My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Gravekeeper]

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 did not elaborate because we are dealing with scientific fact, not my personal opinion. But very well. You do realize that we can, at this point, essentially see back billions and billions of years into the history of the universe, right? We can see the very pattern of the big bang spread through out the entire universe. The very finger print of creation. The beginning of the universe.

There are only 3 real ingredients needed to create the universe as we know it: Matter, energy and gravity. Given these three elements, the universe will always form itself into the structure we know today and will, eventually, always create life. Even if the chance is small, the "experiment" is effectively being run an infinite number of times in an infinite number of solar systems. No matter how unlikely, it will happen. There is no requirement for a creative force to interfere. The universe takes care of it all by itself. The rules of the game take care of it. There's no need for a referee.

All matter and energy in the universe came from the big bang. There is nothing before the big bang. Nothing. Absolute nothingness. Not even time. Nothing. All matter and energy in the universe also originated from a singular point at a quantum level. A speck so dense it contained the entire universe. Hence it exploded the moment it came into being.

We know this is possible because we have observed it. Quantum particles do in fact appear and disappear from reality for no apparent reason. This is both the strongest and the weakest point in Hawkin's reasoning. The strongest, because it rules a creator God out of the rest of the universe, but also the weakest because fucked if we know what's going on yet at a quantum level that could possibly be responsible for particles simply blinking into existence from nothingness.

Thus, again, if there is a "God" to be found, this is the level at which you will find it. It is the only remaining mechanism by which an intelligent force could have originally created the universe or be affecting it. This is the last place such a being could hide without abandoning all reason.

[bunnyboy]

Ugh. Seriously.

I have to agree quite a bit. I absolutely dislike the Hitchens/Dawkins types, then again I hate the Westboro types as well, possibly because they point towards my own Humanist leanings being nothing more than a load of horseshit. Rather than quietly being Athiest, and possibly doing some ACTUAL good, they go about, mocking, getting into arguments, etc, etc.

Hate saying it but You know what makes folks like you and your position more?
Actions that aren't mocking everyone that isn't like you, and in general making the world a nice place.

Truthfully I'm sick of having to explain that no I'm not going to consider you a child/mentally deficient/an utter moron simply because you have faith in something that cannot be proven, nor do I think you should be forced to come to my side. Seriously every time it comes up locally (And living in Seattle it comes up quite a bit) I want to give the ones doing it a Gibbs slap.

I think perhaps the problem comes from all of the good role models being quiet about their lack of belief, sometimes just because to them it's no big deal, which face it, it really is.

I continue to support a couple of religious organizations in the area, mainly because at the end of the day, their religion is either of no consequence, or pushes them towards making the world just a little brighter, even if they personally believe in a deity.

Broad strokes happen in both directions, and frankly I'm sick of both sides painting each other with them.

This however is my two cents.

[BlaqueKatt]

for those talking about the brains of believers/non-believers there are differences

both structural and evolutionary,

the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed,

people who practice meditation or have prayed for many years exhibit increased activity and have more brain tissue in their frontal lobes, regions associated with attention and reward, as compared with people who do not meditate or pray. A more recent study revealed that people who have had “born again” experiences have a smaller hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in emotions and memory, than atheists do



researchers examined the brain structure of their subjects, looking especially at a fold in the brain matter called the paracingulate sulcus (PCS). In subjects where the PCS was more developed, the ability to separate reality from imagination was greater than in subjects that lacked a well-developed fold. This finding supports earlier research showing that people suffering from schizophrenia, a condition often marked by auditory hallucinations and a poor grasp of reality, do indeed lack or have a less-developed PCS.

[HYHYBT]

I did not elaborate because we are dealing with scientific fact, not my personal opinion. But very well. You do realize that we can...

Yes, I realize these things. But it does not *necessarily* mean what you think it does.

For example: I don't believe this is what happened, but suppose God created the universe in 1957, fossils and light already in transit and documents and memories and everything, exactly as it would have been had it been going for a trillion or so years. How could you possibly either know this to have happened or know it NOT to have?

But even simple things, looking at what happened long ago but also far away doesn't tell so much as your claim requires. Suppose a relatively small and simple miracle. Suppose a glass of water is turned into wine. How, examining only evidence available after the fact, would you know? The wine itself is perfectly normal. There are perhaps empty bottles of the same kind of wine in the area. You cannot rationally expect to have traced what happened to every drop of wine ever produced to ensure that all "natural" samples are accounted for. So what, then?

