My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Panacea]

No-one here is making that claim (except maybe Panacea?)
And it's ended up like every other thread on this forum. >_>

I'm not actually claiming anything other than that I believe in God, and that religion has its good points.

It's a bit hard to see the metaphysical distinction between declaring a belief in something, and declaring unequivocally that something exists. It's created quite the logical challenge for me to express my views, particularly because I am a scientist in my professional life.

But it's been a blast giving it my best shot

I don't know how threads on this subject in Fratching usually end . . . this is my first. I get the impression from Andara that they don't often end well. But I've truly enjoyed this discussion because the folks here really make me have to think about what I am saying.

So thanks!

With regards to proof of the divine, or supernatural, you wouldn't necessarily have to understand the process by which it happens. Also, considering a divinity is supposed to be beyond mortals, I'm not sure I'd fully accept point three as well.

This is the hardest point for me to make. The natural inclination when approaching the supernatural is to want to apply the rules of science to it. And people who make claims SHOULD have to support those claims. But we really don't know what the supernatural is . . . we have a lot of folklore, philosophy, and theology . . . but true understanding eludes us.

The Ba'hai say that God is Unknowable. This statement defines my problem, but doesn't help me solve it to the satisfaction of the scientifically minded (atheist or not).

I'll admit up front that I've never seen an episode, but I'm pretty sure they aren't the only ghost hunters. I'd also say that to make something that gains ratings they're going in with an end conclusion that they're more than happy to guide the viewer towards. I have to admit that what you specify here isn't good science, though there are other hunters out there. Powerboy, for one.

Not familiar with Powerboy. I spent a lot of time learning about and investigating the paranormal when I was in college. I thought (and still think) it is very interesting. But almost everyone I ever met who was into that kind of "research" (and this was over 20 years ago) was an absolute kook. I had to disassociate myself . . . I didn't want other people thinking of me that way.

I have actually seen some of his tests - at a friend's house, since I don't have a TV. I've also seen youtube footage. He's actually pretty scientific in his methods, though he doesn't actually need anything overly complicated to defeat most frauds.

So have I, like I said, I think James Randi is a really interesting person. Yes, he does make use of the scientific method. When I said he is not a scientist, I should have said he doesn't pursue any particular scientific field and is not trying to add to the body of human knowledge. But he understands science, and makes use of it to try and protect people from con artists.

For me, he'd fail at the main test of Fratching - respect the person even if you don't respect their opinion.

That's basically my problem with both Hitchens and Dawkins. I have no issue with their belief system (declaring there is no God is a belief, though some would label it unbelief.). What I take issue with is their sanctimonious, smug superior attitude. They both can, quite frankly, fuck themselves. I know I've tried to be rational and reasoned in this discussion, but people like those two piss me off. They want to destroy something they do not understand, and they want to destroy it without even bothering to try to understand it, and ignore the benefits it provides to people who do understand it. That's bloody arrogant.

I know all, maybe even most, atheists are not this way. Folks I know who are atheist (and I myself was agnostic for many, many years) generally have just wanted to be left alone and not bothered by the theist dipwads determined to save their souls.

This is where I have to think hard about the nature of supernature versus everything else. I'm not sure that there is an easy answer to that. However, by claiming that there's a god at all is a claim that I would prefer to be backed by substance.

I understand perfectly . . . and I agree with the sentiment in regards to requiring proof. I'll admit, this is an issue I am still working on; how to answer this question.

They're true to their convictions.

No, not really, In my opinion, they've elevated atheism to a religious status of its own. Their ideas when it comes to atheistic thinking have gotten to be dogma. Vary from the dogma, and you are a weak thinker, or rube. You've fallen back into the delusion.

Well, there's book sales as well...

Ah, yes. Then there's Mammon . . . .

Technically, we don't believe

Sure you do. You believe there is no God. That's a belief. It just has better footing on a scientific basis than mine does.

If the last three items are correct, have they actually occurred?

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

Quite honestly, there's nothing that a believer could say that would change my mind as to the existence or otherwise of a deity. The deity themselves, though, could very easily change my mind by speaking to me.

This is precisely why I do not try to convince people of God's existence, and why I believe Christians should not proselytize. And it's how I came to become a believer myself . . . I had a spiritual moment. Quite unexpected, out of the blue, but very welcome once I realized what was happening.

Miracles were usually there to convert non-believers, if memory serves.

True enough. God made that pretty clear when talking to Moses via the burning bush, especially in regards to how He intended to get Pharaoh to let the Jews go.

