What Christian Arguments Could Use a Good, Short Answers?

Being an atheist requires more faith than being religious.

What the hell are you smoking?

Well – a classic:

“Atheism is a religion too!”
Atheism is a religion the way “not collecting stamps” is a hobby.

Being an atheist requires more faith than being religious.

And don’t you feel like such a looser for taking the easy way out.

“Atheism do not provide a world view that promotes hope.”

Aside from the fact that atheism is not a world view, many atheist subscribe to Humanism, which is a world view. The hope found in Humanism tries to be as realistic as possible because it puts hope in the abilities of people. This differs from religion, which can define hope in whatever outlandish ways they want.

Atheism is a religion the way “not collecting stamps” is a hobby.

Thank you for that, Ubi Dubium. :o)

Here’s a few because I’m feeling creative.

Christian: Being an atheist requires more faith than being religious.
Atheist: If, by faith, you actually mean “logic” or “reason”, then yes, I agree.

Christian: How can you be so sure that God doesn’t exist? Don’t you need to scour every corner of the universe to be 100% sure?
Atheist: No, I only need to look around the world today and be reasonably convinced that God, if he exists, is doing something seriously wrong.
Or, an alternative answer: So you telling me that I’m going to hell can be said without an iota of evidence? Wouldn’t you have to be entirely sure of that?

Christian: You’re just stealing morals from Christianity!
Atheist: You’re saying that like the natural principles of love and loyalty originated from the Bible…which they didn’t.

Christian: What if you’re wrong about the whole God question and it turns out that we’re right? Wouldn’t THAT put a dent in your ego?
Atheist: In my opinion, it’s about doing right, not being right.

Christian: You’ve made yourself into your own God.
Me: That’s ridiculous. I still believe in a Supreme Being, and that’s Mrs. micketymoc.

“God doesn’t believe in atheists”

errr, actually this one is tough. Anyone have a good witty response to this?

“If there is no God, there are no moral absolutes and we can do whatever we want with no regard for the consequences.”

Who said there are moral absolutes?

“You have no morals!”

If killing people is immoral only because God said it is immoral, then God could say wearing blue is immoral and that would be evil too. However, if God had a reason for declaring murder evil, and not the wearing of blue, then an atheist can use that same reasoning to come to the same conclusion.

(Not exactly quick and snappy, but I tried.)

Here’s my take. Religion is a means to deal with the fact that we’re very finite creatures in a world that is often hostile and difficult.

In other words, it is a way for people to deal with the reality that we’re all going to die. No insult to anyone younger than my 48 years, but often we don’t really think about death when we’re young. It’s like we just choose to ignore it.

I’ve seen this phenomena over and over again. The belief in “eternal life” is nothing more than the child wishing when blowing out the birthday candles that death doesn’t exist.

So, to the extent that you’re willing to say there is no “eternal life,” or no soul that reincarnates or whatever, then you’re a brave soul willing to face the fact that death might just be it.

So, to the extent that atheism says, “hey, this is it,” then it really takes more faith than belief in religion.

“you think we are all here by accident?!”

You claim to actually know how we all got here? The most brilliant people on earth wouldn’t lay claim to that knowledge.

On forums I’ve seen people trot out some paraphrase of CS Lewis’ Trilemma: that Jesus was either Lord, Lunatic, or Liar. Few of these folks actually read CS Lewis but instead go for the tidbits that demolish the idea that Christ was a Liar or a Lunatic from derivative works by Strobel or Josh McDowell. Anyway, the snappy retort is to pose your own “Trilemma”. Jesus was a Man, Myth or Misunderstood.
(see, all the bits start with the letter “M” which is one step *beyond” their Trilemma so it must be a better argument. /sarcasm.

I’m pretty sure I coined this, or at least got to it on my own.

“If you don’t believe in a a God, why don’t you just kill yourself? Whats the point?”

Because my post-death schedule is empty. My pre-death schedule however, is still full.

Jesus was a Man, Myth or Misunderstood.

Ha.
Well, if He was misunderstood, then we should renounce language as useless.
If He was a myth, so was Napoleon.
And, no one denies that He was a man.

Well, actually there doesn’t seem to be any reliable historic evidence that there was a jesus christ as described in the bible. So a myth is a completly accetable description. There is a lot of reliable historic evidence that Napoleon existed. It would seem obvious that he was misunderstood or there wouldn’t be so much violence over what he said.

