My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Andara Bledin]

Because it's wrong. Most supernatural claims have no effect on the real world. And those that are claimed to have an effect on the real world have, time and time again, been shown to be false.

You don't know this. You believe this to be true based on what evidence you have, but there isn't enough evidence available to make this decision.

Belief in an afterlife prevents people from enjoying the life that they have.

Citation required.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

All you have to say is, "it's God's will" and suddenly abuse, torture, genocide, and a whole host of other evils can be rationalized.

Well, that depends on whether your audience, at heart, *wants* those things anyway. If, tomorrow night at the Christmas Eve service, the rector were to tell us that it's God's will that (insert horror here) the response would be "WHAT!? No, that's awful, God would never want that," an assumption that she'd flipped her lid, calls to the police, etc.

[Duelist925]

Because it's wrong. Most supernatural claims have no effect on the real world. And those that are claimed to have an effect on the real world have, time and time again, been shown to be false.

Faith healing, for example, has no verifiable source, but its results have been shown to be false. Prayer has been shown to have no positive effect (and in some cases a negative effect, probably due to performance anxiety) on healing after surgeries. No verifiable evidence has been found for an afterlife, and insufficient evidence to support reincarnation. Same for ghosts, demons, and angels.

Which is why anyone with two braincells doesn't trust faithhealing, or just prayer. People who do are either idiots, blinded by charismatic liars, or are lieing themselves to bilk people out of money. Afterlife, angels, demons, etc, etc, etc, I wont say yey or ney to, as all have much the same issues of proving as god--if something with that kind of power exists, how can it be definitively proved or disproved without it's consent? The afterlife present similar problems.

Belief in an afterlife prevents people from enjoying the life that they have. Belief in some supernatural agent of justice prevents people from seeking to improve their own situations in life. Belief in possession prevents diagnosis of real, treatable mental illnesses.

These are all harms that stem directly from a belief in the supernatural, which is the cornerstone of religion.

Citation please? I'd very much like some. I'd love to read studies saying such. Or were you simply making generalized "some people feel this way" arguments?

If so, I can do so as well.

Not to mention, there are positive sides to each of those. Belief in an afterlife can give people help with grief over losing a loved one, or help them strive to make sure they wind up in the "right" afterlife, by being a better person. (or, I'll grant, being a fuckhead.)

Belief in supernatural justice can help people move on from personal traumas, and prevent the escalation of revenge spirals.

Belief in possession...dude seriously? See my comment on faith healing. No one with half an ounce of sense will attribute to the supernatural what can be more easily explained (and medicated) by medical and psychological science. Anyone who does is an idiot, regardless of religious affiliation.

[Gravekeeper]

Many of the things I listed apply to other religions, as well. Christianity is not the only religion with pedophile priests - even Buddhists have them. Almost every religion has "holy men" who are given respect they haven't earned. Faith healers are found in almost every religion (and outside of religion, too).

I fail to see how you can argue from the standpoint of science and reason when you repeatedly fail to apply either even to your own opinions. Opting instead for massive sweeping generalizations based on sensationalism.

I mean step back and look at yourself. You're literally blaming pedophilia on religion. What the fuck? You're even dragging Buddhism into it, despite the fact such a thing is so insanely against even the most basic Buddhist teachings its not even funny. How do you reconcile that? How do you sit there and literally go "Well these people are doing things so incredibly against the religion they claim to be a part of, IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF RELIGION"?

That's completely irrational.

The reason these things persist in religion, when they could be eradicated from a non-religious situation, is the belief in the supernatural.

Bullshit. They persist because its a large organization trying to save face and avoid bad press. Just like every organization in existence and certainly not the most prolific one at this particular trick. That would be politics and political groups. Who will sweep anything and everything under the rug.

ANYTHING can be justified by supernatural beliefs. All you have to say is, "it's God's will" and suddenly abuse, torture, genocide, and a whole host of other evils can be rationalized.

ANYTHING can be inserted into the exact same sentence. You are not presenting a single reason or scenario that is exclusive to religion and in fact are presenting scenarios where religion has been one of the weakest offenders.

You have no case here. Your reasoning is terrible. Your examples prove nothing as you ignore the context and statistical impact on the world. You ignore every counterpoint to your arguments. You're just railing over and over while basking yourself in confirmation bias and spewing broad generalizations on religion and religious people. Based on your own opinion of them instead of actual facts.

I mean seriously, faith healing? That's your benchmark? You think faith healing has anything to do with religion? Faith healing is about money. It doesn't require religion at all. In fact, these days, most faith healing has nothing to do with religion at all. Snake oil doesn't need religion, just an excuse enough people will buy into.

As for praying for the sick, what harm does that do? If anything, if the person being prayed for is aware of it, it can be therapeutic and there is a link between a positive mind and body. Its only dangerous if you have some fuck wit forgoing medical assistance in favour of prayer. But this happens with and without religion seeing as people do the same thing with various other bullshit "alternative medicines". In fact its much more common for someone to look into alternative medicine then it is for them to rely on prayer.