To me, that's a claim of what you believe in existing. You are claiming the existence. I don't follow your train of thought on this.

To which I can only say mea culpa. I'm not doing a good job of demonstrating that point

Um, where did I do that? By saying you believe something exists, you are making a statement that something exists.

Rapscallion

Not quite. I'm saying I believe in something. I'm not trying to convince you to believe what I believe (ie, that God exists).

I started out defending the value of religion in the lives of believers. I got a bit sidetracked. Just a bit

Well . . . this has been a great discussion. I'll stick around and see what shakes out, but I've pretty much said what I can say on the subject, especially for today.

I'm off to Midnight Mass

Merry Christmas everyone!

[Gravekeeper]

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.

Gah, I'd have to dig back a few months through IO9 to find it. There's only so much we can test with our technology, but they found that quantum particles would resist being put into a paradoxical situation. Obviously until we get time travel we can't do a full blown field test. But what evidence we have so far shows some sort of self correcting mechanism. I'm guessing the potential for destroying the universe would be pretty high without said mechanism. >.>

Ah, Gravekeeper. Now you're indulging in a logical fallacy. There's nothing to show that ever increasing understanding of science and the universe will lead to an understanding of the divine.

It is not a logical fallacy. It will because it must. They cannot be kept separate forever because by their very nature one will eventually touch the other if it is there to touch. I don't think you understand the insane level of observation of the nature of reality we have accomplished and thus the possibilities of what we will yet uncover. If there is anything to be found or anything hiding within the machinery of nature, we will eventually find it. Maybe next year, maybe 100 years from now, but some day we will find evidence of it or a lack there of.

It is quite literally impossible to touch this universe without leaving a mark on it at some level. If there is anything in the woodwork, we will eventually find either its signature, evidence of its signature having been erased or nothing at all.

Science does not and cannot stop expanding our understanding and knowledge of creation. Never mind that for some religions, this pursuit of understanding is actually encouraged as a way to become closer to divinity. Thus your perspective is not universal even among the religious and the claim your making takes on an element of "My religion is right, yours is wrong" which is not a place you really should be going. -.-

From a scientific standpoint, it just ain't so. Science only investigates the natural world. For Science to understand the divine, the divine would have to become a part of the natural world. By definition, it cannot.

You are failing to understand. That which is supernatural has, throughout history, often ended up being natural after we reached the level to comprehend it. The divine, if it is there, must eventually become part of the natural world at some level because if it does not it cannot affect the natural world.

This is basic logic. If it is there, and if it has ever done ANYTHING in this universe, then there will be evidence, a lack of evidence or nothing. You cannot, by the very laws of the universe, affect this universe without leaving evidence. If you remove this evidence, you likewise leave evidence that it has been removed ( IE we will eventually and suddenly hit a wall where we can discover no more because the rest is hidden by the divine and we have finally walked up to its domain. In which case that is likewise possibly evidence of the divine. ).

You cannot keep them separate. They will eventually touch. The sheer amount of mechanisms required for the divine to operate as its supposedly does must on some level leave evidence or a lack of evidence. Because if it does not, then it does not and has not ever affected our universe and thus anything attributed to it is false.

You cannot affect the universe without leaving a trace and we, as a species, are becoming more and more adept at observing the universe. Eventually we will either notice a trace or a lack of a trace.

As for science investigating the supernatural, that's kind of why we invented it. To understand what the fuck all this crazy magic shit going on around us was. Over the course of human history, we have percieved the natural as supernatural constantly only to figure out it was really natural all along. To draw a line in the sand now and say no, they're separate, is pretty silly.

I begrudge no one their beliefs, but by stating natural and supernatural are seperate and that's that because you say so, now you're making a claim. One which wraps you up neatly in a position of "I'm right because I say I'm right" that cannot be assailed because you basically claim the methods of counter-argument don't count. Which is rather unfair of you frankly.

[HYHYBT]

Again (and again and again until someone doesn't ignore it!) that everything that is real is provable by scientific means *is* one of those positive assertions that side loves to claim bears the burden of proof. And without proving that FIRST, there are no grounds to dismiss God just because he cannot be verified scientifically.

The christian god was capable of plagues, smiting the first born, raining food for the starving, shitting on his people, and all manner of such things. His son was capable of walking on water, feeding many thousands of people, turning water into wine, and raising the dead. Let's not forget the occasional healing.

Reproduce those and you can prove it.

"God can do X" and "*I* can do X" are not the same thing. All my inability to, say, walk on water shows is that I'm not God.

They both can, quite frankly, fuck themselves.