Christian: Have you thought about your immortal soul?
Atheist: As a matter of fact I have. Along with fairies, dragons and unicorns.

Christian: Are you a Satan worshipper?
Atheist: If I believed in Satan, then wouldn’t I have to believe in God, whom your book says is going to win eventually? Why would I pick the losing side?

Christian: Are you some kind of baby eating monster?
Atheist: Well…yes. I thought everyone knew that.

This is fun.

I’ve had it in mind to go through the Bible and make a list of the contradictory moral commandments and the parts about human depravity and making a list of them, so I can turn it around on anybody who’d try to argue that atheism is nihilistic or that it somehow devalues humanity. At least, if I can get away from video games long enough…

So there’s my two cents. Of course, this argument works better if you’ve got the basic gist of the Old Testament memorized.

“I’ll pray for you.”
“I’ll slaughter a goat in your honor.”

Re: “not collecting stamps.”

I used to use that all the time, but I dislike the negative inherent in it, so I cast about for an alternative. “…Like bald is a hair colour,” is great. I came up with, “like sobriety is an addiction.”

I had a friend use the old, “without God, where do you get your morals?” I almost choked on my coffee. This was an intelligent, successful, business professional, yet he fell into the old canard without thinking. My response? I simply asked him if he thought I was immoral. He had to allow that I was not. (Only works for someone you know well.)

Ha.
Well, if He was misunderstood, then we should renounce language as useless.
If He was a myth, so was Napoleon.
And, no one denies that He was a man.

Misunderstood, like so many xians arguing over which translation of the bible to use?

Did Napoleon room with Jesus? Share a flat? Lovers? How exactly are they connected?

If he didn’t exist, then he wasn’t a man. So you can count me in the denying camp.

I do not know if making jokes about eating babies is smart. We are dealing with people who either do not like or cannot detect irony or sarcasm.

Anyway…. Another is “You are just saying you don’t believe so you can do whatever you want.” That is not why I say I do not believe, but would that be a bad thing? Aren’t religious people in this country always yakking about freedom and how wonderful it is?

Granted, they do until they meet someone who disagrees with them or does something they don’t like. I think to a lot of people “freedom” really means “freedom to conform”. That to me seems like anti-freedom.

“You atheists are just as close- minded as religious fundamentalists.”

Is “No” a pithy enough answer?

No, I guess not. How about:

“Actually, I’m open to the possibility that my atheism might be mistaken. I can even give you a list of the kinds of evidence that would convince me that my atheism was mistaken. Now, can you tell me what evidence would convince you that your faith was mistaken?”

(Tip of the hat to Ebonmuse for this one.)

Question: There’s no such thing as atheism. If you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist then aren’t you an agnostic rather than an atheist?
Answer: *sigh* Get a dictionary. There’s a difference between lack of belief and lack of knowledge.

This whole thread is just like the old Mad magazine’s “Snappy answers to stupid questions”.

Question: Why are you not out killing and raping if you are an atheist?
Answer: Since this is the only chance at life we get, why would I want to deprive somebody else of their life. If the only thing stopping you from leaning out a window with a high powered rifle and shooting up town, then keep your faith.

What if you are wrong?

Rational arguments rarely work against theists, as they are (by definition) irrational. You can craft the most elegant and well-supported arguments possible, and theists will flatly deny their validity, usually by yammering something about faith.

So, you want a good, short answer against a Christian? Just point over their shoulder and exclaim “Oh crap! It’s JESUS!!!“. When they look over their shoulder, quickly walk away. c^_^?

Since this is the “Friendly” Atheist site, I dare to write here as a former atheist, current friendly theist. I’d just like to remind everyone that the question of God’s existence is really the most important one we have to answer, since it determines whether or not we find purpose in the universe. There is not really a competition between atheists and theists. There are arguments for God that involve no references to scripture of any kind. I invite you to read my post On the Breaking of Bad Habits Acquired in One’s Youth: Smoking and Atheism for something about my personal experience.

You’re looking for an excuse not to believe.

I assume, then, that you use your religion as an excuse not to believe in every other religion.

Your decision is based on other Christians’ behavior, not on Jesus’ teachings

Jesus’s teachings are irrelevant to believing the doctrine pertaining to his divinity. The decision to not be Christian is lack of belief in the supernatural mentioned in the Bible, not the bad behavior of Christians or the maxims that Jesus allegedly stated.

