Making the case for atheism...can it be done?
Even if all the evidence for Christianity is wrong that doesn't proof that God does not exist. This is what Kai Nielsen has to say on the Atheist's Burden of Proof:
"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false...All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists."
Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 143-4.
Can the non theist make the case for atheism? Can they show a cosmological argument that explains why and how we came into being? What is the purpose of man? Can they make a case for atheism from biology and microbiology and other philosophical sciences that explain everything we see and know about the universe? Can the atheist explain morality apart from God?
It is one thing to be unsure about the existence God and seek to find the truth (if it can be found). It is another thing to boldly claim there is no God with out a case laid out. Is there a systematic case to be laid out?
"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false...All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists."
Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 143-4.
Can the non theist make the case for atheism? Can they show a cosmological argument that explains why and how we came into being? What is the purpose of man? Can they make a case for atheism from biology and microbiology and other philosophical sciences that explain everything we see and know about the universe? Can the atheist explain morality apart from God?
It is one thing to be unsure about the existence God and seek to find the truth (if it can be found). It is another thing to boldly claim there is no God with out a case laid out. Is there a systematic case to be laid out?
Comments
So...
Basically "Just because we can't provide any evidence, and our theory is clearly crazy talk, that doesn't mean we're wrong."
This is why you can't talk religion. It's like that neighbourhood asshole when you were a kid. The second the game isn't going his way, he changes the rules or pulls his trump card of taking his ball and going home.
If the religious folks want to be religious - fine, but don't push your shit on the rest of us. They fully employ the benefits of scientific and technological advancements, but then feel they and their "may or may not" gives them some moral superiority and can dictate where knowledge should be applied (stem cells, birth control, abortion)? Fuck that.
If you had a doctor who was going to treat you for an ailment based on an "invalid or unsound argument", you'd call him irresponsible at the least. Same thing for a financial adviser, or any number of professions.
You want a god to give your life purpose? Knock yourself out. But the second you think you can dictate the rest of us? Nope. Go pray your cancer into remission, see how that works out for you.
Mark
You do realize that Kai Neilsen is an atheist right? He realizes that any position pushed on society comes from a bias that the majority of society may or may not agree with. [(stem cells, birth control, abortion)?] your quote. If you could give a case for your position on the question Why man exist, how do we get here and why, do we have a purpose, where morality comes from then (stem cells, birth control, abortion)? is may be understood in a different light. You cry for the life of the likes of Ariel Castro instead of the death penalty, yet for the unborn with a beating heart and brainwaves a definition of life "brain dead" or "heart dead" you approve termination of said life.
I am just trying to make sense of your position of atheism and how in ingrains itself in the policy of politics of the said government of power at the time. How are you any different then what you are accusing me of?
There are many things that are accepted as obvious truths/facts today that in previous centuries would seem like "magic" or even "God-like" to our forbears.
Brent does bring up an inconsistency with your arguments in favour of unfettered abortion vs. your opposition to the Death Penalty. Strictly on a Human Rights level, it seems inconsistent to oppose one while supporting the other.
A fetus, in scientific terms, is a unique human being, and therefore should be subject to the protections of the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
When I was younger I was in the middle of bell curve so to speak. I'd been taught to believe in the teachings of christianity but didn't think they made much sense. That and looking at the myriad other religions out there made me think that there is no way there could be one religion that could claim superiority over the others as each other religion would be able to make the same claim.
As I went on through the later years of high school and university I put less and less stock in even the agnositc view as nothing within religion makes any sense whatsoever. Didn't really put together why that was until recently.
If a person has a good grounding in Cosmology, Biology and literature I don't think it is possible to believe in any religion.
Cosmology shows that the universe is far older than any religion predicts. Even if a religion tries to claim the "big Bang" as their own it happened long before their scripture said it did.
