Question for the Atheist

[_JAK]

Post Reference PART D

Hoops, Hi,

Hoops wrote: Kidding aside, your tossing out facts not in evidence. I can say the same. You assume there is no God, and yet, you recognize the characteristics in yourself and can not answer where they came from.

JAK: In virtually every case, my response has been DIRECTLY to your words. I quote you VERBATIM and respond to what you have stated.

JAK previously: You ASSUME an entity God. You further assume the characteristics and the behavior and conduct and wishes of that God. Those assumptions which you make or any other believer with quite different beliefs than yours makes are irrelevant. God assumptions are without merit.

Hoops responded: Shoot! My earnest prayer is that He is nothing like me!!

JAK: Your statement is entirely UNRESPONSIVE to what I stated just before that response. You address nothing. Please reread what you quoted me as saying. You are providing evidence that you neither understand (perhaps never read) nor can you respond to the words before you.

Proceeding in response to this post PART D:

Hoops wrote: Kidding aside, your tossing out facts not in evidence. I can say the same. You assume there is no God, and yet, you recognize the characteristics in yourself and can not answer where they came from.

JAK: Let’s clarify – please read – The burden of proof for a claim lies with YOU in this case to establish your claim. The EVIDENCE is that YOU cannot establish a God. If we do not know the answer to a question, we look for information. That is, we don’t just make it up or rely on some scripts THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD for an answer.

The ancients knew nothing about the computers by which we communicate. Had they see them in action and nothing else, they might have called them a miracle. We don’t regard computers as a miracle. Even if we are merely users of computers, we KNOW that they work. We rely on the expertise of those who applied science which is reliable. (Of course I recognize computers fail sometimes. Cars fail sometimes. But reliability is demonstrable and verified and observed by millions who regard applied science highly.)

You have never responded to the fact that different religions make very different claims. Such is not the case with agnostics/atheists or scientists. Rather, science relies on that which can be verified, tested, and reviewed WITH SKEPTICISM. Many viewed the first airplane as crazy and with skepticism. The Wright Brothers accepted the challenges for the burden of proof for their invention.

Religious fantasy attempts to succeed with Truth by assertion. That FAILS, Hoops.
Truth by assertion was never successful. Religious dogmas are ultimately required to SUBMIT to EVIDENCE which can be tested, skeptically reviewed, and replicated.

That’s an inherent distinction between religious dogma and the scientific method. I shall be truthful with you to say that I don’t think you have a clue about what I have said or about this statement.

I restate: That’s an inherent distinction between religious dogma and the scientific method.

JAK previously: JAK: The question is for “atheists” in this topic originated by Ceeboo. The evolution of religion was from many gods to few gods to one God. Any religion which claims one God claims that for which there is no established evidence. To illustrate, you live in a time, this time, when the notion of multiple gods is not accepted by many if any (certainly in the Western World). The invention, INVENTION, of one God occurred in human evolution thousands of years ago. It is religious dogma which perpetuates this invention to the present.

Hoops stated: AGain, you're asserting things not yet proved. Essentially, you're asserting that since religion has evolved then the conclusions it draws can not be true. I dispute that. It could just as easily be asserted that religion evolved to monotheism because monotheism is true.

JAK: Your paraphrase distorts what I stated and is inaccurate. There is ample evidence that “religion has evolved.” There is also ample evidence that religious dogma is unreliable. That’s what I stated. You are offering “dispute” to something I did not say.

The direction of evolution regarding mythology is from many gods to few gods to one God to no god. The inherent problem even in monotheism is that there are multiple religions which claim one God They are different and therefore they are UNRELIABLE, Hoops.

You have it only partly correct. But keep in mind that an ounce of sewage in a gallon of good milk makes it ALL sewage.

If one were to argue that “monotheism” is correct, it begs the question: WHICH MONOTHEISM? Christianity is but one of several monotheistic religions. And, as you have not refuted, Christianity is a fractured religion. Look up this link again. (If you don’t have a pop-up blocker, click to close the pop-up.)

Now of all these Christian groups, to argue that one and only one is the correct one is to take on an impossible the burden of proof.