The strongest, because it rules a creator God out of the rest of the universe…

Again, you have said NOTHING that shows that to be true. Unless you are imagining a God that is not outside and superior to our universe of time and space, or else equate "no *apparent* reason" with "there cannot possibly ever be a reason" rather than "darned if I know what the reason is, if there is one."

[Panacea]

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

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.

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

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

Thanks for the compliment

Here's the OED definition of "belief."

ronunciation: /bɪˈliːf/
noun

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: his belief in extraterrestrial life [with clause]: a belief that climate can be modified beneficially
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs [mass noun]: contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate
a religious conviction: Christian beliefs [mass noun]: the medieval system of fervent religious belief

2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something): a belief in democratic politics

As you can see, the definition merely requires an acceptance that something is true. While the definition acknowledges the word is often used in a religious connotation, it accurately describes atheists, who dismiss the existence of a divine being without any proof of the veracity either way.

A true skeptic or scientist would keep an open mind.

There is something cult like about the following Hitchens and Dawkins have, and the determination of their adherents in "proving" religion not only false, but inherently evil and doing everything they can to remove all expressions of religion from public view.

I would agree that religion has no place in places like schools, and government work places. The Ten Commandments do not belong on the courthouse steps.

But there is no reason why public parks, which are meant for the use of everyone can't have nativity scenes as long as equal access is provided for say a menorah, or a display in support of Ramadan (I think the prohibition on idols for Muslims is so absolute, that's why they don't make an effort to do this).

I would have no problem with a display at Christmastime on the virtues of reason and humanism; such topics are tasteful and in keeping with the season.

A display such as the ones in Santa Monica are inflammatory and offensive, even though they should probably be allowed (poor taste is not a crime or a reason to suppress 1st Amendment rights).

We know this is possible because we have observed it. Quantum particles do in fact appear and disappear from reality for no apparent reason. This is both the strongest and the weakest point in Hawkin's reasoning. The strongest, because it rules a creator God out of the rest of the universe, but also the weakest because fucked if we know what's going on yet at a quantum level that could possibly be responsible for particles simply blinking into existence from nothingness.

I've often said, God has a sense of humor

I have to agree quite a bit. I absolutely dislike the Hitchens/Dawkins types, then again I hate the Westboro types as well,

I don't like Fred Phelps because he is a dick, a wolf in sheep's clothing who uses religion as a way to make himself look important and have control over his family and friends.

Humanism has nothing to do with his goals, which are purely selfish in nature. I appreciate Humanism, and would remind folks that Sir Thomas More (St. Thomas More to the Catholics) was a Humanist.

Hate saying it but You know what makes folks like you and your position more? Actions that aren't mocking everyone that isn't like you, and in general making the world a nice place.

Quoted for Truth. I would much rather talk to an atheist like Raps, who is respectful of my point of view even while he disagrees with it, than Richard Dawkins who wants to proclaim to the world that I am mentally ill because I have something he does not have and hence cannot understand.

I think perhaps the problem comes from all of the good role models being quiet about their lack of belief, sometimes just because to them it's no big deal, which face it, it really is.

I continue to support a couple of religious organizations in the area, mainly because at the end of the day, their religion is either of no consequence, or pushes them towards making the world just a little brighter, even if they personally believe in a deity.

Broad strokes happen in both directions, and frankly I'm sick of both sides painting each other with them.

This however is my two cents.

Agreed. And a moral person CAN support the goals of a religious organization while being an atheist if those goals agree with his humanist principles!

For example, I went to Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve even though I'm not Catholic (I have Catholic leanings in my interpretation of faith). I donated $15 to the collection plate, even though that church is in Maryland and I live in North Carolina. I'll never be a member of that church. But I supported the goal of the collection, which was to help the homeless in the local area. So I gave.

For example: I don't believe this is what happened, but suppose God created the universe in 1957, fossils and light already in transit and documents and memories and everything, exactly as it would have been had it been going for a trillion or so years. How could you possibly either know this to have happened or know it NOT to have?

Well, there's a little thing called carbon dating . . . .

[AdminAssistant]

I've often said, God has a sense of humor

I used to think God has a sense of humor. Now I just think he's a dick.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, I realize these things. But it does not *necessarily* mean what you think it does.

It does unless you flat out reject reason.

How could you possibly either know this to have happened or know it NOT to have?

So God felt the need to plant billions and billions and billions of years worth of evidence just to specifically fuck with us? Aka the same argument fundies use to explain dinosaur fossils? Are you really going to sink to that level? >.>

But even simple things, looking at what happened long ago but also far away doesn't tell so much as your claim requires.

