkparent
    [–]squigs 1 point 54 minutes ago
    1) Even if we didn't have a hypothesis, it doesn't automatically make "magic man did it" a valid explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's a hypothesis. He believes the hypothesis makes sense. You can't just dismiss it like that.
    2) A hypothesis is just that - it does NOT reflect reality, unless it is thoroughly tested and not proven to be wrong.
    And nobody is even trying to test it. They're dismissing it as wrong without doing so. It doesn't need to be a scientific test. Just a simple explanation about why it's not worth considering. The explanation is simple but atheists seem to be unable to articulate it and come up some crap about what they think science is.
    3) This is a classic cosmological argument, which was debunked a thousand times.
    Yet any debunking of the debunking is dismissed as irrelevant. An example of the filtering. For example, the infinite regress argument is dismissing the argument that God had to have a creator. Maybe it is turtles all the way down. To me, spontaneous existence and infinite regress both seem equally implausible.
    4) We recently discovered that causality in our universe is much stranger than you may think:
    But that isn't a case of A causing A, or of A without cause.
    permalinkparent
    [–]connedbyreligion 1 point 45 minutes ago
    It's a hypothesis. He believes the hypothesis makes sense. You can't just dismiss it like that.
    Sure you can. A billion hypotheses can be made about anything and can be dismissed instantly, if they are not supported by evidence.
    And nobody is even trying to test it. They're dismissing it as wrong without doing so. It doesn't need to be a scientific test. Just a simple explanation about why it's not worth considering. The explanation is simple but atheists seem to be unable to articulate it and come up some crap about what they think science is.
    It's not our job to disprove their hypothesis. They are making a claim, the burden of proof is on them to test it and prove it.
    I can flood the world of physics with hypothesis tomorrow, but I will not be taken seriously until I present evidence, data, research, repeatability.
    You are actually wrong, many religious hypotheses have been tested, like the efficacy of prayer, and, guess what, prayer doesn't help anything.
    Maybe it is turtles all the way down. To me, spontaneous existence and infinite regress both seem equally implausible.
    Again, you're hypothesizing, and making conclusions about plausibility without ANY data.
    But that isn't a case of A causing A, or of A without cause.
    That was just an example to show that causality is not tree-like, it can actually loop, thus rendering the "primal cause" argument irrelevant.
    Do you realize that vacuum is not actually vacuum, it's bubbling with particles, that come in and out of existence all the time? According to modern physics, things do come from nothing. If you actually want to learn something today, watch this absolutely awesome, funny, physics lecture:

    ReplyDelete
  11. "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss
    permalinkparent
    [–]squigs 1 point 30 minutes ago
    I can flood the world of physics with hypothesis tomorrow, but I will not be taken seriously until I present evidence, data, research, repeatability.
    You just need to present evidence or a reasonable argument. There's no reason to believe there's intelligent life in space but serious scientists are actually trying to answer the question.
    Again, you're hypothesizing, and making conclusions about plausibility without ANY data.
    Either the universe had a creator, or it came into existence without a creator. As far as I can see that has to be true. There's no evidence for either of them. Do you dismiss both? If so, how? If not, why not?
    I don't think it's good science to just look at one hypothesis and consider whether its true. You get much better results if you consider both the hypothesis and its complement and consider which is most likely.
    permalinkparent
    [–]connedbyreligion 1 point 14 minutes ago
    There's no reason to believe there's intelligent life in space but serious scientists are actually trying to answer the question.
    You're confusing "trying to answer" with "looking for evidence". It's not the same thing. Religious people think they have an answer, but it's not supported by evidence.
    Either the universe had a creator, or it came into existence without a creator. As far as I can see that has to be true. There's no evidence for either of them. Do you dismiss both?
    Since we don't know, the answer is - both of them are untested hypotheses. But please, don't make them sound like two sides of the same coin. There are many other hypotheses, like that A) there's no universe, and we live in a simulation, or B) we're just having a dream or C) the universe always existed.
    A creator hypothesis is not even potentially an answer, it only shifts your goal. You will have to answer where god came from. Back to square one.
    The universe coming into existence spontaneously is a pretty good candidate, from physics point of view (watch the lecture I linked to earlier). God - not so much.
    permalinkparent
    [–]ProteanPie 3 points 2 hours ago
    Incredibly flawed. His definition of what an atheist is smacks of someone who was never truly an atheist. Merely an agnostic who fell back into the fold.
    permalink
    [–]Stumbelina[S] 3 points 2 hours ago
    Just by the tone and gross generalization I cannot bring myself to believe that he ever knew what being an atheist is. And his claims here gave me a bit of a headache.
    permalink
    [–]Neuheit 1 point 2 hours ago
    "Big Splat"
    Wut?
    permalink