Biology shows how humans evolved from other primates who evolved from other animals all the way back to cyanobacteria. toss in a little chemistry and it is easy to understand how lightning hitting a pool of organic materials creates the first traces of self replicating molecules (precursors to RNA, DNA ). this has been done in a lab.
a grounding in literature (augmented with some history) makes it painfully obvious that Christianity and Islam are just judaism with a tonne of Plato mixed in (read Republic by Plato....create an afterlife worth dying for......yeah, sounds familiar) Judaism is just various stories stolen from the Egyptians and Mesopotamians.
so even if I were to slide the bell curve and claim agnosticism as a hedge (and I don't), the big three are just a collection of stories to scare young children and no stock should be placed in them unless it is just for some glue to hold a society together.
so yeah, atheism has a very strong case but the problem is humans are so effing gullible and want to believe there is something more. I mean how many people were convinced the world was going to end last christmas?
but a good place to start is with any Dawkins book or even his website if you want a good primer and solid arguments.
I love this poker Forum. And I love you Brent. Take care.
Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 4 Beta
From a Catholic point of view, please show me where the Bible says anything definitive (ie non-metaphorical) about the age of the Universe.
As for Biology, where did the pool come from, or the organic material?
As to the notion of different religions being variations on a theme, would that not tend to lend credence to the theme itself? If so many divergent cultures have come up with such similar "myths", how is that possible? It's not like they were texting each other back when and saying, "what did you guys do to passify the peasants?"
Seems to me that the more answers one finds, the more questions are raised, and isn't that what life is about? Answering questions, that is . . .
and porn...and what about asian chicks?
Really? This seems like a whole lot of blind faith to me.
If you are talking about the Miller/Urey, consider this:
Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":
As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear p. 68:
Neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
Notice what he said “We all believe as an article of faith”.
Again honesty. If Miller/Urey is still being taught in the classroom as an example of the theory on how life began (an I believe it is) then there has to be room for a lecture or two to discuss an unknown Intelligent Designer. It is this kind hypocrisy that I find annoying. What is there to be afraid in having an honest discussion and conclude “we may never know”.
I will end with this quote from the molecular biologist Michael Denton as he discusses the complex structure of the cell from his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
Molecular biology and complex structure of the cell is what changed Anthony Flew's mind to admit there must be a designer, much to the dismay of Dawkins.
- My anti death penalty / pro abortion stance makes sense, and is not at all contradictory or whatever the hell Milo / Brent said. Try and follow along as I'll restate the reasons for my stance again. The death penalty fails in all intended goals. It does NOT prevent violent crime, it is NOT financially more efficient, and it does NOT have a 100% successful conviction rate. There are cheaper, more efficient, and, if not reversible, at least lesser consequences when there is an error. My beliefs are not based on a moral thing in this regard, it's based on common sense, math, and resulting studies over the past several decades.
Abortion has much the same going for it. It is an efficient, fairly safe procedure to prevent unwanted children. These children could be born to persons not interested, capable, or able to properly parent them, leading to drains on our resources. We don't consider people people until they're born. We celebrate "birth"days, not "conception"days.
For what it's worth, anyone touting my inconsistencies, I do hope you can see how it's been shown to be exceptionally consistent. Explain to me how someone pro-life can be pro-death penalty and not be inconsistent.
Secondly, the complexity and miraculous existence of us. It confounds me that on a board of people who have to some degree put study into the game of poker, the law or large numbers escapes them over and over. The universe, is big. Like, really big. When you got shit this big, crazy random things happen. We happen to be in a part of the universe where some really big number of years ago something random happened that started life. Do we know what it is? Nope, but we're trying to figure that shit out. Just like we didn't know what fire was at first, but now we make it our bitch. We learned, tinkered, and put it to work for us (I was going to say "mastered" but fire does on occasion rebel against us). Someone mentioned how stuff looks magical with advanced enough technology - you can't say this and not also think maybe "god" is kinda bullshit too. Well, actually, I'm quite sure you CAN say that, but you really shouldn't.
Take, as an example, flight. The first person to somehow extend their time in the air managed it through potentially dumb luck, but as we figured it out, it was because people started to understand the physics behind (gliding / lighter than air gasses / propulsion / etc.), but SOME people probably thought that person was (a witch / in league with the devil / defying god / etc.). I think we can all agree now that scientific understandings have allowed us this particular "magic". A term I despise is "supernatural". There is no such thing, just shit we haven't figured out yet. I can picture a day - not one that I'll see in my lifetime - where people have figured a lot of this stuff out, and ashamedly giggle at our religions like we laugh at people who thought the earth was flat.