Belief in an afterlife prevents people from enjoying the life that they have. Belief in some supernatural agent of justice prevents people from seeking to improve their own situations in life. Belief in possession prevents diagnosis of real, treatable mental illnesses.

Bullshit. Bullshit and seriously? Possession? Yeah because that's a huge problem lately. Also, belief in possession ( and visions and everything else ) made perfect sense in the times before we knew anything about the brain or that mental illness was even possible. But now that we do, its not like there's a massive hold out of people insisting there's no such thing as depression, its just evil spirits.

You're still missing the broader point here: Absolutely nothing you've said is religion specific. Idiots and assholes will do all of this regardless of whether or not religion is present. Yet again, the point you keep missing is that religion is an excuse, not a cause. That's why you can replace religion with practically anything and get the same results: Nationality, ideology, race, gender, sexuality, political party, sports team, etc.

[Hyena Dandy]

The reason these things persist in religion, when they could be eradicated from a non-religious situation, is the belief in the supernatural.

So, is Penn State a religion?

[Rapscallion]

You don't know this. You believe this to be true based on what evidence you have, but there isn't enough evidence available to make this decision.

I don't take the same tack as Ghel, but from an atheist standpoint we're not the ones making claims about the supernatural. The burden of proof is not on us.

If you say the supernatural as far as we know the concept exists, it's not on us to disprove it - it's up to you to prove it.

That's what scientists do - think about the world, try to come up with explanations, and then test the shit out of them. That's what's happening at CERN for the Higgs-boson.

What happens with many claims of the supernatural seems to be along the lines of:

"Fairies exist at the bottom of the garden."

"Prove it?"

"Can't be proven because they keep hiding, but they're there."

A simplification, sure, but that's how it is perceived. Please back your claims up. If it's not your claim and you want to defend it, please back their claims up.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

I don't take the same tack as Ghel, but from an atheist standpoint we're not the ones making claims about the supernatural. The burden of proof is not on us.

The big issue I'm having here is the burden of proof Ghel is creating for herself with her own claims about what religion is up too. -.-

If you say the supernatural as far as we know the concept exists, it's not on us to disprove it - it's up to you to prove it.

This is the crossroads and the biggest problem at the heart of this. But the problem is science cannot definitively disprove it either. So we sit at an impasse. Personally, I believe science has ruled out the Christian God as he is originally understood: An all powerful omni-potent creator that yells at us a lot in Hebrew. But science has not ruled out "supernatural" layers to our universe nor anything that might exist within them. If anything, science has been proving it in recent years as we delve deeper into the actual fabric of reality. Which, thus far, has been utterly fucking weird and if you had never heard of it before would sound supernatural because logic takes a back seat at the quantum level. >.>

For my own beliefs, I keep them within the confines of scientific possibility. I view any "supernatural" existence beyond this as merely another dimensional layer to our universe and believe it will be a natural extension and evolution of our own with its own scientific principles and laws.

[Andara Bledin]

If you say the supernatural as far as we know the concept exists, it's not on us to disprove it - it's up to you to prove it.

She's claiming that those of us who believe in God are absolutely "wrong." She's the one making the claims, so the burden of proof is on her.

Especially since she is the one that wants to change other people's minds on the matter. I really don't care if anyone believes in God or not as long as they, personally, are happy with their choice, and they don't try to shove that choice down my throat by, say, trying to claim that science has proven that God doesn't exist when it hasn't done any such thing.

My only claim is that I believe God exists. This is a statement of fact. I don't and have never made any claim that there has been any proof of any supreme being, which is a large part of why I don't try to convert people to my own beliefs. They're mine and they work for me. Since none of you are me, you're free to find what works for you.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

For my own beliefs, I keep them within the confines of scientific possibility. I view any "supernatural" existence beyond this as merely another dimensional layer to our universe and believe it will be a natural extension and evolution of our own with its own scientific principles and laws.

I get the feeling this is like the joke/viewpoint on alternative medicine.

Q: What do you call alternative medicine that has been proved to work?
A: Medicine.

If the supernatural can be proved to be real and exist, then it's natural. I don't think it unreasonable to ask for claims of such to be backed up or sufficiently tested.

She's claiming that those of us who believe in God are absolutely "wrong." She's the one making the claims, so the burden of proof is on her.

My approach on this is to ask those claiming that there's a divinity to prove it. If they're unable or unwilling, then it falls in the purview of Dawkins - that which can be claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

If the supernatural can be proved to be real and exist, then it's natural. I don't think it unreasonable to ask for claims of such to be backed up or sufficiently tested.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indisguishable from magic"?