    ReplyDelete
  12. \\\\\Morality is not a "social norm." Morality is build in us.////

    A huge claim. A really big claim. You are going to have to provide evidence that people know not to steal or hurt others from their genes instead of from their parents and society.

    \\\Scripture states that God wrote laws into us.////

    Really? Scripture is based off God.

    \\\\We know right from wrong because of this natural law that is written in our hearts////

    I understand what you are saying when you mean "written in our hearts" but that really doesnt help because we are actually trying to find out where it is from. Where is this natural law you speak of? Is there a gene for the natural law?


    \\\Morality is indeed universal////

    Among successful societies yes, but there have definitely been major moral differences among civilizations. Especially when it comes to how one is supposed to treat other people.

    \\\ Stealing, killing, abuse are always frowned upon///

    Frowned upon when it comes to your tribe, city-state, empire, whatever. People outside of the social group have been willingly killed, abused, and stole from the beginning. We do it today.

    \\\Slavery was seen as moral because of the understanding that people of other races were inferior, or animals. Nevertheless, the concept rubbed many in the wrong way and now it is a thing of the past.///

    It is not a thing of the past, there is slavery today. Just saying.


    Have you responded to the Euthyphyro problem yet? If God makes morality then it is subjectively based on what he chooses. If he doesnt, then there is a moral code outside of God that makes God unnecessary anyway


    \\\\\Not necessarily. St. Anselm's argument is that if the mind can process the concept of God, then that concept must exist since the mind can only process things that it can be aware of.///

    I am not sure what this even means.

    \\\ Scientists do this all the time. They develop a hypothesis which meets the parameter of experience and they test it to see if it is valid. ////

    Yes, I also have no idea why that matters. Do that with your God hypothesis. More importantly, tell me what parameter of experience the God Hypothesis could not be applied to?

    \\\\Mathematics cannot create itself. It needs a conscious intelligence to formulate mathematical concepts.////

    Math is necessary, its concepts are not "created". Nobody formulates that every even number +1 will equal an odd number.

    \\\\What other possible explanations are there? My question deals with the current knowledge we possess////

    So your God is a God of the gaps. We do not have enough current knowledge, so we are going to say God did it for now.

    \\\ Placebos are not a factor in real miracles. While religious experiences may occur in other faiths, the ones that show to be of supernatural origin are the ones which should be taken into account. So far, the Catholic Church has been the only religion to exhibit this phenomenon. ///

    Miracles amazingly happen when there are no cameras. And they tend to happen more in developing nations. Catholicism is not the only religion to have miracles "of a supernatural origin".


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ////A huge claim. A really big claim. You are going to have to provide evidence that people know not to steal or hurt others from their genes instead of from their parents and society.////


      Well think about it, where did the idea of stealing is bad come from? It predates Judaism and Christianity. Studies show 5-HTTLPR triggers moral responses to particular environments.


      ////Really? Scripture is based off God.///


      The point I was making was that God wrote His moral law in us. Scripture mentions this.


      ///I understand what you are saying when you mean "written in our hearts" but that really doesn't help because we are actually trying to find out where it is from. Where is this natural law you speak of? Is there a gene for the natural law?////



      There is no doubt that genes help regulate moral responses such as the serotonin transporter 5-HTTLPR. The expression "written in our hearts" is just a metaphor meaning that the law is within us. We are born to be moral and act on conscience.



      ////Among successful societies yes, but there have definitely been major moral differences among civilizations. Especially when it comes to how one is supposed to treat other people.///



      Define "successful societies." Every society has morals and laws that are based on the natural law.



      ////Frowned upon when it comes to your tribe, city-state, empire, whatever. People outside of the social group have been willingly killed, abused, and stole from the beginning. We do it today.////


      Having morals or a conscience does not mean that people will always abide by them. The point is that the natural is present in each tribe, city-state's society. Whether or not they adhere to them is another issue.