Mark
For what it's worth, anyone touting my inconsistencies, I do hope you can see how it's been shown to be exceptionally consistent. Explain to me how someone pro-life can be pro-death penalty and not be inconsistent.
Retracted.
I, too, have the benefit of consistency on my side, as I oppose the Death Penalty for the same reasons you do. But I also oppose it for one added reason, and that is that the taking of a human life is wrong . . . period, full stop.
I actually agree with you on this one, Mark . . . except about giggling at Religion. Ever considered that maybe, just maybe, that will be the day when we actually know enough to have an intelligent "conversation" with God?
Haven't you learned anything?
I covered your question.. we don't consider them human. They receive no human rights because they are embryos / fetus whatever the term is. Face it, you're not a "person" until you are squeezed out of a vagina / ripped from the abdomen. They do not have "life" as of yet. Is it a different DNA entity? Sure, but so is the A&W chubby chicken I had for dinner.
And no, this does not bother me.
Mark
I give more credit to our race than needed an overseer. On that day, we are become god.
Mark
Retracted.
Oh fuck off. Convenience typing.
Mark
where do we think religion and the concept of god came from? before there were humans, it's not like the animals were talking about it. it wasn't until humans began developing (for lack of a better term) 'stronger' brains that the concept of religion was created. this original concept was based on a notion of mystery. things that these early humans could not explain (for example, scientifically) they would label with terms of the unknown. so for example, if there was an earthquake, we didn't know that it was tectonic plates shifting under the ground as they float around on giant pools of burning hot lava. the only way we could explain mysterious phenomena was equating to something we also just couldn't explain and couldn't understand. i.e. god made the earth shake.
now where did this notion of god come from you may ask? from above, you could argue it came out of necessity alone. that is we had to calm people down and we can't just keep saying 'we have no idea what is happening ever' so instead we'll just say god's doing it and then we can try to explain why god is doing it - simply put, trying to explain god's providence is more enjoyable and much easier a concept for humans to argue over as compared to why did the earth or the universe do it because no one in their right mind would argue that the universe chose to do something as universes don't make choices. but a god with possible human qualities, surely he makes choices. so again, it was born out of a necessity to explain, with a complete lack of knowledge and understanding, those things we couldn't explain.
furthermore, our human brains allowed us to remember past events better than other animals, and they allowed us to consider future implications. these two enhancements also helped us create the concept of god. early humans had the capacity to look back on past generations and remember what they did and taught. using this information, we could then look to the future and try to make decisions that were helpful in our survival. survival of our species back then demanded much from us as a group and the only way we could survive was to build on our past generations and use the specific knowledge that they had suffered and realized through their own tribulations. as a result, we as humans began to praise our ancestors. they laid the way for our being and our survival and if it wasn't for their pain and struggle, we wouldn't be here. as a result from this, humans began worshiping their previous ancestors and in a sense we began to see them as gods. we would pray to the old leaders, the old wise men, etc. to bring us rain to grow our food for example, or to keep us safe from predators and so on. this was the very beginning of the idea of religions and gods - a means for us to explain what we couldn't, and a creation of hope to come.
stay tuned for the case for atheism part 2: with big numbers comes big responsibility.
Words mean things . . . particularly in a discussion like this one. I would think you would be smarter than that.
whysoserious.gif
I think substance trumps delivery, and further, if you re-read what I said, technically I was consistent there too....
The first usage of children refers to born humans that may not have been wanted. The second use continues along that particular theme (i.e. consistency), and contextualizes them with regards to the birth-givers, and their potential failings.
If you'd rather continue with nit-picking potshots, there are ample grammar nazis around for you. But upon reviewing my statement, it actually is perfectly in line with my consideration of the fetus not being a kid.
In summary, I am smarter than that.
Mark
This.
Attention people of faith everywhere. This glaring inconsistency is one major part of why people who dislike religion dislike it so much - we're a bunch of hypocrites for the most part. And Mark used the death penalty, which really isn't that big of a deal numbers wise. What he should have said was 'how can someone pro-life be pro-WAR?".
Because who is the most pro-war demographic in North America? I have little doubt it is conservative christians. Who's the most pro-torture? Ditto.
"Love your enemies" is just outright ignored by so many people.
After re-reading, please accept my apology and retraction. You are indeed correct.