Proof of THAT would be interesting…

[Gravekeeper]

Again (and again and again until someone doesn't ignore it!) that everything that is real is provable by scientific means *is* one of those positive assertions that side loves to claim bears the burden of proof. And without proving that FIRST, there are no grounds to dismiss God just because he cannot be verified scientifically.

I think we can safely rule out text book smitey plaguey floody yelling in Hebrew God. Since his presence and actions would have left indelible marks both on history and the planet. -.-

Also, if you want to get techinical, we can and have in fact ruled him out of the universe. The universe is, per our current level of scientific understanding, perfectly capable of creating itself as well as life and shows no evidence whatsoever of a guiding force. Which is why I've been turning my attention, and trying to turn yours, towards the underlaying fabric of reality beyond quantum physics. Because if anyone or thing "divine" exists, then this is the level that we will observe it on and the last avenue by which it can demonstrate it had a hand in the creation of the universe.

We are no longer at a point in scientific history where you can hand wave God as mysterious and supernatural. We understand now. We are peering in into the literal nature of reality itself. If he/she/it is around, this is the last place they could be hiding from our view. Understand?

The argument that because we can't verified God, he may still exist, is technically correct but not on the level that is being argued here. He has in fact been scientifically ruled out of the physical universe. If we wish to find him or his fingerprints, it will be within the quantum universe.

[Rapscallion]

Likewise, I am claiming "I am a Christian."

And you are telling me "Prove God exists."

You could prove God doesn't exist. But that's not what I'm claiming. I'm only claiming that I am a Christian.

Um, the end goal for christians is to join god in heaven through jesus. Without god, jesus was wrong/misguided/whatever. It's pretty fundamental to the whole christianity thing.

The stories of christ are more appealing as he's portrayed as a fairly relaxed dude.

It's a bit hard to see the metaphysical distinction between declaring a belief in something, and declaring unequivocally that something exists. It's created quite the logical challenge for me to express my views, particularly because I am a scientist in my professional life.

I honestly don't see anything other than a semantic difference.

So thanks!

Stick around, please! You're good company here.

The Ba'hai say that God is Unknowable. This statement defines my problem, but doesn't help me solve it to the satisfaction of the scientifically minded (atheist or not).

Interesting take on it, but to me that says 'the god I worship can't be proven, so you can't say you can disprove it' or something like that. Seems to be a get-out clause.

Not familiar with Powerboy.

He's not been on for a while, actually.

That's basically my problem with both Hitchens and Dawkins. I have no issue with their belief system (declaring there is no God is a belief, though some would label it unbelief.).

I definitely would consider it to be unbelief. The belief is on the part of those who claim it to be so. A lack of belief is what I describe as atheism.

No, not really, In my opinion, they've elevated atheism to a religious status of its own. Their ideas when it comes to atheistic thinking have gotten to be dogma. Vary from the dogma, and you are a weak thinker, or rube. You've fallen back into the delusion.

A religion to me requires faith in something that cannot be or isn't being proven - something more than we can do ourselves. There are probably other definitions that I would accept, but that's the one which I'm most familiar with.

As an atheist, I simply don't accept the claims that there is something more than the existence we know. There's no real cult in my experience, and Hawkins and Hitchens - while they have a following of people unable to prove their convictions themselves - are not really anything more than strong personalities. Anyone who claims them to be more than they are aren't true atheists

Sure you do. You believe there is no God. That's a belief. It just has better footing on a scientific basis than mine does.

Not to me - I classify it as a lack of belief.

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

Good question, but the better one is whether or not I can claim for personal injury if I wasn't there.

True enough. God made that pretty clear when talking to Moses via the burning bush, especially in regards to how He intended to get Pharaoh to let the Jews go.

I always remember the bit where he made that harder for Moses by hardening pharoah's heart. Bit of a dick move.

Not quite. I'm saying I believe in something. I'm not trying to convince you to believe what I believe (ie, that God exists).

To me, the very claim that you believe in a supernatural facet to the world is a claim that it exists.

I'm off to Midnight Mass

I'd say not to stay up too late, but that seems a bit silly

"God can do X" and "*I* can do X" are not the same thing. All my inability to, say, walk on water shows is that I'm not God.

Doesn't have to be you. As I said to Panacea, you can't convince me that there's a divine figure, but that divine figure can. I don't expect you to shit thunderbolts onto non-believers, but if you claim a god who is omnipotent then it's the god who can do those.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

Um, the end goal for christians is to join god in heaven through jesus. Without god, jesus was wrong/misguided/whatever. It's pretty fundamental to the whole christianity thing.