Anyone who attempts it must deal with Biblical Contradictions.

Those contradictions alone make any version of Christianity UNRELIABLE, Hoops. I’m not making assertions absent evidence. I’m presenting the evidence in the links I give to you. Read the Biblical Contradictions.

Those contradictions are EVIDENCE for what I stated regarding Christianity. To your assertions, there is no evidence for “God” or for “soul.” Such conjectures arise from ancient mythology and are generally discredited by honest intellectual pursuit.

Science certainly does not rely on them. Your computer works because of applied science. God claims to the contrary are irrelevant.

Let’s look at another example of clearly identified biblical contradictions. This one offers the reader (YOU) book, chapter, and verse for the contradiction displayed in the Bible.

Freedom From Religion is a website which further illustrates the lack of reliability for the Bible. It also offers you book, chapter, and verse for the conflicting claims.

Hoops wrote: I will grant you that we are left with our own experiences by which we interpret the next experience. I'm not sure how that disproves God or prayer.

JAK: Not at all. We have the experience of all those who have made possible the things we can take for granted. That is, even someone who has never flown on an airplane can have some understanding of what that might be like. We have MORE than “our own experiences” if, IF we consider that we have access to the knowledge and expertise of others who have exhibited honest, intellectual curiosity. Their experiences can be absorbed by us.

I do not here refer to unreliable religious myths which are in disagreement. Instead, I refer to that which is established by TESTING, SKEPTICAL REVIEW, REVISION, and even an updating that renders a previous conclusion flawed. We have ALL of that. We can make it OUR experience vicariously.

In this, of course we cannot escape what “our own experiences” have been. At the same time, we can recognize that such “experiences” may not have given us the best, most reliable INFORMATION.

I really must stop here, Hoops.

I apologize if I seemed a bit testy in some of this. In addition, we are leaving for the weekend and I’m not going to be able to complete my response to your post.

I’m stopping at the point where--

I stated previously:
I am not “stipulating the existence” of any god, Christian, Muslim, or other. On the contrary, absent credible evidence for a God, such a notion should be rejected.

I know there is more, but, I have no more time to continue presently.

JAK

[_Some Schmo]

How on earth could anyone possibly win an argument against this mak kid? It's impossible to withstand his barrage of baseless assertions, cognitive errors and nonsensical ramblings.

Well done. I stand in awe of the fantastic power you imagine you have.

[_Quasimodo]

How on earth could anyone possibly win an argument against this mak kid? It's impossible to withstand his barrage of baseless assertions, cognitive errors and nonsensical ramblings.

Well done. I stand in awe of the fantastic power you imagine you have.

I don't know if you have noticed or not, Schmo, but no one ever really wins an argument here. Your arguments are very good, but they will never be agreed to by those you are arguing with.

I have never seen anyone here say "My God, you are right. I've been wrong all these years and have just now realized it" (except maybe Zeezrom).

The best you can do is play to the audience.

[_JAK]

Post Reference PART E

Hi Hoops,

JAK previously:
Then why would people pray to a God if not “to manipulate that God to intervene”? Your statement is an assumption with no evidential support as you stated:
Hoops: “The implied assumption is that God works in the affairs of men as we work in the affairs of God. That's a relationship, not quid pro quo.”

Hoops wrote:
We believe it is spiritually healthy to explore, or become a part of, our existence beyond naturalism. That's what prayer is. It's communication of our soul with the author or creator of that soul.

JAK: I thought I answered this previously. It may be a repetition. There is no more evidence for “soul” than there is for God. It’s a product or religious myth.

Now you say “WE” are “Christians.” But, as my details and links have demonstrated, Christians are widely fractured in what they believe even though the claim the religion.

If there is NO DIFFERENCE between denominations, why are their DIFFERENT DEMOMINATIONS?

It is absurd to argue as if they are all equal or that Methodists are no different than Roman Catholics or Mormons. They ARE different. Different denominations appear at times which can generally be dated. They may all refer to God, but they don’t all mean the same thing by the term nor do they all perceive God to act in the same way.

