patrick.net

marcus says

Put differently, for me, belief in "God" if "he" exists has nothing to do with answering the question where did the universe come from. This is another hang up of atheists, who are so busy formulating straw man arguments.

Just because you oppose someone else's conclusions does not mean they are using straw man arguments. In fact, claiming that a person is using a straw man argument when he is not, is ironically a straw man argument.

When people are asked why they believe in a god, a very common if not universal answer is the question, "If there is no god, then where did everything come from?". This is, of course, very bad reasoning as it just pushes the question back one level to, "where did god come from?". And if you answer, "god always existed" then why not just answer "the universe always existed".

Despite the fact that it is common knowledge that the invocation of a god does nothing to explain existence, it is still a very common reason for belief in a deity. This is a cold, hard fact not an opinion. And it is precisely because so many people use this faulty argument as the basis for belief that atheists have to repeatedly explain why it is faulty. Therefore, this is most certainly not a straw man argument. It is a real argument that real people use to justify their belief in the supernatural.

Atheists do not make up straw man arguments because we are not irrationally insistent on getting a specific answer to the question "Does a god exist?". There isn't an atheist alive or dead, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and myself, who wouldn't gladly accept the existence of a god or more than one gods if logic, reasoning, and evidence actually pointed to such a creature. Atheism is the conclusion, not the premise. Marcus, you simply cannot understand this because for you, the existence of god is the premise, not a conclusion. If you could just understand this one little idea, then everything atheists have said would make sense to you.

And to prove this point, Marcus, consider this question. What would it take for you to believe that there is no god? If the answer is nothing can satisfy that condition, then it is pointless for you to even discuss the issue.

Dan8267 says

pointless for you to even discuss the issue

Congratulations. Now if you can take it a step further, and understand that disproving the existence of something that by definition can not be
proven to exist or not to exist, makes you actually an agnostic who happens to also be an antitheist. That is if your logic was a little tighter you would say "okay, okay, truth is, I'm an agnostic who is very much against organized religion."

Your belief that God doesn't exist, is simply a chosen belief. It's not logical as you claim it to be. And furthermore your belief in the non existence of God is using a very limited definition of what God is, if God does exist (see my axiom above)

Regarding straw man arguments:

When someone says "you liberals, just want to have a nanny state where those who want to live off of the government get a free ride." I call that a straw man argument, because it's not what I and or many or most liberals believe. But it is what some peolpe who consider themselves liberal believe.

Similarly, yes some people people choose to believe in God, or argue the existense of God, based on the premise that it answers the questions regarding the existence of our universe.

Wtf? I even qualified it.

marcus says

This is another hang up of atheists, who are so busy formulating straw man arguments. ( I know they aren't straw men for fundamentalists or children of non-fundamentalist Christian religions).

IT would take only the slightest attempt (empathy) to understand where I'm coming from or to understand what bothers me here. That is, for example with this type of cartoon, I get it and I agree with the message about education (and radical fundamentlist creationists)

But generalizing an inference about atheism being correct from this just pisses me off.

marcus says

Now if you can take it a step further, and understand that disproving the existence of something that by definition can not be
proven to exist or not to exist, makes you actually an agnostic who happens to also be an antitheist

First, one does not need to prove something that cannot be disproven by definition. Anything that cannot be disproven by definition is false. Second, one cannot be both an agnostic and an anti-theist by any acceptance of agnostic.

Agnostic originally meant someone who believed that it is impossible to know whether or not god exists, even in principle. Someone who holds that position, cannot also hold the position that god has been disproved, as a anti-theist holds.

Today, most people use the word agnostic to mean that they personally don't know whether or not a god exists. And by that definition, it is also impossible to explicitly deny the existence of god. Hence, agnostic and anti-theist are mutually exclusive philosophical positions.

marcus says

That is if your logic was a little tighter you would say "okay, okay, truth is, I'm an agnostic who is very much against organized religion."

I am very much against organized religion. However, I am not agnostic. I am a strong atheist, or anti-theist if you prefer. More importantly, I take the stronger position that not only is organize religion bad, but disorganized religion is bad, and even non-religious faith is bad. All forms of mysticism, even without the hierarchical power structures, is bad.

Granted, organize religion is the worst because it is the most powerful means of mob control. However, even the lesser evil of non-religious faith is still an evil. Faith is easily hijacked by people with questionable political and social goals. Faith hinders critical thought, skepticism, and transparency, the three guards against tyranny. Faith also diminishes understanding and the pursuit of knowledge, both of which are necessary to obtain wisdom. In short, faith itself is a vice, not a virtue. There is nothing advantageous about being faithful in any subject matter, but there are many disadvantages.

marcus says

When someone says "you liberals, just want to have a nanny state where those who want to live off of the government get a free ride." I call that a straw man argument, because it's not what I and or many or most liberals believe.