You have a rebellious spirit.

It is not rebellious to not believe in something. If it is, you owe Zeus an apology.

Nothing gets me quite as worked up as an imaginary argument.

[…]There’s a great discussion unfolding over at Friendly Atheist regarding religious people who flippantly dismiss atheists. The typical (unthinking) arguments are listed along with some good-natured atheistic comebacks[…]

Wasn’t Akhenaton a pharaoh? Maybe you meant Aton?

Well, pharaohs were supposed to be ‘gods on earth’ no?

You are in fact correct, although the point would stand, as Akhenaton is a good representative of the religion.

Greta Christina said,
July 22, 2008 at 1:24 am

I’ve had it in mind to go through the Bible and make a list of the contradictory moral commandments and the parts about human depravity and making a list of them, so I can turn it around on anybody who’d try to argue that atheism is nihilistic or that it somehow devalues humanity.

Someone’s done the work for you. Check out the Skeptic’s Bible. Very, very useful resource.

Thanks for the tip. I’ve known about the Skeptics Annotated Bible for some time, but I would be using other Bibles to corroborate the verses.

Christian: “Without belief in God people would run around committing terrible crimes.”

Me: “I think you just gave us a very candid description of how you would behave if you didn’t think you have a policeman in the sky ready to punish you. While that shows your morals are very shallow and immature, at least you’re being honest about it.”

Cafeeine:

Well, pharaohs were supposed to be ‘gods on earth’ no?

Well frankly i completely forgot about that one, but when you allow deified people, it gets weird… Is it really that hard to accept existence of much of Roman emperors, which were also considered gods? Eg. “Do you believe in Hadrian?” After all, there’s evidence that all these praraohs and Roman emperors existed. And you bet they tried to get rid of every mention of Akhnaton after his death.

Since this is the “Friendly” Atheist site, I dare to write here as a former atheist, current friendly theist. I’d just like to remind everyone that the question of God’s existence is really the most important one we have to answer, since it determines whether or not we find purpose in the universe.

Hi Bob Estes and welcome.

I am wondering if you’re going to keep posting here, or if you’re doing a one-or-two-off post. (I tend to get deep into conversations with new posters who have provocative questions… then they leave!)

Anyway, I hope you’ll stick around and have lots of nice in-depth discussions here. We can certainly use more thoughtful posters like you.

As far as your statement above goes…

“…the question of God’s existence is really the most important one we have to answer, since it determines whether or not we find purpose in the universe…”

You are assuming quite a few things in that statement. For instance, you are assuming that we CAN indeed answer that question…. it may be totally beyond us to answer it.

But moreover, I think you are making several unsupported assumptions within the question itself. First, that a universe WITH a god is actually a purposeful universe. There may be a purposeless creator ‘god’ or gods. There may be a god of chaos. The ‘god’ that created the universe may not in any way resemble a thinking being in any way we humans could recognize. Concepts like ‘purpose’ or ‘intention’ might not apply whatsoever to a being which exists outside of time. The creation of the universe may have been unintended or accidental. The creation of the universe may have destroyed the creator. It may have been actually an act of destruction of something that existed previously.

You are also assuming that a universe without a god is a universe without a purpose. There’s no way you can know that one either, but you conveniently assume it without stating that you are merely assuming it. Well, since I am part of the universe, why can’t I just have a purpose and then therefore the universe has a purpose (among many)?

You seem to think that believing that a god exists determines whether or not we find purpose in the universe. You are assuming that it is for us to find purpose in the universe. That is unsupported. I might very well assert that the most important thing is to find life in the universe. Or humor. Or chocolate. Or unicorns. Not everything we hope to find in the universe necessarily exists.

Simply signing up with a church doesn’t reorder the universe. Merely choosing to believe in a god doesn’t suddenly create purpose in the universe.

You seem to equate “purpose” with “God”. I think you’re playing fast and loose with some pretty nebulous concepts, and using one to smuggle in the other. I think you need to be more specific, because these assertions up to now are pretty slippery.

Define what a purpose of the universe would be. Let’s assume that the universe HAS a purpose. What is it accomplishing? How do we know that it is indeed accomplishing this task, and how do we know when it has accomplished this task?