You still aren't getting it. >_> I'm running out of ways to explain this.

We're not saying we don't believe in God.

I think the Christians in this thread DO believe in God. If you asked me "Do you believe in God" I would say "Yes, I definitely do believe in God." But if you ask "Is there a God" I would reply, "I think there is."

I am not making a positive claim on God. I am making a positive claim on myself.

Traditionally, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim, to prove what they have said is true.

"God exists" is a positive claim about God.

"God does not exist" is a positive claim about God.

"I believe in God" is a positive claim about me. Not about God.

Similarly, you claim "I do not believe in God." That's only a positive claim about you. I don't get to ask you "Prove there is no God."

Does that make more sense?

[SkullKing]

Not to me - I classify it as a lack of belief.


To me, the very claim that you believe in a supernatural facet to the world is a claim that it exists.

I disagree. If you believe that there is no god, that IS a belief.

It is opposed to other possible beliefs. but If you believe in something, be it the existence or ausence of god, than it is a belief.

If you say that a belief in the ausence of god is an unbelief int he existence, then a belief in the existence is an unbelief in the ausence.


What I would classify as "unbelief" in more general term is my agnosticism where I honestly don´t believe or disbelieve any of the possibilites. I might wish one or the other to be true. but this does not afect my belief.

To me this is akin to asking if the ball inside a box is red or blue, when it can be any of a multitude of colors and hues, having no ball at all, or having something completelly diferent fom a ball like a cyber-frog made with spare liquidificator parts.

Science has touched the supernatural a few times(infra-sound and ghosts fro example), I believe it will do so again.

If it will ever reach the level of god I don´t know.

But if it does, I think it will open a whole new set of questions.


As for the claim that you believe something being the claim that it exists. I think I understand.



I think we all agree that If I claim panacea believes in god, I am not claiming god exists.

If Panacea claims panacea believes in god, is she claiming god exists?

I don´t think so. However it is easy to see how one might infer (perhaps wrongly) she does ALSO makes that claim if one is used to theists who regularly do make that claim.

Maybe we are using different definitions on what "claim" means.

The only claims I saw here were that religion was inherently harmfull which, seems to me, was debunked, since claims of religion having positive effects were backed by evidence

[Rapscallion]

Similarly, you claim "I do not believe in God." That's only a positive claim about you. I don't get to ask you "Prove there is no God."

Does that make more sense?

Not really. To me, there is no belief on my part. Just a non-acceptance of the beliefs and claims of others.

I disagree. If you believe that there is no god, that IS a belief.

I don't believe there to be no god - I don't accept the claims that there is. That's a good way of looking at it.

The only claims I saw here were that religion was inherently harmfull which, seems to me, was debunked, since claims of religion having positive effects were backed by evidence

Well, the thread started with evangelical atheists being arseholes, so let's turn that question on its head and ask in what way atheism is harmful.

Rapscallion

[SkullKing]

Not really. To me, there is no belief on my part. Just a non-acceptance of the beliefs and claims of others.

You specifically responded to hyena that you do not believe the belief that there is no god is a belief.

I was responding to that .

Well, the thread started with evangelical atheists being arseholes, so let's turn that question on its head and ask in what way atheism is harmful.

Rapscallion

Change it to ways atheism CAN be harmful, and I think it might be interesting.

[Gravekeeper]

We're playing tennis with semantics again. Lobbing it back and forth into each other's court. The problem here is that both sides can slice the pie in such a way as to be correct. Seperating the belief from the claim takes a bit of expert pie knife skill though.

If you say to yourself "I believe in God", then that is correct as far as your world view goes.

If you say to someone else, such as Raps, "I believe in God", it carries the implication of a claim to it. The difference between "I believe God is real" and "God is real" is razor thin, and that's kind of the problem. It is also why you're not liable to resolve this issue anytime soon because you're basically arguing your intent vs another's perception. I believe God is real can, via your intent, be a claim about yourself alone, or a claim about the existence of God.

All depends on how you slice that pie. >.>

Also, Atheism can be harmful in the same way as Theism. Because dickheads just need an excuse to be dickheads, the excuse itself doesn't matter much.

[Andara Bledin]

I honestly don't see anything other than a semantic difference.

Think of it like this. When I first met my now-boyfriend, I thought he was a fairly stand-up guy. And when some money disappeared from a counter while he was one of the visitors, I also believed that he was not the one who took it. I had absolutely no proof other than a gut feeling that I was right, but I believed that to be correct.

Turns out that I was, but I had no proof at the time; merely intuition.