      ///It is not a thing of the past, there is slavery today. Just saying.Have you responded to the Euthyphyro problem yet? If God makes morality then it is subjectively based on what he chooses. If he doesnt, then there is a moral code outside of God that makes God unnecessary anyway ///


      Slavery exists today, but not in the sense that it did 200 years ago. Human trafficking is still a big problem that must be addressed. However, this is done in the dark and not before open society which frowns upon it. The laws God provides are geared towards His creation and only applicable to it.


      ////I am not sure what this even means.////


      What I mean is that the mind can only work with what it knows. However, who knows the afterlife or what is beyond the physical realm? St. Anselm's argument touches on this.


      ///Yes, I also have no idea why that matters. Do that with your God hypothesis. More importantly, tell me what parameter of experience the God Hypothesis could not be applied to?
      ////


      It matters because this is the way we try to find scientific truth. In regards to parameter, you would have to be more specific.


      ////Math is necessary, its concepts are not "created". Nobody formulates that every even number +1 will equal an odd number.////


      Mathematical concepts are created using whats available to us via the senses. We exist in dimensions, so we can only develop math based on those dimensions.


      ////So your God is a God of the gaps. We do not have enough current knowledge, so we are going to say God did it for now.////

      God of gaps is a fallacy. It deals with a deistic god, not the God. Ultimately, God did create everything. Knowing or not knowing the processes in nature does not affect this.


      ////Miracles amazingly happen when there are no cameras. And they tend to happen more in developing nations. Catholicism is not the only religion to have miracles "of a supernatural origin". ////


      Not true. Many miracles have been captured on tape and have happened every where. Catholicism is the only religion that allows science to test miracles. We are the only ones who have a process of verification.

      Delete
  13. Thank you for your work.. I actually used science to prove God exists. I used a theory, a control and every factor and situation I could possibly come up with. I had to factor out anything that would taint my results. So I used myself as the subject. I cannot make anyone believe. Because I am not the Christ. I can only point. After the experiment I knew there was God. I just didn't know exactly which God was the correct God. It was a dangerous experiment. I provoked God to prove his existence. So much so that death was my only escape. After I died I came to know God personally. The experiment complicated my life and made all judgement against me fall in a grey area. So I was sent back to finish living my life. I even saw the future of my life. Afterwords I actually forgot about God and became spiritually blind. It was because of sin. After a couple horrible relationships I was fed up with problems in my life and decided to be perfect. Then all my memories slowly returned. I realize now that not everyone who says they believe in God is not telling the truth. They don't hear what I am saying. It gets twisted around in their head. It could be church leaders or anyone. Make every attempt to do the right thing. In a way Hell can be on earth also. With an eternity before the time of the world's existence. Only an idiot could say there is no God. Besides that you can take it from me. Everything was created by God. The base line for the foundation for all existence is something I cannot imagine, I have only saw pieces of another world. The resolution of this world is very low fi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science can show God exists. There is no conflict between Faith and Science.

      Delete
  14. Wow, and you call yourself even slightly scientific? Your entire post is focused on demeaning atheism. That is all. You call atheism stupid, and say atheists always do X, and always do Y. Do they? How can you prove that? No, you are not only generalizing; you are making things up.

    “Everything needs a cause.” Does it? God, or any creator, would then also need to require a cause. Then, all you get, is an infinite regress. One can say, “Well, God by his nature does not need a cause,” and I can ask “How do you not know, then, that the universe does not have a cause? With the discovery of dark energy, a cyclic model of the universe is not impossible.”

    It comes to two roads: Is the universe eternal? Or is it temporal, created by an all-powerful, intelligent being. The latter requires the existence of something that is actually all-powerful and massively intelligent— not a minor assumption. The former requires the existence of impersonal, natural laws that have shaped the universe. I, personally, approve of an impersonal force, as it requires much fewest questions. With intelligence, everything most have a reasoning. Why did it -choose- to make the universe as it is? Why did it -choose- to have the speed of light be 299 792 458 m / s? Is it good, bad, or in the middle? Why did it even create the universe, for what use would it have with massive stars, yet alone maggots like us? It’s just all to much. Instead, I can say, “We exist because we have been fortunate, in this universe, to come into existence,” and that is all.