We don’t know these things, and we probably will never know these things. I’m being honest with myself when I say “I don’t know”. I won’t join a church full of people who are sure until I’m sure as well.

Have you evidence?

Bob Estes said:

“I invite you to read my post On the Breaking of Bad Habits Acquired in One’s Youth: Smoking and Atheism for something about my personal experience.”

Hi Bob:) I read your blog/essay (quite articulate) and I have a question: what made you become a theist? was it because your previous ‘worldview’ (as an atheist) carried with it “the burden of purposeless mortality”? is that the main reason?

I ask because, although your blog post/essay is quite lengthy, you never really seem to touch on the specifics of what led to your ‘conversion’.

“God doesn’t believe in atheists”

errr, actually this one is tough. Anyone have a good witty response to this?

If God doesn’t believe in atheists, and here I exist as one example among many, God must have imperfect knowledge of the universe, and therefore not be God per your definition.

Also, If God does exist, who are you to speak for what he believes in? I don’t recall it being mentioned in any holy scriptures that God doesn’t believe in atheists. Did he speak to you personally and tell you this information?

Damn …

Short, snappy argument FAIL

Sorry, raging case of SIWOTI syndrome.

the question of God’s existence is really the most important one we have to answer, since it determines whether or not we find purpose in the universe.

You can argue that it determines whether or not we find a purpose to the universe, but to me the question does not affect whether we find a purpose in the universe, only whether the purpose is preordained by a higher power, or whether we find our own purpose in the universe.

Maybe we’re special because God created us in his own image, or maybe we’re special because billions of variables came together at the right time and place to ignite life on a hunk of rock orbiting a nondescript star in a nondescript part of a nondescript galaxy.

Well, here’s one my Mom (who’s uber-Catholic) pulled on her husband (who’s an atheist):

My mom basically told him to come to church with her one Sunday a month.
To which he responded: Sure, if you’ll stay home from church one Sunday a month.
Of course, she was all like “No, that’s not how it works!!!” and was all offended. LOL, well, how do you think your atheist husband felt? Supposedly her purpose was not to try to convert him (yeah, right!) but to try to spend more time with him. Well, wouldn’t staying home one Sunday a month accomplish the same goal?

Replying to Siamang’s questions and statements:

I am wondering if you’re going to keep posting here, or if you’re doing a one-or-two-off post.

No plans, no promises, as I have other things to do as well. But thanks for the welcome.

“…the question of God’s existence is really the most important one we have to answer, since it determines whether or not we find purpose in the universe…”

You are assuming quite a few things in that statement. For instance, you are assuming that we CAN indeed answer that question…. it may be totally beyond us to answer it.

Yes, I agree that when we start looking, we can’t know whether an answer is attainalble. In my mind, I have found the answer, so I posed the question that way. I probably should have said “TRY to answer.”

There may be a purposeless creator ‘god’ or gods. There may be a god of chaos. The ‘god’ that created the universe may not in any way resemble a thinking being in any way we humans could recognize. Concepts like ‘purpose’ or ‘intention’ might not apply whatsoever to a being which exists outside of time. The creation of the universe may have been unintended or accidental. The creation of the universe may have destroyed the creator. It may have been actually an act of destruction of something that existed previously.

Well, I think you’re getting into the orbiting teapot zone there. One can imagine many seemingly logical possibilities about the nature of God, but the examples you give are not consistent with the actual universe and its wondrous physical laws. Maybe that’s just the physicist in me talking. I see a universe that burst into being, then evolved with the formation of stars in which elements heavier than helium formed, and with planets around some of the stars, on at least one of which planets life came into being and evolved into more and more complex forms, finally reaching conscious intelligent life capable of posing the question of purpose. So, I am willing to make the assumption that if there is a Creator, that Creator has power and intelligence beyond our comprehension, but not in some bizarre way. I don’t know if you’ve read my post or not, but it touches on that.

You are also assuming that a universe without a god is a universe without a purpose. There’s no way you can know that one either…

That’s a conclusion I reached during my life. I don’t know that it was my original assumption. I know I used to try hard to convice myself that we made purpose and that that was enough, but it didn’t work. It’s not a question of logic but of inner satisfaction. If you feel the universe has purpose without God, you are feeling something I can’t, but there is no convincing logical argument to be made, just evaluating for yourself. My blog post dealt with quotations from a couple of well-known atheists (Dawkins for one) that looked for purpose in the universe (assuming materlalism, i.e. no God) and saw none.

