Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How would an atheist even know if they found evidence of a supernatural being? What kind of evidence would you be looking for?

That would really depend on what kind of supernatural being you are talking about, and
how you go about defining what 'supernatural' means.

I have a definition of supernatural that does mean that it's amenable to being studied and
discovered by science if it were to exist. But few others use or accept that definition and
other definitions don't allow the supernatural as a category to exist at all, because those
definitions hold it to be a logically contradictory concept.

So it matters what these words mean, and what kind of 'supernatural being' you are talking
about, to be able to answer what evidence would be sufficient to justify believing in such a
being.

And it might be that there is no amount of evidence that sufficiently justifies belief.
For example a being of infinite power couldn't ever be proven to have infinite power to or by any
being that does not also have such power. Because we could only ever measure or comprehend
a finite effect... Now there comes a point where it is probably irrelevant, as once a being has
demonstrated a certain level of power the difference between that and infinite power from our
perspective is a distinction without a difference. But if you're actually trying to prove that yes this
being is definitively infinite in power, you're out of luck because that's just impossible to do.
But in that case, where it's not possible to evidentially justify belief, belief is just not justified.
There is no getting around the fact that belief without sufficient evidence to justify that belief is
irrational and unsupportable. You are definitionally unjustified in holding beliefs in things for which
you lack sufficient evidence to justify that belief.


As a last thought however, there is a line that gets used on the "Atheist Experience" call in TV show
[based in Austin Texas] that applies here. "I don't know what evidence would convince me that a god
exists. But any god worthy of the name should know and be able to prove it's own existence to me".
[I'm paraphrasing]

Originally posted by moonbus
My point exactly. I have been parodying Fetchmyjunk who thinks one must believe either that God exists or that God does not exist. I reject the question, just as I reject the question whether I have stopped beating my wife. Evidently this is beyond Fetchmyjunk's comprehension.

I realized that right after I posted. Shut up, me.

Originally posted by apathist
I realized that right after I posted. Shut up, me.

"Realized"--indeed you did. How apt.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How would an atheist even know if they found evidence of a supernatural being? What kind of evidence would you be looking for?

Good question. How would a theist know? Why do theists believe things without evidence?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Good question. How would a theist know? Why do theists believe things without evidence?

Theists think they do have evidence, and Christians often cite the Bible as evidence (of events of the past, such as miraculous healings). Of course, they have rather different criteria what counts as good and reliable evidence, compared to accepted criteria in historical (not specifically Biblical) research generally. Not to mention what counts as good and reliable evidence in scientific research (in geology or astronomy, for example).

Still, at some point, there is bound to be a gap between evidence and faith, and that gap can only be 'leaped', not filled in by completely adequate evidence. Even witnessing a miracle (or what one takes to be one) does not by itself guarantee conversion; lots of Jews and pagans witnessed alleged miracles by Jesus and his Apostles were not converted.

Originally posted by moonbus
Still, at some point, there is bound to be a gap between evidence and faith, and that gap can only be 'leaped', not filled in by completely adequate evidence. Even witnessing a miracle (or what one takes to be one) does not by itself guarantee conversion; lots of Jews and pagans witnessed alleged miracles by Jesus and his Apostles were not converted.

One problem is that a 'miracle' does not necessarily provide evidence that what the miracle worker says is true, yet for some reason this is typically assumed. I will give two examples:
1. A person does a miracle of some kind, then makes a claim about truth that has nothing to do with the miracle performed. People will often go 'well he has demonstrated that he is capable of supernatural powers, therefore he knows something I don't and must be treated as an 'authority'. Therefore believe whatever he says.
2. A person witnesses an unexplained phenomena, say a UFO. They then believe or give extra credence to any UFO story they hear and any explanation they hear. So if someone tells them that the aliens come from Mars and have red eyes and green ears, then they take it seriously because they witnessed some strange lights in the sky.
I find the above behaviour totally irrational, but I guess I can understand it to some extent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Almost all of them.
Some of the big ones:
1. My understanding of the way the brain works leave no room for an rational afterlife (which is fairly central to Christianity).
2. The problem of evil, ie if there is a good, loving God, then why the &%*# do people suffer?
3. The Bible is so obviously made up in parts, there is no good reason to think that t ...[text shortened]... erring to?
See 1. 2. and 3. above for starters. But there is mountains of evidence overall.[/b]

1. My understanding of the way the brain works leave no room for an rational afterlife (which is fairly central to Christianity).

You do know that the brain is not supposed to play a role in the afterlife? But ok, go on...

2. The problem of evil, ie if there is a good, loving God, then why the &%*# do people suffer?

You are saying that it is impossible to reconcile suffering with a good loving God?

3. The Bible is so obviously made up in parts, there is no good reason to think that the important parts aren't too.

Which parts?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You do know that the brain is not supposed to play a role in the afterlife? But ok, go on...

Exactly. But consciousness and our sense of identity is. But I realise that those are so tightly tied to the brain that there really is no separating them making the afterlife you talk of with out a brain clearly impossible.

You are saying that it is impossible to reconcile suffering with a good loving God?
Yes.

Which parts?
I am not going to mark it all out in detail, but the exodus is not historical and everything about Jesus' birth is clearly made up for theological reasons. There is of course a lot more. Revelations isn't so much made up as delusional.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Exactly. But consciousness and our sense of identity is. But I realise that those are so tightly tied to the brain that there really is no separating them making the afterlife you talk of with out a brain clearly impossible.