To illustrate: The God people who are CREATIONISTS, DENY EVOLUTION. The God people who accept evolution and wiggle around to say that this is how God worked HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT VIEW of God. Those who believe that a woman should have reproductive choice and also claim a God have a very different view than those who oppose all choice for women and reproduction including the prohibition of artificial birth control to limit size of family.

It’s certainly correct that these different views held by Christians are held by people who claim by assertion a God. They do NOT have agreement or consensus regarding the mandates of God.

It is naïve to consider that all these hundreds and hundreds of Christian denominations believe the same thing. Occasionally, two separate groups decide to go together. Generally they change their name slightly or in a way to accommodate both.

Historically, the Protestant Reformation led to the fractured religion we see today in Christianity.

Now Hoops, calling documentable information “Total bull” is no refutation of information.

I have previously recognized that those raised from cradle up TEND to be what they were raised religiously. People TEND to be comfortable with childhood if not childish notions of myths.

The Roman Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world by the numbers) insist that their doctrines are the correct doctrines. Recently, I attended a wedding between a Presbyterian and a Roman Catholic. The Catholic (and the Roman Catholic Church) do not regard such a marriage as blessed by God unless, UNLESS a Roman Catholic Priest was present and participated in the wedding ceremony. So, that’s how they did it. The wedding was in a Presbyterian church AND there was a priest present to speak in the ceremony.

It is absurd to argue (if you do) that all Christians are the same or believe the same things. They do not. Their ceremonies are different. Their doctrines are different. Their requirements of members in good standing are different.

In fact in this particular wedding it took a liberal priest to participate. A different priest who was contacted REFUSED to participate in a wedding UNLESS the girl (the Presbyterian) agreed to attend Roman Catholic membership classes.

The girl (a 1st cousin once removed to me) is a doctor (age 31) with her degree in OBGYN. This is her first marriage to a man (the Roman Catholic) who is a banker. This is his first marriage.

The conservative Roman Catholic priest had unkind words with and for the liberal Roman Catholic priest who participated in the wedding in St. Louis, MO.

While this is a personal anecdotal story, I know the details well and the people involved. So not even Roman Catholics AGREE. The side joke here is that the doctor (OBGYN) has no intention of following Roman Catholic doctrine of NO BIRTH CONTROL, NO FAMILY PLANNING.

While this was clearly a Christian wedding both the bride and groom are really agnostic/atheists. But, family cohesion was more important to them in the wedding than asserting their genuine positions or feelings.

You (a God believer) might call this dishonest. They called it good public relations. It was a grand wedding with a reception in the Ritz Carlton in St. Louis with open bar and sit-down served dinner. Everyone had a great time. Parents were happy. The Presbyterian minister was happy, and the Roman Catholic priest was happy.

These people agree on very little regarding religion or the requirements thereof.

Since I had a few extra minutes I decided to advance in the analysis of your post. This last part is really off topic. But it’s relevant to your apparent claim that Christians are alike. They are not alike. The links I gave you demonstrate that most conclusively and with documentation.

JAK

[_Some Schmo]

I don't know if you have noticed or not, Schmo, but no one ever really wins an argument here. Your arguments are very good, but they will never be agreed to by those you are arguing with.

I have never seen anyone here say "My God, you are right. I've been wrong all these years and have just now realized it" (except maybe Zeezrom).

The best you can do is play to the audience.

You're right, of course.

I suppose this is just an expression of the general awe and wonder I feel when confronted with belligerent, petulant theists who come off thinking they're brilliant and full of crap at the same time. DCP is like this too. One can only handle so many nonsensical declarations of victory by individuals willfully ignoring what should be obvious to even a child with a 5th grade reading level.

Oh well. It's over now.

The funny thing is that I had resolved ages ago never to talk to this blowhard again when his whining and childish tyranny became impossible to bear the first time. Not sure why I got involved today. I suppose his blatant display of hypocrisy was too much to resist. I'll do my best not to make that mistake again.

[_JAK]

Post Reference PART F

Hi Hoops,

With a bit of time, I decided to finish with this post referenced above.