However, I don't claim my intuition to be perfect. I reserve the right to be wrong. But as long as what I believe based on my intuition affects nobody else but myself, I would be quite happy if those whose intuitions tell them differently would have the common decency to not look down their noses and call me or my belief by derogatory names without any reason beyond their own anti-religious bigotry.

A religion to me requires faith in something that cannot be or isn't being proven - something more than we can do ourselves. There are probably other definitions that I would accept, but that's the one which I'm most familiar with.

That's the primary deist form of religion. However, there are a number of recognized religions that don't require belief in anything more than the idea that you can become a better person. That's supposed to be part of the whole Christian (and possibly all Abrahamic) system, but a large number of followers appear to have never gotten or forgotten that particular memo.

^-.-^

[Kheldarson]

A religion to me requires faith in something that cannot be or isn't being proven - something more than we can do ourselves. There are probably other definitions that I would accept, but that's the one which I'm most familiar with.

Actually, faith is believing in something that cannot or isn't being proven, while religion is the structure a group of people of a similar faith give to their faith. Hence, while all three Abrahamic religions technically worship and have faith in the same God, we have three separate religions.

That's also why when speaking of the Christian religion, we can speak of sects in reference to the different denominations. While perephrial dogmas change (like the role of Mary), the basic dogma (belief in Christ) does not change, so all denominations or sects are still part of the same religion.

[Duelist925]

*snip*
The stories of christ are more appealing as he's portrayed as a fairly relaxed dude.

I'm always reminded of a quote supposedly by Ghandi..."I like your Christ. I do not like your christians. They are not like your christ."

I honestly don't see anything other than a semantic difference.

Its a bit more than semantics. I think Andara spelled it out fairly well tho.

I believe in god. However, I fully profess that I could be wrong. I think I'm not--but until I have proof, one way or another, then I believe god exists.

I'm not saying one way or another, definitively, wether there is a god or not--simply that I think there is. But I could be wrong. Thats where the difference lies.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying that there aren't people who claim that god exists definitively. There are.

Interesting take on it, but to me that says 'the god I worship can't be proven, so you can't say you can disprove it' or something like that. Seems to be a get-out clause.

I see it more as a philosophy of god being so much more than we are, that we can understand him about as well as a kitten understands us.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

The argument that because we can't verified God, he may still exist, is technically correct but not on the level that is being argued here. He has in fact been scientifically ruled out of the physical universe.

Nothing you've thus far said does so.

Your assertion that he would *necessarily* have left marks for us to find (or evidence of their erasure) and that we would *ever* be capable of finding them is itself unproven. And, so far as I can see, impossible TO prove.

I definitely would consider it to be unbelief. The belief is on the part of those who claim it to be so. A lack of belief is what I describe as atheism.

Well, that depends. Usually what I see is in effect an attempt to push active disbelief when on the offensive while only having to defend lack of belief. Hardly a fair and honest tactic.

Doesn't have to be you. As I said to Panacea, you can't convince me that there's a divine figure, but that divine figure can. I don't expect you to shit thunderbolts onto non-believers, but if you claim a god who is omnipotent then it's the god who can do those.

Indeed. But God (if he exists) is not a trained dog. If he exists, he does what he wants, WHEN he wants. Inconvenient when you want to run experiments on him, but that's just the way things are.

If you say to someone else, such as Raps, "I believe in God", it carries the implication of a claim to it. The difference between "I believe God is real" and "God is real" is razor thin, and that's kind of the problem.

How would you put it, then, if you were expressing something explicitly as your opinion and therefore as something not subject to proof (but also, by the same coin, not something you can push on others?)

[siead_lietrathua]

The argument that because we can't verified God, he may still exist, is technically correct but not on the level that is being argued here. He has in fact been scientifically ruled out of the physical universe.

this reminds me of doctor manhattan quotes.
Doctor Manhattan: Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing. And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter... Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold... that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle.
Laurie Juspeczyk: But... if me, my birth, if that's a thermodynamic miracle... I mean, you could say that about anybody in the world!
Dr. Manhattan: Yes. Anybody in the world... But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget... I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away. Come... dry your eyes. For you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly. Dry your eyes... and let's go home.
****

this is kinda why i belive in a divine precense. even looking at the chaotic possibilities in a strand of dna, to find that it made this specific person, or that dog that i see in the park, or the flowers that bloom so vibrant in spring...
we understand what it is, how it works, how it could evolve. but the why, why it alignes juuuust so to get the beautiful and awe-inspiring world we have is what makes it something greater than we can probaly know.
and i'm just fine with that