It does though. The laws of nature are demonstrably responsible for everything we see around us. Everything. The only missing pieces are at a quantum level. Which we do not yet understand. You're suggesting that an all powerful, all knowing being responsible for our creation would decide to just fuck with us for no reason. If such a being exists, which is the more likely scenario:

It created the rules of the game, and the game plays itself on such a complex level we are only beginning to understand it.

It created several billion years worth of neigh infinite evidence for no other reason than to specifically fuck with and delude us.

I mean seriously? -.-

Suppose a relatively small and simple miracle. Suppose a glass of water is turned into wine. How, examining only evidence available after the fact, would you know? The wine itself is perfectly normal.

How, examining only evidence available after the fact would you know it was really water to begin with? Unless you directly witnessed the miracle and were able to control the environment in which the miracle occurred to prevent trickery you can't say it was a miracle either. Unless you had a full lab on hand at the time of the miracle, you can't rule out human dickery and the burden of both proof and probability says human dickery is the vastly more likely explanation. Unless you have a scientifically verified miracle you can reference? -.-

Again, you have said NOTHING that shows that to be true. Unless you are imagining a God that is not outside and superior to our universe of time and space, or else equate "no *apparent* reason" with "there cannot possibly ever be a reason" rather than "darned if I know what the reason is, if there is one."

Any being superior and more knowledgeable than us must, in effect, be more intelligent and logical than us. Such a being can and would operate in a fashion that would produce cause and effect in logical patterns on some level. The alternative explanation, that you're putting forth, is that the superior being is specifically being a dickhead and operating in a fashion that is irrational. Thus making it lesser in intellect to us. Which obviously cannot be right.

Do you see the problem? You can't hand wave evidence away by saying God put it there to deceive us. Its irrationally and frankly pretty silly. If God exists, look where he may still be, don't delude yourself about where he isn't with a reason as weak as "Because he's God and he says so". ;p

[SkullKing]

Any being superior and more knowledgeable than us must, in effect, be more intelligent and logical than us.

not true, eh must be more powerfull, but to assume that something so different needs to act in a logical way doesn´t make sense.

there ins no way to assume anything.

And even if he wass more logical, it might be a very different logic that we would never recognize

[SkullKing]

Thanks for the compliment


Well, there's a little thing called carbon dating

That doesn´t mean anything acording to Last Thursdayism

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

[Gravekeeper]

not true, eh must be more powerfull, but to assume that something so different needs to act in a logical way doesn´t make sense.

It makes perfect sense because the assumption is that said being created the universe and the universe is a brilliantly complex machine that operates on logical cause and effect. The alternatives are that God is apparently deceitful, stupid, insane or being intentionally malicious. All qualities not typically assigned to him. -.-

If he exists, we are standing in his art gallery and it is infinite. To claim that we can't possibly infer anything about an artist from his work is just another "God works in mysterious ways" hand wave argument. Besides, it is inferred that we were created in his image. So to claim he is totally alien to us does not fit the narrative either.

I really don't think you guys grasp where we are scientifically these days. We are quite literally studying the very nature of reality right now. I'm not saying give up faith, I'm just saying get your faith with the times because we're currently rooting around in God's backyard. If he hears us and turns the porch light on, you might want to have some pants on. >.>

[HYHYBT]

So God felt the need to plant billions and billions and billions of years worth of evidence just to specifically fuck with us? Aka the same argument fundies use to explain dinosaur fossils? Are you really going to sink to that level?

No, and I believe you know I don't mean it that way. It was an extreme example, nothing more. The point is that *any* miracle winds up like that. But let's stick with the wine example, as it's less likely to set off nonsense.

It created the rules of the game, and the game plays itself on such a complex level we are only beginning to understand it.

It created several billion years worth of neigh infinite evidence for no other reason than to specifically fuck with and delude us.

The former does NOT, though, exclude the possibility that there are points where, *for a purpose* (and not "just fuck[ing] with us for no reason") an exception might be made: an effect without a natural cause, but nonetheless one of the same type as those produced by natural causes. Allowing the possibility of such does not (and you certainly haven't shown otherwise, only *claimed* it more and more emphatically) require jumping to the second of your listed options.

The laws of nature are demonstrably responsible for everything we see around us. Everything.

First, that's not so. The laws of nature cover explaining everything we see, given certain prior conditions; that does not mean that everything we see is *in fact* the result of only those laws.