    I do not know why I bother responding to your post in earnest. It was bigoted and hypocritical. What role does such an expression of contempt play in the search of truth? I hope, as a “student of science,” you actually learn manners, let alone actual reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your frustration; however, I used to be one and still have friends who are atheist. I am very much aware of the common trends found in atheist behavior. If you do not notice them, this is because of inhibition. God cannot have a cause because God caused all things to be. Because things are, then they had a beginning. Since a beginning is not eternal, then it also has a beginning. Therefore, since God created all things and all things had a beginning, He is not bound by time and therefore cannot have a beginning or a cause. Dark energy still has a cause.

      Any ideas suggesting an impersonal force still has many questions and contradictions. Any standards found in the universe can be attributed to personal choice. Gates could have designed Windows to operate via voice only instead of with a mouse. Similarly, God can design His creation in any way He wanted. Your suggestion that we exist because we are fortunate implies chance. The math does not support this. You need to look at things carefully and not fall into the filtering that I speak about in this post. This is where your problem lies.

      Delete
  15. I'll just address the picture of the fish in the water bowl. The fish can taste, smell, measure the water and its effects. The fish has empirical evidence for the existence of water. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. None.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is evidence. Your filtering of this evidence does not disqualify its existence.

      Delete
  16. You can enjoy here my adorable little reply. http://thelastatheist.tumblr.com/post/47377316562/one-day-you-will-die-atheism-to-be-blunt-was-a

    ReplyDelete
  17. Man you people are stuipd ! religon is in the definition stupid, to do the same thing over and over again and expect a diffrent result...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Religion is in our genes. Your comment shows your stupidity in regards to genetics.

      Delete
  18. Sacerdotus wrote "Everyone misrepresents history; however, the Catholic Church is very careful with details. This is why we have the SECRET archives which are a treasure of human history."

    Why are these archives 'secret'?

    Why are they not OPEN so that the 'treasure of human history' is shared with all?

    What does the Catholic Church have to hide?

    Just as the Catholic Church once held all it's services in Latin, which made it unintelligible to the masses but kept the clerical elite in power, perhaps this 'history' has more reason to hide this 'treasure' because it will compromise the church.

    Yes, many scientists have been Catholics - but this is more to do with the time and location of their lives. They were scientists IN SPITE of being Catholic.

    One could argue then that Islam must be the true religion too, because many sciences had their origins in Islamic research : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_science_and_engineering_in_the_Islamic_world

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Secret" is just a word that describes how private and secure this collection is. Scholars have access to them and only need to ask to see the archives. I believe a website exists with many of its contents which is viewable to all. Liturgy in the Catholic Church is in Latin because of her Roman patrimony. It has nothing to do with keeping it unintelligible. Science as we know it has its foundation in the Catholic Church. Islam if studied carefully, will prove itself to be a splicing of both Judaism and Catholicism. It cannot be the true religion because of this reason and the fact that a man founded it, not the Messiah which God promised.

      Delete
  19. Could you please explain why you stopped believing in God after you started studying in physics? What information did you find that convinced you about the existence of God? And finally, why are you going to become a preist if you went to college to study physics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you mean why I started believing? Well I spoke about this on my radio show, but to sum it up: the organization of the universe and the fact that we might be a simulation. God calls men to be priests. Why God chose me is a question you have to ask Him. :) There are many priests who have physics degrees. I know one who used to work at NASA.

      Delete
  20. It amuses me when a theist claims to be a former atheist and then goes about treating atheism like a competing belief system. All this article does is highlight your own intellectual laziness and dishonesty. This is nothing more than an attack piece on a concept you don't understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be silly. Sociology classifies atheism as a belief system. Don't put your ignorance on me. It is you who need to study what atheism is and how it relates to society. Instead of relying on definition of atheism given by charlatans on social sites, actually take the time to do research and learn the academic definition which is what counts. Your comment shows that you lack the intellectual confidence to properly define and defend atheism.

      Delete
  21. Great post and terrific rebuttals to the objections.