Hoops wrote:
what are you proposing this supports?

JAK: You’ll need to go back to my original post with the links for you in the quote just above this statement of yours. It began with “Please look at that lengthy list.”

In brief, the links to my original post demonstrate and document that there are many Protestant denominations which do not share the same perception of a God. While they use that term, they do not agree on the characteristics of the named entity. They don’t agree on doctrine. Please reread the original post on which I provided (with some effort) the links for you to read.

Consider a present politician who wants to be President of the US. Mitt Romney, the 70th governor of MA, said he fully supported a woman’s right to choose regarding women’s reproductive rights. He said that when he ran for governor. He is a Mormon. He says he believes in God. From 2003 to 2007 when he was governor, he used God even in his support of women’s rights and upheld the Supreme Court’s decision of 1973.

NOW in 2011, the same Mitt Romney, believes in right to life to the extent that he now opposes a woman’s right to choose. And, he uses God to please right wing evangelical Christians (or is trying to).

So, I’ll add to my previous comments that people, men, politicians, USE GOD to curry the favor of the voters. God as manipulated by people seems a convenient vote-getter.

Lest you think I pick on Romney, virtually all politicians use God as a tool for ELECTION to public office.

Hoops wrote:
I'll grant you that some use prayer as a transaction with God. But you will have to, in turn, agree that we are counciled against this. I can only defend what prayer should be, what we wish it to be, what it often is. Not what it sometimes is.

JAK: Just how are YOU privy to “what prayer should be”? How are you an authority on what prayer “should be”? This is typical of the dogmatic Christian. Each KNOWS as in Truth by Assertion.

You have yet to make any attempt to establish that prayer has any relevance to anything. Only by ASSERTION do you have declarations on prayer.

Hoops wrote:
I'll grant you that some use prayer as a transaction with God.

JAK: Yet you won’t construct a prayer for analysis. And you claim agnostic/atheists are fearful. You demonstrate FEAR in your refusal. Then you pontificate about “what prayer should be.”

If you KNOW “what prayer should be,” it’s reasonable that you could construct a prayer YOURSELF as you PERCEIVE it should be constructed.

Hoops, I think you are hiding. You have a whole series of irrational beliefs, and you are fearful of putting them out for honest analysis. Look at your words and positions. You strut total confidence here. But you’re hiding.

Hoops wrote:
I can only defend what prayer should be, what we wish it to be, what it often is. Not what it sometimes is.

JAK: Is there supposed to be a difference in the options in sentence one here? If you believe your above full quote, you should have NO hesitancy in putting forward a prayer that meets with your criteria. You’re giving prayer an even worse reputation.

JAK previously:
For some, prayer and their conduct is indeed a “quid pro quo.” They BELIEVE that if they act in certain ways, give unquestioning deference to their notion of God’s wishes or commands, that they will be benefited – if not in this life, in another life. None of this has CREDIBILITY in fact. People can believe contrary to fact and do.

Hoops wrote:
And this is unchristian.

JAK: Really? Which brand of Christian do you reference in this absolute position? You clarify NOTHING. How is it “unchristian”? Why is it “unchristian”?

You are most fond of Truth by Assertion.

You’re not engaged here with anything by way of defense of your position. You are supporting my analysis regarding religious myths.

Just HOW do you know what is “unchristian”? And, you are hiding. Since you know what is and what is not Christian and since you know what is and is not “what prayer should be,” why hide from engagement?

You’re giving Christianity a bad image here, Hoops. If one were not agnostic before listening to you, he/she would be moved in that direction by your evasive responses.

I think this is about the end of this discussion. You’re hiding. You don’t intend to be open, honest, and intellectually truthful here. You prefer to hide in religious myth and FEAR exposure.

Fortunately for you, all the sciences reject your approach. They remain OPEN to new information, to new evidence, and open to revise a conclusion for which countervailing evidence is established.

That’s the case in medical science, applied science which provides your house with electricity, appliances, computers, etc. When a prevention was found for polio, a vaccination was made universally available in the Western World. That is medical science.