And I would agree in that case and for that very reason. However, that does not mean the things you have been calling straw man arguments are so. As I have pointed out, a very common justification for belief in a god is that such an entity is necessary to explain why anything at all exists. As such, it is not a straw man argument for an atheist to discredit that argument. Discrediting that one argument, does not, of course, discredit all arguments for a god. But since atheists have to deal with many such flawed arguments, it is hardly right to flaw atheists for one-by-one discrediting each argument for a god presented by any theist. In fact, one would insist that atheists do this.

The whole nefarious purpose of a straw man argument is to distract the audience from the real argument your opponent is making. Neither I nor any of the famous atheist authors have ever or will ever do that because it goes against our core principles. We firmly believe that a philosophical position should be able to withstand all possible arguments against it, or it is not worth adopting. As such, we always welcome new arguments for the case of theism. However, we will look for flaws in these new arguments. Actually, what really pisses off us atheists is having to waste time on arguments that have already been disproved.

marcus says

ALthough it's not my definition of a liberal.

How you, I, or anyone else maps words to definitions is irrelevant. Choosing one nomenclature over another has no bearing on the merits of an idea or whether or not it is true. The only purpose in carefully choosing a nomenclature is to provide for the clearest, easiest communication. Arguing over whether or not the definition of "sport" includes golf is completely meaningless and a waste of time. It does not change the nature of golf or how similar/dissimilar it is to baseball and football.

marcus says

yes some people people choose to believe in God

It is nonsensical to "choose" to believe in anything including god. One shouldn't choose to believe in unicorns or dragons. Nor should one choose to believe the world is round. Belief should be based on evidence and reasoning, not personal choice. This is true for all things including god. The only thing personal choice should affect is what you eat, what you wear, and how you spend your free time.

marcus says

argue the existense of God, based on the premise that it answers the questions regarding the existence of our universe.

Except that the existence of a god or gods does not answer any questions about the existence of the universe. It just adds one more layer of indirection. It is exactly what William of Occam meant when he said "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.", as doing so explains nothing and makes your model of reality needlessly complicated.

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? That is as a child before the age of say 12, what were you taught ?

I know it's irrelevant. Just curious.

Dan8267 says

More importantly, I take the stronger position that not only is organize religion bad, but disorganized religion is bad, and even non-religious faith is bad. All forms of mysticism, even without the hierarchical power structures, is bad.

Right.

I forgot whether I brought this up earlier, so forgive me if I repeat, but disorganized religion and superstition kills just as well as organized religion.

Primitive Societies kill "Sorcerers" without needing a formal religious hierarchy of Bishops, Judges, Lords, Inquisitors or "Witch-Finder Generals".

Dan8267 says

First, one does not need to prove something that cannot be disproven by definition. Anything that cannot be disproven by definition is false.

Funny, I thought anything that can be disproven is by definition false. Are you saying that everything is false ?

marcus says

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? That is as a child before the age of say 12, what were you taught ?

I know it's irrelevant. Just curious.

You could always lie, and say, "ummm, my parents were secular humanists that were also fairly spiritual. We went to the Unitarian Universalist church until I became a teen and rebelled."

marcus says

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? That is as a child before the age of say 12, what were you taught ?

I know it's irrelevant. Just curious.

East-Coast Catholicism, blue collar, pro-civil rights; emphasizing Christian charity, helping the poor, and forgiveness as the message of Jesus.

As much as I discredit religion, I will concede that East-Coast Catholicism is at least non-hypocritical when it comes to Jesus's alleged philosophy, unlike born-again fundamental Christians. That said, both the current and the previous pope have done and are doing great harm by denouncing the use of condoms, particularly in Africa where AIDS is widespread.

thunderlips11 says

but disorganized religion and superstition kills just as well as organized religion.

I wouldn't say "just as well". Structured evil is always more dangerous than chaos. Nazi Germany is more dangerous than anarchy. So organized religion, with its political power and wealth, is more dangerous than random superstitions.

That said, it is important to realize that any mysticism, any irrational faith-based belief system, is dangerous. It is a lesser evil than organized religion, but it is still a very significant evil in of itself. Luckily, you don't ever have to choose between these two evils. You can fight them both on the same front.

marcus says

Are you saying that everything is false ?

Clearly, no.

marcus says

You could always lie, and say, "ummm, my parents were secular humanists that were also fairly spiritual.

Why would I lie? As you said, it's irrelevant, but I see no reason to hide it. Like most people I was born into a religion. Personally, I think children should not be exposed to religion for the same reason we don't expose them to drugs and alcohol. Wait until a person matures before trying to push an addictive, mind-altering product on him.

Dan8267 says

East-Coast Catholicism

Okay, then I was somewhat wrong. It just seems like a lot of emotion there.