    Thanks for writing it.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

1st Amendment (1) 99% (1) Abortion (49) Adam And Eve (6) Adam Lee (1) Advent (4) Adventists (2) Africa (2) African Americans (7) Aging (1) agnostic (5) AIDS (7) Air Force (1) Al Smith Dinner (2) Alberto Cutie (3) ALCS (1) Alexander Aan (1) All Saints day (1) All Souls day (1) Allah (1) America (6) Amniocentesis (1) Amputees (1) APA (2) Apostles (4) Archdiocese of New York (2) Art (2) Ascension (1) Ash Wednesday (3) askegg (3) Assumption (1) astronomy (7) Atheism (177) Atheism Atheist (2) Atheism Atheist Catholic (3) Atheism Atheist Catholic God (10) Atheist (110) atheistcrow (1) Atheistrollcall (4) Atheists (89) atlanticcanuck (1) attention (1) Aztecs (1) Babe Ruth (2) Babies (5) baby (1) Baby Jesus (2) Baptism (5) Baptism of the Lord (1) Barack Obama (4) Basics of life (1) Belief (4) Bible (60) Bible Christianity (2) Biology (16) Birth (1) Birth Control (7) Blessed John Paul II (7) Blessed Mother Teresa (4) Blessed Trinity (2) Blessed Virgin Mary (24) Blogs (8) Catholic (183) Catholic Bishops (9) Catholic Church (230) Catholic God (6) Catolico (4) CDC (3) Celibacy (3) CERN (2) Charity (5) Child Abuse (15) Children (17) Christ the King (2) Christian (26) Christianity (41) Christmas (20) Christmas Eve (1) Christopher Hitchens (4) College (2) Communion of Saints (2) Condoms (7) Congress (3) Conservatism (2) Conservative (2) Constitution (5) Contraception (15) Contrarian (1) Conversations (1) Corpus Christi (1) Creation (4) Cristiano (1) Cult (1) Cursillista (1) Cursillo (1) Death (6) December 25 (1) December 8 (2) Defund (1) democrat (7) Dia De Los Reyes Magos (1) Divine Mercy (5) DNA (4) DNC (3) Dogma (2) Earth (1) Easter Sunday (3) Easter Triduum (2) Easter Vigil (3) Eastern Rite (1) Economy (5) Elections (5) Embryo (5) Embryology (5) Empricism (1) Ephebophiles (2) Epiphany (2) Episcopal church (2) Eucharist (3) Evangelicals (2) Evidence (7) Evil (10) Evolution (9) EWTN (7) Existence (2) Facebook (10) Faith (30) Fallacious (1) Family (6) Fasting (2) Father Son Holy Spirit (1) FDA (1) Feast Day. (1) Female (2) Feminist (9) festivus (1) Fetus (6) Finneyites (1) First Amendment (11) Forgiveness (5) Free Speech (5) Freedom of expression (1) Gaffe (2) Gaudete Sunday (1) Gay (50) Gay Activist (5) gay marriage (37) Gay Pride (6) gay rights (24) Gender (2) Genetics (3) God (212) God Particle (3) Godless (1) godlessbiz (2) gods (1) Goldilocks Zone (1) Good Friday (3) Gop (3) Gospel (4) Guns (5) Hallow's Evening (1) Halloween (1) Hallows Eve (1) Hanukkah (3) Haywood (2) Health Care (3) Hemant Mehta (1) Heterosexual (1) HHS (6) Higgs Boson (3) Hip Hop (4) HIV (8) HIV AIDS Safe Sex Condoms (3) HIV AIDS Positive (1) Holy Communion (5) Holy Day of Obligation (1) Holy Eucharist (10) Holy Orders (3) Holy Season (1) Holy Spirit (2) Holy Thursday (4) Holy Trinity (1) Holy Week (7) Homeless (2) homosexual (29) Homosexuality (29) HR-358 (1) Human Life (6) Human Rights (6) Humanist (5) Humility (7) humor (1) Hunger (1) Illegal Immigrants (2) Immaculate Conception (3) Immaculate Heart of Mary (2) immoral (1) In God We Trust (1) Islam (8) Israel (5) jablomih (1) James Holmes (2) Jamie Hubley (1) JasperLafleur (1) Jehovah's Witnesses (3) Jerry Sandusky (5) Jerusalem (2) Jessica Ahlquist (1) JesuCristo (2) Jesus (81) Jesus Christ (100) Jesus Needs To Be Stopped (1) Joe Paterno (3) Justice (3) Kids (6) La Fe (1) Large Hadron Collider (1) Law (16) LBGT (5) LCWR (2) Leah Libresco (3) Left (1) Left Wing (1) Lent (11) Lesbian (8) LGBT (88) Liberalism (5) liberals (6) Life (7) Litany (1) Liturgy (15) Logic (7) Madalyn Murray O'Hair (1) Magi (1) Magisterium (1) Male (4) March For Life (3) Marian (2) Marriage (6) Maundy Thursday (2) Methodists (1) Money (5) Morality (5) Mormons (1) Morning After Pill (1) Mother of God (4) Motherhood (2) Munifecentissimus Deus (1) Murder (2) Music (4) Muslim (2) NASA (6) Nation Catholic Register (1) Nativity (4) No God (2) NOM (2) Norma McCorvey (2) Nuns (6) Nuns on a Bus (1) NY Yankees (3) Obamacare (9) Occupy WallStreet (3) Original Sin (2) Orthodox (1) Our Lady (1) Our Lady of Divine Providence (1) Our Lady of Guadalupe (1) OWS (2) Palm Sunday (3) Papacy (18) Parenthood (1) parents (4) Particles (3) Paschal Triduum (2) Passion (2) Pedophile (5) Pedophiles (5) Pedophilia (8) Penance (3) Penn Jillette (2) Penn State (4) Pentecost (2) Pentecostals (4) Person (4) Personhood (7) Philosophy (21) Physics (18) PIPA (1) Planned Parenthood (3) Politician (2) Politics (17) Pope (16) Pope Benedict XVI (62) Pope John Paul II (15) Pope Pius XII (4) Population Control (2) POTUS (2) Prayer (44) pregnancy (4) Prejudice (2) President (7) President Bush (4) President Obama (41) Pride (8) Priest (10) Priesthood (9) priests (16) Pro Abortion (13) Pro Choice (11) ProAbortion (5) Prochoice (39) Professors (2) progressives (1) Progressivism (2) Prolife (44) Protestant (14) Psychology (15) Public Schools (6) Purgatory (1) Purpose (1) Racism (5) Rap (2) rape (3) Rationalism (3) reason (10) Reason Rally (2) Religion (49) Religious Freedom (14) Religious Life (2) Religious Sisters (6) Republican (7) Republican Party (5) Respect (1) Rest in Peace (7) Resurrection (5) rev_xavier (1) Revenge (1) Rhetoric (1) Richard Dawkins (6) Right Wing (1) Roman Missal (1) Rosa Mystica (1) Rosa Rubicondior (63) Rosary (6) Sacrament (1) Sacramentary (1) Sacred Deposit (1) Sacred Heart (1) Sacred Heart of Jesus (1) safe sex (4) Saints (6) Sandra Fluke (3) Santa Claus (2) Satan (7) Scandals (3) Schools (3) Science (42) Science literacy (1) Scripture (5) Season (1) Sect (2) Secularism (7) Secularist (2) September 11 (6) Sex (7) Sex ed (5) Sexual Harassment (1) SinterKlaas (1) Slavery (2) Social Engineering (3) Social Issues (1) Social Justice (1) Son of God (1) SOPA (1) Souls (2) Space (8) Spiritual Life (4) SSPX (1) St. Francis of Assisi (7) St. Joseph (3) St. Juan Diego (1) St. Nicholas of Myra (1) St. Patrick (1) St. Thomas Aquinas (2) Stations of the Cross (2) STD (3) Stem Cells (1) Students (1) Suicide (2) Sunday (1) Supreme Court (9) Teens (5) Thanksgiving (2) Theotokos (1) Three Kings (2) Three Kings Day (2) Traditionalists (1) Transfiguration (1) Transsexual (3) Tridentine (1) Trinity Sunday (1) Twitter (71) Ultrasound (2) Ultreya (1) Unborn (5) United States of America (44) Unity (1) Universe (10) Universities (1) University (1) Urbi et Orbi (3) USA (4) USSCB (2) Vatican (28) Vatican II (7) Via Crucis (2) Voting (4) War (4) Washing of Feet (3) Watchtower (1) White House (5) Wise Men (3) Woman's rights (2) Women (20) Women's Health (4) Word of God (5) youth (10)