How, examining only evidence available after the fact would you know it was really water to begin with? Unless you directly witnessed the miracle and were able to control the environment in which the miracle occurred to prevent trickery you can't say it was a miracle either. Unless you had a full lab on hand at the time of the miracle, you can't rule out human dickery and the burden of both proof and probability says human dickery is the vastly more likely explanation. Unless you have a scientifically verified miracle you can reference? -.-

But that's the point! If you witnessed the change, you know. But it's impossible (at the very least, impossible unless you knew in advance this particular miracle would occur and made efforts to document it accordingly) to prove that the wine was not produced by ordinary means… and therefore, it's impossible, just by witnessing how wine normally comes about, to declare that *none* has ever been done by supernatural intervention.

You can't hand wave evidence away by saying God put it there to deceive us.

I'm not. Again, I apologize for using an example that gave that impression (even though I *explicitly* said that I didn't believe it to be true.) Most miracles I can think of would have been pointless had they not been recognized as such. Miraculous wine is still wine, just like any other. Looking at it, you would find the same stuff as if you'd pressed grapes and fermented the juice. The difference is not in the effect, but in, for a special purpose, getting the effect without the usual immediate causes.

To claim that we can't possibly infer anything about an artist from his work is just another "God works in mysterious ways" hand wave argument.

I'm not claiming that. Only that we have not eliminated anywhere near so much as you claim, nor are likely ever to do so. Remember that, if this universe is made by anybody, we are not only part of that work ourselves, but we also know nothing that is not also part of it. We have no true outside frame of reference.

[Duelist925]

*snip*


Any being superior and more knowledgeable than us must, in effect, be more intelligent and logical than us. Such a being can and would operate in a fashion that would produce cause and effect in logical patterns on some level. The alternative explanation, that you're putting forth, is that the superior being is specifically being a dickhead and operating in a fashion that is irrational. Thus making it lesser in intellect to us. Which obviously cannot be right.

This is really the only part of your arguement I disagree with, because your assuming that an omnicient/omnipotent/blahblah you know the rest entity would operate on the same logic as us--thats fundamentally wrong. You've admitted that physics on the quantum level simply don't seem to make much, if any, logical sense. Anything that could create that, that could understand that on a fundamental level, wouldn't necessarily operate on the same logic as we do. Hell, such a being simple view of time (assuming it views it in a way other than the linear fashion we do) might make it do things we would deem illogical or cruel, but it would deem necessary or perfectly logical.

[Andara Bledin]

To put it more simply, and to borrow from a rather prolific author, paraphrased, "How would a 2-dimensional being be able to recognize a 3-dimensional being? If a sphere were to appear in a 2-dimensional world, it would seem at first to be just a point, then a growing circle, before it stabilized, then diminished, ending again, in a point.

We would be the circles, and God would be the sphere or even further up the chain. Each new dimension is an exponentially more complex organism, and while we might like to think we can understand what that really means, I don't think we, as a species, are really as far along as we'd think we are.

^-.-^

[SkullKing]

It makes perfect sense because the assumption is that said being created the universe and the universe is a brilliantly complex machine that operates on logical cause and effect. The alternatives are that God is apparently deceitful, stupid, insane or being intentionally malicious. All qualities not typically assigned to him. -.-

If he exists, we are standing in his art gallery and it is infinite. To claim that we can't possibly infer anything about an artist from his work is just another "God works in mysterious ways" hand wave argument. Besides, it is inferred that we were created in his image. So to claim he is totally alien to us does not fit the narrative either.

I really don't think you guys grasp where we are scientifically these days. We are quite literally studying the very nature of reality right now. I'm not saying give up faith, I'm just saying get your faith with the times because we're currently rooting around in God's backyard. If he hears us and turns the porch light on, you might want to have some pants on. >.>

Maybe he has a method to his madness, maybe he has fits of madness, not all mentally disturbed people are "always crazy, all the time". He might be slightly insane. Some insane people have been able to do incredible mental feats.

Hell, some people have been able to do incredible mental feats PRECISELY because their minds were "different"

And even if he does operate on logic it could be a completely different logic from ours.

He might also not be immutable, having done something in a way an then changed the way he does things.

He might be like a someones who creates a game and plays by it rules, unless he decides to change the rules later.

[Panacea]

That doesn´t mean anything acording to Last Thursdayism

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Forgot about this; hadn't heard that term in quite a while. The site describes the inherent fallacy, though, in what is actually a whimsical idea: self contradiction. To really believe along these lines you have to believe that inductive reasoning is flawed, and without that none of the physical laws we live by work.

He might be like a someones who creates a game and plays by it rules, unless he decides to change the rules later.

If that were true, the laws of physics would not work. We'd have people flying off into space randomly when He decided to change the rules. Since that doesn't happen, if there is a Creator God, He decided on a set of rules and has stuck with them.