Well, except for that last bit . . .
I am intentionally taking this quote that Mark intended as religion-related and using it on the abortion side of things.
- Before I go further though - are we really having a religion AND an abortion debate in the same thread? This is 2013, you'd think we would have learned better by now. And yet I continue... -
Neonatal care becomes more advanced with each passing year. Even now it is possible that in the same city (same hospital? not sure.) in North America there is right now a fetus being terminated at the same level of development as is a child being saved after a premature birth.
What if we advance to the point where a child can be developed outside the uterus from the moment of conception? What if a woman's options become Have an Abortion or Have it Removed (to be developed another way then adopted). Costs would be enormous, but a)Abortions aren't free either and b) this would give the Christians/Muslims/Jews/Other Anti-Killing groups the chance to put their money where their mouths are.
Anyway, what if in the future they look back at the days when children were killed in staggering numbers just because they were helpless and think we were barbarians?
And further - isn't it interesting that the role of Science is reversed here? I mean, there's a pretty sound scientific argument that not only is a fetus a individual person, it is also alive. The counterargument is based only on what some person or persons decided to proclaim and others have followed: "we don't consider them human. They receive no human rights because they are embryos / fetus whatever the term is. Face it, you're not a "person" until you are squeezed out of a vagina / ripped from the abdomen. They do not have "life" as of yet."
Yet it is the christians condemned for following rhetoric and ignoring science. Hmm.
This last part is a pretty solid argument, but, science is not just technology / medical advances. There are scientific studies such as psychology and sociology that (though not as precise as say math and physics), could also be utilized to provide you with a more accurate measure of the likelihood of successful parenting. You're a well established successful couple in their early 30s? Pretty high resources for a child. You're an illiterate 18 year old kid with 4 credits and a criminal record? Maybe not so much. Note again, science is not passing judgement, it gives facts. THIS is the crux of my issue with the pro-life people.
The buzzword of this generation is bullying. You want to see bullies? Look at the people standing outside of the hospital down the street from me with their placards claiming the sin of abortion. How dare you pressure and chastise someone who may be going through the hardest decision of their lives.
Your point about science recognizing a fetus as a wholly separate entity, well, that would come down to empirical definitions. I'm sure any study would refer to it as a fetus / embryo, and not "child". Also, if you're going to say it is a child, how come I haven't heard the religious folks say that a woman should be charged with child abuse / endangerment when she drinks / smokes / does drugs while pregnant? If a woman miscarries, should she be considered neglectful? The argument of a fetus having full recognition as a human being simply does not exist, and I don't frankly think it should.
Mark
"The argument of a ______ having full recognition as a human being simply does not exist, and I don't frankly think it should."
Took this out because I needed to make an actual reply and not just quote. Plus it deserves special recognition.
In the past, wouldn't the same sentence have been used for the mentally handicapped, the 'crippled', black people (3/5ths law), or others? I'll stick with protecting all human life always.
We get that you do not think that an unborn child should have Rights. That is fine. Others disagree with you. A compelling argument can be made that the unborn are in every respect (save one) as much a human being as you or I. Given that, and given that there is ample ability for women and men to prevent pregnancy beforehand, should the Law not take that into account and side with the more "defenseless" of the two people involved in the abortion equation?
I'm not sure what you mean about this, care to elaborate? I haven't heard of any court rulings that would prevent people from protesting?
Perhaps not, but there is usually plenty of "tsk tsking" behind her back if she does. And I am sure the anti-smoking zealots will get there eventually. Nothing the nanny-staters like better than curtailing ones Rights.
And I"m sure many tsks come from the religious and non religious alike.
given that there is ample ability for women and men to prevent pregnancy beforehand, should the Law not take that into account and side with the more "defenseless" of the two people involved in the abortion equation?
No birth control is 100% preventative. Condoms break, pills falter, etc etc. And I have a feeling that arguing for birth control is against some pointy-hat directives.
You haven't heard of it and neither have I, but don't you think the Religious Right would love to make this a law if they could get away with it? I'm sure we haven't heard of it only because we don't listen to the places it is said. EDIT: in looking up a link for my next point I found this. Hate to say I told you so, but...
This law makes Stand Your Ground look like the Magna Carta.
This does not surprise me in any fashion.
Mark