[b]You are saying that it is impossible to reconcile suffering with a good loving God?
Yes.

Which parts?
I am no ...[text shortened]... logical reasons. There is of course a lot more. Revelations isn't so much made up as delusional.[/b]

Exactly. But consciousness and our sense of identity is. But I realise that those are so tightly tied to the brain that there really is no separating them making the afterlife you talk of with out a brain clearly impossible.

There are some people who believe in the existence of a soul.

http://www.robertlanza.com/do-we-have-a-soul-a-scientific-answer/

Yes.

Would you care to explain why you believe this to be the case?

I am not going to mark it all out in detail, but the exodus is not historical

How do you know this?


and everything about Jesus' birth is clearly made up for theological reasons. There is of course a lot more. Revelations isn't so much made up as delusional.


Just to be clear, do you lack belief in this or do you believe that none of it is possible?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
There are some people who believe in the existence of a soul.

Yes, I kind of stated that that is a requirement for mainstream Christianity, so we can safely say that a significant percentage of Christians believe in a soul.
However, the concept of a soul does not fit with my understanding of the brain. They are incompatible.

Would you care to explain why you believe this to be the case?
Its straight forward. A loving God would not desire unnecessary suffering. An omnipotent God could make all suffering unnecessary.

How do you know this?
From historians.

Just to be clear, do you lack belief in this or do you believe that none of it is possible?
Do I lack belief in what?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I kind of stated that that is a requirement for mainstream Christianity, so we can safely say that a significant percentage of Christians believe in a soul.
However, the concept of a soul does not fit with my understanding of the brain. They are incompatible.

[b]Would you care to explain why you believe this to be the case?
Its straight forw ...[text shortened]... ack belief in this or do you believe that none of it is possible?[/b]
Do I lack belief in what?[/b]

[b]Yes, I kind of stated that that is a requirement for mainstream Christianity, so we can safely say that a significant percentage of Christians believe in a soul.
However, the concept of a soul does not fit with my understanding of the brain. They are incompatible.

The brain and the soul are separate entities, I don't see how your understanding of one entity should negate the existence of the other? Why are they incompatible?

Its straight forward. A loving God would not desire unnecessary suffering. An omnipotent God could make all suffering unnecessary.

What makes you think that your understanding of what a loving God should desire is the correct one?

An omnipotent God could make all suffering unnecessary.

Not if an omnipotent God also wanted humans to have free will.

From historians.

Which ones? What did they have to say? So you do believe in what some historians have to say?

Do I lack belief in what?

In everything you said was not possible. Or do you believe that it is impossible? Apparently there is a difference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
One problem is that a 'miracle' does not necessarily provide evidence that what the miracle worker says is true, yet for some reason this is typically assumed. I will give two examples:
1. A person does a miracle of some kind, then makes a claim about truth that has nothing to do with the miracle performed. People will often go 'well he has demonstrated ...[text shortened]...
I find the above behaviour totally irrational, but I guess I can understand it to some extent.

Of course, it is a lot easier to propagate miracle-stories when people are mostly ignorant of how basic physical and physiological processes work.

Given that the level of medical knowledge was pretty woeful in ancient times, it might be considered a minor miracle if anybody at all got well after being bled and purged by one of the local 'physicians'. Failure to heal someone would probably not have counted against a putative prophet, but any success (even a chance one) might well have left a lasting impression on people.

I think we should credit ancient people with being no less skeptical than we are. Certainly not everyone, even in ancient times, was willing to believe just anything, just because someone had apparently been spontaneously cured of some illness.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The brain and the soul are separate entities, I don't see how your understanding of one entity should negate the existence of the other? Why are they incompatible?

I have many times started threads asking for a definition or explanation of the 'soul' invariably no theist wants to give one. Perhaps you could give it a go. Every definition I know is not separate from the brain.

What makes you think that your understanding of what a loving God should desire is the correct one?
The word 'loving'.

Not if an omnipotent God also wanted humans to have free will.
Another topic that theist dislike discussing. But no, free will is not the cause of most suffering, so it doesn't work even if the whole 'God wan'ts us to have free will' claim made any sense (it doesn't).

Which ones?
The ones that study history.

What did they have to say?
That the exodus almost certainly didn't happen.

So you do believe in what some historians have to say?
No. I merely accept what they have to say as most probably accurate. Its not a religious belief.

[b]In everything you said was not possible. Or do you believe that it is impossible?
What I said was not possible, I am sure is not possible. Call it belief if you like.

Apparently there is a difference.
Yes, there is. But you need to try and understand that difference so that your questions make sense.

Originally posted by moonbus
I think we should credit ancient people with being no less skeptical than we are. Certainly not everyone, even in ancient times, was willing to believe just anything, just because someone had apparently been spontaneously cured of some illness.

I was not talking about ancient people. I was talking about people living today. The aliens example came from a poster in this forum who had apparently had some experiences relating to UFOs and thought that this meant that anything that anyone said about aliens might be true.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was not talking about ancient people. I was talking about people living today. The aliens example came from a poster in this forum who had apparently had some experiences relating to UFOs and thought that this meant that anything that anyone said about aliens might be true.

Oh dear. I missed that. LOL! Gullibility knows no bounds.

The American tabloid press never tires of running invented-news stories, and some people, so I'm told, actually believe them.