Merely choosing to believe in a god doesn’t suddenly create purpose in the universe.

No, there is a true answer to the question of whether or not the universe has purpose, so one person’s opinion, which could be right or wrong, does not change the answer by creating purpose. I don’t think that you can really choose to “believe in a god.” What I’m saying is that when one recognizes that God exists, then one at the same time recognizes purpose, since God would not have created the universe without a purpose, even if one’s understanding of the purpose is incomplete. At the same time, one feels that it was done out of love for creation. Now, while one can’t choose to believe, one can choose to be open to being convinced or not. Again, I refer you to my blog post.

Define what a purpose of the universe would be. Let’s assume that the universe HAS a purpose. What is it accomplishing? How do we know that it is indeed accomplishing this task, and how do we know when it has accomplished this task?

We don’t know these things, and we probably will never know these things. I’m being honest with myself when I say “I don’t know”. I won’t join a church full of people who are sure until I’m sure as well.

There is no distinction to be made between God’s purpose for the universe and the purpose of the universe. So asking if the universe is accomplishing its purpose is the wrong way to put it. God is accomplishing God’s purpose through and for the universe.

You are starting to ask theological questions really. Once one recognizes that there is a purpose, then the next step is indeed to try to find out what it is and how one should order one’s own life to be in harmony with it. That’s the point at which one starts to look around at existing religions. God exists. One may have felt God’s presence in some way that was well beyond an intellectual decision that God must exist. To an outsider or to yourself at an earlier time any such mystical experience might be classed as pathological, yet you have to decide what it meant. One realizes revelation by God is not ruled out, and then there’s a new set of data to evaluate: that of the teachings and beliefs of existing religions. They have after all been right on the most important question.

Have you evidence?

I say the evidence that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is there in the workings of the universe, including the production of moral beings in it. You are not yet convinced of that, and I sense you are not quite ready to seriously consider it. I refer you again to my blog post, which is quite long.

@Bob:

I don’t think that you can really choose to “believe in a god.”

You seem to be making the classic, “You guys really believe in god, but you’re in denial” argument, and your subsequent use of the word “recognize” reinforces this impression. If one can choose not to believe in god, i think it’s implied that one can choose to believe. I think you might be saying that true faith doesn’t feel like a choice, and I imagine that in a world of so-called “true” believers, this might be true. However, in modern Christianity, doubt is welcomed as a strengthener of faith. The acknowledgment of such doubt means to me that many believers do, in fact, acknowledge the alternative to belief, and are thus choosing to continue to believe.

As is also often the case with theists, you are using the phrase “keeping an open mind” as a synonym for becoming a theist. I’m sure flat-earthers complain of a lack of open minds as well. What I mean, simply, is that one does not have to temporary believe something in order to realize that it’s a load of crap, and I think temporary belief –preferably, on your part, leading to permanent belief — is what you mean when you refer to an “open mind.”

From rational conviction that God probably existed came a final plunge into theism that was far from merely intellectual.

Your “insight” about mathematics is difficult to follow. Of course mathematics is non-material and abstract: we made it up. It endures as a system of study partly because many types of math have real-world applications, and partly because it’s just interesting. The fact that we can imagine a non-material reality implies nothing more than the fact that we can imagine a non-material reality.

the basics of moral behavior involving relationships between those moral beings would be virtually identical [to ours]

Why would they be the same? There’s absolutely no basis for comparison between us and purely hypothetical extraterrestrial cultures. They could be a hive-mind, with no notion of the individual, or they could embody infinite other possibilities. Your assertion that most religions prescribe similar moral principles also lacks a basis in reality. The so-called perfect set-up of the fundamental physical constants is trivially explained by the anthropic principle.

Everything you mentioned seems to be an elaboration of the cosmological argument, or the argument from design. None of them is compelling. You were bothered by a Universe with no purpose, and now you feel better. Same old things. Reading your words makes me consider again the idea that propensity to believe in religions may be genetic.

I didn’t mean to sound smug in that last post. It just seems as though you were not an educated atheist back when you still were. I will wholeheartedly agree with you that the Universe is a wonderful place; I’ll even admit that I once thought as you do, and am still tempted to explain all this wonder by believing in something that I wish to be true, but is likely not. I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone knows yet, just how all this works as it does. We may never crack the code, but that’s no reason to start dreaming up gods to make us sleep better at night.