We'll one of my deepest concerns for the future of humanity is that people seem to believe what they want to believe. I don't know which of us is more guilty of that, but it is clear that neither of us is really able to glean sufficient insight or empathy in to the others point of view. I have thought that I understood your point of view, which has been in large part the reason for my posts.

But your responses sound as if they are made without any desire to understand what I'm saying, or even an emotional need to not understand what I'm saying.

Likewise, my point of view probably is seen by you in much the same way.

I find that inability to understand each other's view the saddest part of the whole thing. Those kind of conversations aren't any fun.

marcus says

It just seems like a lot of emotion there.

Not really. I've been an atheist since high school and that's based on reasoning not emotion.

marcus says

We'll one of my deepest concerns for the future of humanity is that people seem to believe what they want to believe.

That's true for most people, but not INTJs. We're sticklers for putting reasoning before agendas.

marcus says

But your responses sound as if they are made without any desire to understand what I'm saying,

Perhaps they sounded such to you, but I would suggest that is because you, like most Americans, have become accustomed to dividing the world into two polar opposites: us vs. them.

When I talk to a liberal, he will accuse me of being a neo-con. When I talk to a conservative, he will accuse me of being a drum circle, pot smoking, hippie. Obviously, I cannot be both. To an objective person, I'm clearly neither. But each extreme thinks that if I don't agree with them, I must be their polar opposite because that is what they are used to dealing with. It's a sad reflection on how polarized our society is.

That said, theists are clearly wrong. But that has nothing to do with my emotions, my personal experiences, or me at all. It has to do with evidence and reasoning.

And the bad thing about theists being wrong, is that they tend to be wrong in very destructive ways as evident throughout history. Sure, some are far less destructive than others, but even those create an environment in which the more destructive ones flourish.

The reason I and others (Dawkins, Hitchens) are so vocal about atheism today is that we know that the world will become a much less violent and more socially just place if we could just throw off all those ancient religions, and we also know that humanity is running out of time. There are serious problems that cannot be solve until we stop being irrational, and start thinking straight, problems like nuclear disarmament and managing the world's ecosystem, the failure of which to address could very well result in the extinction of our species if not massive death and destruction. Put simply, we're too technologically advanced and too numerous to indulge in fairytales.

marcus says

I find that inability to understand each other's view the saddest part of the whole thing.

I don't see how I have failed to understand your view. Understanding and agreement are not the same thing. I can understand a flawed mathematical theorem. I don't accept it, but I can point out its flaws with precision. That's understanding.

I think you're confusing understanding with some kind of emotional agreement or connection.

Dan8267 says

I don't see how I have failed to understand your view. Understanding and agreement are not the same thing

I wasn't looking for agreement. But I was looking for at least a single argument that I could even comprehend. I guess I'm just not smart enough. You say your beliefs are backed by sound logic, and yet all I hear is assertions that are not backed up with any logic what so ever (except arguments I agree with against certain very strict and limited definitions of God).

Don't worry. I understand. You feel likewise about reasoning I have tried to share. That was my most recent point. Even that you had to argue with and attempt to tear apart.

Dan8267 says

I've been an atheist since high school and that's based on reasoning not emotion.

You're lucky I guess that there weren't any big arguments with your family about it, so that this never became an emotionally charged issue for you.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think Carl Sagan was an atheist either.

""An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - A quote by Carl Sagan.

He was most likely an atheist:

"Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each other's eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever."
-- Ann Druyan, Epilogue to Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/sagan.htm

Carl Sagan sure sounded like an atheist, especially in the Cosmos series. By the way, everyone should watch that series. It's awesome. I think you can watch it on YouTube.

Billyuns and Billyuns of Stars.

If I ever have the money, I'm going to have my own bedroom-planetarium, with Carl Sagan narrating as the stars turn in the "heavens" of my domed ceiling.

Cosmos! Yes rewatched recently, lots of good, a few bits very dated now.

One the one hand Carl Sagan got to live through a wondrous period of cosmology & planetary exploration. Voyagers were truly a triumph.

On the other I am sad he did not live long enough to see the bonanza of new planets. I remember during Cosmos how fascinating it was to talk about the Drake equation and think about the possibility of other planets being out there, but it was still a big question mark of was it few or many. At least the first few extrasolar planets were found before he passed away. Now with Kepler we know there are LOTS of them.

My god, it's full of stars...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6Mn-5Wf3Ee0

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear....

“ am I floating round my tin can

Vicente says

On the other I am sad he did not live long enough to see the bonanza of new planets.

Yes, it's a shame because we are living in the Golden Age of Physics and Astronomy and Carl Sagan just saw a bit of it and a bit of the rise of the Internet. He would have been proud of that. Still, luckily he was spared the Bush/Obama administrations and the horrors they brought.