God notions and correct prayer notions are irrelevant.

JAK

[_EAllusion]

I'm with Mak on this one. Atheism is best thought of as a rejection of belief in deites. To be an atheist, two basic conditions must be met. You must be aware of the concept of gods and you must reject belief in them. This precludes babies and dogs from being atheists.

I'm not a fan of relying solely on etymological arguments where the term atheism is concerned, as its common meaning has been shaped by misinformed, biased, and frankly at times bigoted believers. It wasn't that long ago that "wicked" was a valid meaning of "atheist." Why might that be? "Belief that there is no god" is a commonly used definition of atheism with a historical pedigree that should be rejected.

But atheism as disbelief in gods has the benefit of fitting the word origin, fitting in with history of its use, and is a philosophically useful distinction. It is generally what atheist philosophers use to describe themselves. I understand the simplicity of defining it in terms of being without belief in God, but I think this fundamentally misunderstands that atheism as a label carries with it an association of an attitude towards the question of gods. Trees aren't atheists because trees don't have attitudes. It should seem weird to you to describe inanimate objects as atheists because you intuitively know that it is a mental attitude rather than a default state.

[Guest]

I don't know if you have noticed or not, Schmo, but no one ever really wins an argument here. Your arguments are very good, but they will never be agreed to by those you are arguing with.

I have never seen anyone here say "My God, you are right. I've been wrong all these years and have just now realized it" (except maybe Zeezrom).

The best you can do is play to the audience.

I do see people here change, Quasi, but it's incremental. Even dramatic, sustained change is going to be at the rate of a half a teaspoon month.

Take care, my friend.


edit to add: I do also see some people conceding points all the time. That said, I think you're mostly correct.

[_Buffalo]

You don't seem to be picking up that I've shown several times over that it's not a legitimate definition of the word, or that you actually have to support that assertion if you wish to make it. That means you have to engage the argument I made against it. Just barking "Yu-huh!" doesn't get the job done.

You've yet to show me that it is in usage at all outside of the expressed argument regarding whether or not everyone is born an atheist, and that argument is a discussion about the meaning of the word itself. Basically, people who want to make the argument are insisting that the word means X, and if asked to point to that usage of the word anywhere they can only point to the argument that insists the word means X. That's a circular argument:

You cannot find your definition of this word outside of a fallacy. That quite simply means it's not legitimate.

You've still not shown me where "theism" relates to the meaning you gave me.

You objected to my definition based on the fact that I sourced it from Wiki. That, however, would also invalidate your definition, since it's contained there too. But even within your definition, I've already demonstrated that "disbelieve" is a word that also includes infants, according to some of the accepted definitions of "disbelieve." I understand that you're unwilling to accept any alternative definition that doesn't support your argument, but that doesn't magically puff them away.

As a theist, you're not entitled to tell me what theist means.

[_EAllusion]

I guess I'm not entirely on-board with Mak. You can find plenty of examples of people using the term atheism just to mean non-belief in gods. I think this is a mistaken oversimplification that is unhelpful and contradictory to what should be an intuitive use of the word, but the usage exists. Anthony Flew's The Presumption of Atheism is a famous case. I agree with the presumption of atheism in that you should reject belief in anything unless there is some sound affirmative case for it, but I think "rejection" (i.e. disbelief) is key to making good sense of the word.

The tautological argument Mak uses is off. Pointing out people arguing atheism should be defined a certain way is absolutely a legitimate example of atheism being used that way. It is Mak who is being circular by demanding examples, but dismissing examples where people are using the term in that manner by arguing for that use. If you can point to a whole group of people doing that, then it obviously isn't some idiosyncratic definition of Buffalo's.

Finally, non-theist isn't simply a way of distinguishing between atheists and simply those without belief. I'm not sure it makes sense to call babies non-theists either. Often it's just a euphemistic way of saying atheist because that term has such an intense negative connotation due to believer's beliefs about atheists. It does allow more room to include sheer apathy towards the idea of gods and sometimes includes non-theistic forms of god-belief into the fold, but extending that to newborns is still pushing it.