At a concert of Charles Ives music, at which the composer was present, a member of the audience began to complain about the dissonance of the music. Ives stood up and said something to the effect of “shut up and use your ears like a man!” I say, use your brain like a man (sorry women). Some things are difficult to accept–so what, do we just avoid them and prefer comforting beliefs, shut our eyes and whistle past the graveyard?

You mentioned the music of Bach. When someone thinks life on earth is a miracle and doubts the theory of evolution, they’re probably ignorant of science or at least biology. When someone uses Bach as an argument that there is a god, they either have an inflated view of what the man accomplished, or they’re not a composer. Just because you don’t understand what Bach was doing, and you’re enamored with him, don’t make him a vessel of god.

Bob Estes, you wrote,

but the examples you give are not consistent with the actual universe and its wondrous physical laws.

So you assume that the god’s existence(s) are constrained by the laws of the observable universe as we are able to perceive them currently?

…on at least one of which planets life came into being and evolved into more and more complex forms, finally reaching conscious intelligent life capable of posing the question of purpose. So, I am willing to make the assumption that if there is a Creator, that Creator has power and intelligence beyond our comprehension, but not in some bizarre way.

Well, that’s a huge assumption, now isn’t it? I could equally say that the history of the universe culminates in life capable of surfing internet porn, so I’m willing to make the assumption that if there is a Creator, He likes Girls Gone Wild-dot-com. It’s as well supported an argument.

I wrote:

You are also assuming that a universe without a god is a universe without a purpose. There’s no way you can know that one either…

You responded:

That’s a conclusion I reached during my life. I don’t know that it was my original assumption.

So that’s a conclusion you reached? Based on what investigation?
Were you really able to observe universes with gods and purposes, and without gods and purposes and thereby determine that purposeful universes always had gods, and godless universes never had purposes?

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I know I used to try hard to convice myself that we made purpose and that that was enough, but it didn’t work.

I don’t try to convince myself of anything. I try to best understand the world I find myself in. It may not be enough… oh well, tough shit, those are the breaks.

It’s not a question of logic but of inner satisfaction.

My inner satisfaction is not placated so easily. I have to be more honest with myself than that. I don’t claim to know things about the universe that I cannot. If you must in order to feel satisfied with your life, then go ahead. But don’t expect to come to an atheist website and change minds with that kind of argument.

What I’m saying is that when one recognizes that God exists, then one at the same time recognizes purpose, since God would not have created the universe without a purpose,

You cannot possibly know that unless you are God.

I say the evidence that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is there in the workings of the universe, including the production of moral beings in it.

Why? How is that evidence for the supernatural? Morality isn’t any big deal, it’s just a set of social behaviors… robots evolve social behavior in evolutionary simulations, for example. It’s right there in game theory and Nash equillibria.

How is the existence of the natural supposed to be evidence for a supernatural intelligence? That’s a complete non-sequitur. It’s like saying that the existence of bats is evidence of the existence of vampires, or the existence of skeletons is evidence of the existence of zombies.

I think you’re a nice guy, and I’m glad you’re part of the conversation… but I’m afraid your reasoning is rather weak. You’re assuming things about God that you cannot possibly know. That does not seem to make you doubt the boldness of your assertions or shrink from wildly inflated claims to knowledge. Like most believers, you’re the utmost authority on the Unknowable Ineffable.

Or as the late George Carlin called it, “the all-time champion of false-promises and exaggerated claims — religion.”

I keep my claims modest and close at hand to what I hold.

I don’t know what, if anything, caused the universe to be in the shape we see it today. Neither of us knows. You weren’t there… I wasn’t there. Neither of us knows what, if anything, decided to put this all together in this way.
Neither of us really knows.

It’s just that one of us is being honest about it.

Lots of fun. Come back, Bob!

@Bob

mass demonstrations in praise of dictators

Like…church?

Anywho, your insistence that you’re not making “arguments” indicates a simple misunderstanding of the word. An argument, an assertion, a statement, anything where you’re making any kind of point whatsoever, they’re all the same thing. Yes, you are making points, so you’re making an argument.