The natural world is crazy ass. I mean we have evidence that the universe itself would kick us in the balls if we attempted time travel. It literally would avoid the creation of paradox making it impossible to alter the timeline. If you went back in time to shoot your own grandfather, the gun would misfire.

Hell our current working theory of reality is that it's flat and the universe is being projected into 3D like a movie on a screen. It's a theory we can't disprove because we don't have the technology yet and likely never will ( We need to do crazy shit like peer into black holes to figure this one out ).

Then you have crazy quantum shit like entanglement which may suggest that distance itself is an illusion of perception. Or the double slit experiment, which is complete wtf and may indicate other dimensions.

Fact of the matter is science is suggesting possibilities far in excess of what Ghel tends to argue here. Other dimensions, other universes, underlying rules that maintain the very fabric of reality, the entirety of physical reality being a complex illusion of perception, natural laws which can and will create life repeatedly simply because they exist, particles that can and are created from absolutely nothing for no reason and likewise vanish from existence for absolutely no reason, it goes on and on.

In all of this lunancy, you can't tell me there's no room for something like a state of afterlife or a mechanism like reincarnation or an intelligence that exists on a plane different from our own where the laws of time and space are hilariously different and matter itself is no obstacle. We could all be a quantum simulation running on a computer far beyond our comprehension that was created by a civilization that's trapped at the omega point of the collapse of the last universe.

Its completely possible with our current understanding of science and no less fanciful.

[siead_lietrathua]

"We could all be a quantum simulation running on a computer far beyond our comprehension that was created by a civilization that's trapped at the omega point of the collapse of the last universe.

holy hell we're the SIMS!!

(couldnt resist)

[Gravekeeper]

holy hell we're the SIMS!!

(couldnt resist)

It would explain the totally random impulse I had to clean the toilet when I got home this morning.

[Rapscallion]

Its completely possible with our current understanding of science and no less fanciful.

Reply eaten twice now... Once my own fault.

The science that gives a chance to try and slide supernatural reasoning into newfound gaps requires proof of claim, or a solid hypothetical basis to be able to investigate those claims.

The abrahamic religions, for example, have old tribal histories and generations of verbal history. That's not enough - nowhere near it. There's been enough admission by theists in this thread that parts of it are to be ignored or are corrupt.

To base an investigation as to the existence of what are currently believed to be supernatural beings - or phenomena - on that is not reasonable. It could be the truth, but I don't see enough of a logical basis to assume there is any real potential there.

[Gravekeeper]

The science that gives a chance to try and slide supernatural reasoning into newfound gaps requires proof of claim, or a solid hypothetical basis to be able to investigate those claims.

My point was simply that science has not ruled out all of what we might currently consider supernatural and in fact in some cases the things science is discovering may in fact cover what we would have previously considered supernatural.

The abrahamic religions, for example, have old tribal histories and generations of verbal history. That's not enough - nowhere near it. There's been enough admission by theists in this thread that parts of it are to be ignored or are corrupt.

I'm not trying to level that as proof though, in fact just stated the Christian God as he was originally understood and concieved is scientifically impossible. Unless he is using his power to hide completely just to fark with us. But that's quite unlikely seeing as he use to yell at us all the time. >.>

To base an investigation as to the existence of what are currently believed to be supernatural beings - or phenomena - on that is not reasonable. It could be the truth, but I don't see enough of a logical basis to assume there is any real potential there.

These discoveries are not being made based on trying to investigate the supernatural though. We are trying to unravel the very nature of reality itself, and in doing so are discoverying both amazing and terrifying things. Things that do not conform to any sort of traditional logic and in some cases may as well be straight up magic for all we can see so far.

We are, right now, witnessing things that are as far as our current unstanding, straight up voodoo. We are at the point our ancestors were. We have hit things we do not understand and quite literally appear to be supernatural as we have no explaination whatsoever.

Quantum particles can pop into existence. Period. They can also dissappear from exsistence. Period. There is no explaination, no warning, no signal, no mechnisms at all whatsoever for it and we don't understand it at all. Its pretty much voodoo at this point. This is the crux of why Hawkin ruled out God. Because as we understand it, quantum particles can simply appear out of nothing for no reason with no explaination and no mechanism whatsoever and all of the matter in the entire universe was at the very beginning concentrated into a single point the size of a quantum particle. Thus, as we understand it, the universe could literally appear just like that for no reason at all. It could do it in your backyard tomorrow too for all we know. Because it could appear from nothingness, there was nothing before it either, and thus no room for a creator deity because there is nothing before the universe began. Not even time. This is Hawkin's basis for ruling out God.

But despite ruling out a creator type God, it relies on mechanisms that are, to our current understanding, basically magic.

[SkullKing]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indisguishable from magic"?

It literally would avoid the creation of paradox making it impossible to alter the timeline. If you went back in time to shoot your own grandfather, the gun would misfire.

Can you quote this?

I believe that what we do have is a mathematical model that shows a possibility of that being the case. That is very far from being evidence.