As a scientist, you hopefully understand that claims can’t be made about the natural world without evidence. As there is, by definition, no way of acquiring evidence about the supernatural world, it is impossible to make a substantiated claim about it, and thus not worth considering.

David Crespo,
I’m afraid you’re the one that doesn’t know the meaning of the word argument. An argument is the reasoning behind a point of view or assertion designed to convince others of that point of view or assertion. If I say that I doubt many atheists will choose to start praying, that is not an argument, it is a statement of my opinion. That is the kind of thing that has been called an argument in this forum. Your extension of the meaning of argument to include “an assertion, a statement, anything where you’re making any kind of point whatsoever” would nullify the meaning of a good word.

I’ll admit I exaggerated the definition of “argument”, but my point was that your post was full of arguments, or by your own definition, full of statements supporting a point of view. A few examples:

My main point was that evidence for God was in the nature of circumstantial evidence.

A point! And then…

I thought [recognition of God] improbable without the minimum condition of prayer

That’s a big claim.

I think one goes with what seems most likely to be true. Now that I feel certain of the truth about God’s existence, there’s no way I could make the choice of disbelief.

First sentence is the claim, second sentence is the support. Smells like an argument.

Bob, your obvious high intelligence combined with your seeming desire to avoid thinking about your beliefs deeply enough to consider them in terms of argument leads me to the conclusion that you really, really want to believe in some kind of deity. I’m reminded of the anecdote where one guy told his relative he was no longer a Christian (or Jew, or whatever), and the relative asked, “Well, what religion are you now?”

There seems to be in many theists a need for some very poorly defined notion of purpose or meaning in life, and this need itself is rarely questioned. When examined critically, it is evident that this need is artificial and arbitrary. To me, the other most important sign of the preposterousness of belief in the supernatural is the flood of contradictions tolerated by the faithful in their own minds. For example, the idea of an omnipotent being that actually cares about you, or even has the human feeling of caring at all. Also, a deity is a superficial solution to the question of purpose because we cannot know if our beliefs are true.

I disagree most wholeheartedly with your assertion that we discovered mathematics. The fact that mathematics is objective does not imply that it is a window into some universal reality.

The point of math is that it’s based on axioms. The rest of mathematical study involves the consequences of these axioms. As long as mathematicians agree on the axioms, they absolutely cannot reach disparate conclusions. Mathematics is the only objective discipline, precisely because all conditions are accounted for. The reason science is not as clear is because there are things going on that we don’t know about. But with math, we define the universe of discourse.

Reality is just a crappy version of the mathematical ideal (which we have fleshed out in our imaginations over time), which basically never exists in the natural world. For example, it is impossible to have something be a perfect (I mean perfect!) square. But we can imagine it. This doesn’t mean that there is an ether hiding in the fourth dimension, rather invisible but still affecting the third, that contains these ideals.

Just to deal with the latest from Darryl:

I would assume there are other maths besides the ones we have invented thus far–there must be.

I don’t know about “other.” I view it more as the unexplored territory of a single vast (limitless?) domain.

But, to your idea, don’t you think there’s a mighty wide chasm between thought (as in mathematical thought) and spirit?

I, of course, don’t know exactly what the relationship is between thought, spirit, and brain. It’s one of the ultimate mysteries. My point was not that mathematics as a non-material reality shed light on the question you raise, but just that the idea of a non-material reality was new to me and made me rethink my 100% materialist view of reality. To others the concept might not be that important.

We know where thoughts reside, and we know they are sensations in our material brain.

Well we know that thoughts are accompanied by brain activity. Where thoughts “reside” is beyond us in my opinion, but I think it is a spiritual realm.

If a brain dies, thinking ceases.

Not to say that’s wrong, but to take the stance of others in this thread, we don’t know anything about that, since the person who once thought can no longer communicate with us. We just know that all thought linked to activity of that brain has ceased.

We know how to alter thoughts, induce feelings and images, and how to enhance or diminish certain kinds of thoughts by manipulating the brain. How do you get from there to extrapolating a spiritual realm in which god dwells?

I wouldn’t overstate what “we know how” to do. The interesting thing about such brain stimulation experiments (the ones I have read about anyway) is that the people experiencing them are aware of what is going on (e.g. they can hear the sound they make) but they don’t feel that it is being done by themselves. So there is a personality and a will that is somehow standing above the localized brain activity. A very fascinating subject. To me, having a strong faith in God, I can only answer “I don’t know how God does it,” as I have to say to many other things, on the question of spirit and brain relationship.

Obviously it was not because of a clear understanding of this mystery that I came to believe in God. I wouldn’t say that death of the brain meaning the final end of the person is ruled out by God’s existence. I just don’t know the plan, though I have faith that all will be well, whatever the answer is.

I imagine this will be my last comment in this thread anyway, but I thought I owed Siamang one.

The context of my sentence was a suggestion to atheists who demand convincing evidence of God’s existence that they should specify to themselves, if they could, what that evidence would look like.

And you think we haven’t done that?

Isn’t the very idea that we’re atheists predicated on the notion that we DID in fact decide what the evidence should look like, and found that evidence lacking? You may not agree that my standards are appropriate, but, you know, I have actually thought about this. Maybe that’s a big surprise to you.

Based on my own experience, you can (without ever acknowledging it to yoursefl) decide there is simply no evidence short of direct miraculous intervention by God that would be deemed sufficient proof of God’s existence. The idea simply becomes unthinkable within the context of a totally materialist outlook. God, being supernatural, is simply defined away. So I don’t think my suggestion that atheists examine whether there is any sort of evidence that could convince them is either insulting or superfluous.

For example, you wrote:

“Are you truly open to revelation? The best way to become open to it must be through prayer, but few are the atheists who would start from that point.”

Instead of asking us if we’ve tried prayer… which is a totally relevant question… you tell us that few of us have.

Really?!?!

I think most atheists in America are former theists. Have you considered that most atheists might be atheists because they spent years of their life praying and felt no effect at all? That might be a question worth asking… after all, you’ve got a lot of atheists right here ready to answer. We’re all ears.

Let me repeat that I was not recommending that anyone demand revelation, as I think there is convincing circumstantial evidence for God. But regarding those who would only be satisfied with revelation, I said that I thought few atheists, meaning currently confirmed atheists, would choose what from the atheistic standpoint would seem a ridiculous idea, namely praying, as the place to start looking for God. The fact that they had previously prayed before becoming atheists would possibly make them even less likely to start with prayer. That’s all.

I’m not sure what your goals here are. If they are conversation, you’re failing. If they are conversion, you’re failing. If they are to convince us that you’re a deep thinker, you’re failing.

So why are you here?

Well, I had no idea I would be engaged in such a long dialog. I pointed out a post to my blog, and that provoked some responses, which I felt I should answer. Actually, you asked me if I was going to stick around or disappear right away, with the implication that you’d rather I didn’t vanish immediately. Sorry I didn’t get a chance to answer everyone. Anyone that is interested in email contact with me can go to my blog to get my address.

I never asked him to leave. I asked him what goals his conversation here had for him in an attempt to get him to ask questions of us instead of telling us where we had failed or not thought about stuff or whatever.

Read what I wrote upthread, David. Did you think it came off as a request for him to leave?

If so, then I totally failed what I was attempting, which was to get him off the mode of coming here and making judgements and pronouncements, and actually engage us in two-way conversation.

I notice that he didn’t respond to what I thought my main point was, which was “stop telling us what we supposedly think, and instead *ask* us.”

So it’s quite likely that he didn’t get that out of what I wrote.

Siamang:

So those of us who used to be believers and prayed all the time and got nothing, and eventually stopped praying and came to the opinion that an interactive prayer-answering God either didn’t exist or didn’t exist for us… We should pray again, just to make sure? How about again and again and again?

The goal, Siamang, is to portray us as a bunch of quitters.

“Have you read the Bible?”

I have up to three responses. They can be used as a set in the order below, or as stand alone responses depending on the situation.

1. “You do realize that it’s your religious book, not mine, right?”

I wait to see if they acknowledge this statement before continuing. Many Christians really think that non-Christians are some form of lapsed Christian that just has to be shown some bit of information that will act like magic on the non-Christian and snap them back to Jesus.

For some people, I have to assert to them that “I am not a Christian, (do you understand?)” … if they don’t get all bent out of shape and need to be calmed down, I can continue with one of the other responses.

2. Yes, I have. Twice, plus commentary. Once on my own, and once as literature as well as part of a comparative religion class.

3. I’ve read a few different religious texts. How many did you read before deciding on your religion?