Theism vs Atheism Part 2

[BlackSheep]

I am suggesting just that, that atheism "spoke" to him and told him to take the easy way out. After all, theism takes faith where as atheism relieves one from being concerned about their life, thoughts and deeds being judged against a back ground of perfection. Then if one finds in the end God is, well they can just blame God for hiding the evidence, right?

Theism requires one to believe in things with no convincing evidence, I agree. In that way atheism is easier. Should I take that harder path with everyhting. Have faith in things even if the evidence support it?

Imagine how the world would work if we all did that?
We have faith he is guilty your honor. The evidence points elsewhere, but that is the easy route, we have faith.
We have chosen to not proceed with the cancer treatments, we realize that all the tests indicates he will die but that is the easy route, we have faith.
Of course the evidence shows she is not a witch, but that is too easy and we have faith.

I am a good person. I am not good because of threats of hell, but because it is the right thing to be. I have done the right thing when others advized me not to because there was risk. I have done the right thing and gone to jail for it. I don't take the easy way out.

Actually your statement above, especially the embolden part, causes me to understand even more that atheists who claim to have been theists in the past never really understood theism and generally confused it ( and still do) with religion.

Simply because we disagree doesn't mean we don't understand it, it simply means we disagree.

[Meleagar]

Theism requires one to believe in things with no convincing evidence, I agree.

Not convincing to whom? You? What does that matter to those who do find the evidence convincing? Just because you find the evidence unconvincing doesn't mean everyone does, and doesn't mean everyone should.

Imagine how the world would work if we all did that?
We have faith he is guilty your honor. The evidence points elsewhere, but that is the easy route, we have faith.

Except the evidence doesn't point elsewhere, unless of course you'd like to show us the evidence that no gods exist. What evidence there is, as I've outlined in threads linked to in prior posts, all points to the existence of a god, not to the conclusion that no gods of any sort exist. Atheism is the faith position, not theism.

Imagine how the world would work if everyone entirely and summarily dismissed all testimonial and anecdotal evidence. Most of what everyone believes about anything would vanish. What of the scientific evidence avialable? Apparently, it too should simply be ignored.

Outside of straw man characterizations and unsupportable rhetoric, the atheist has absolutely no support for their view whatsoever; they are not even willing to honestly defend their view, but rather just keep denying the vast amount of available evidence that undermines their view.

[Jack]

I don't know where he got his statics.

I don't know, either, but there are these from a Harris Poll in 2009,

New York, N.Y. — December 15, 2009 — A new Harris Poll finds that the great majority (82%) of American
adults believe in God, exactly the same number as in two earlier Harris Polls in 2005 and 2007. Large majorities
also believe in miracles (76%), heaven (75%), that Jesus is God or the Son of God (73%), in angels (72%), the
survival of the soul after death (71%), and in the resurrection of Jesus (70%).

Less than half (45%) of adults believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution but this is more than the 40% who believe
in creationism.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,303 adults surveyed online between November 2 and 11,
2009 by Harris Interactive.
The survey also finds that:

61% of adults believe in hell;
61% believe in the virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary);
60% believe in the devil;
42% believe in ghosts;
32% believe in UFOs;
26% believe in astrology;
23% believe in witches
20% believe in reincarnation – that they were once another person.

None of these numbers have changed much since previous surveys in 2005 and 2007.

Religious Differences

There are very big differences between the beliefs of Catholics, Protestants, born-again Christians and Jews.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vau...2009_12_15.pdf

[BlackSheep]

Not convincing to whom? You? What does that matter to those who do find the evidence convincing? Just because you find the evidence unconvincing doesn't mean everyone does, and doesn't mean everyone should.

I was responding to finder saying theism requires faith. Maybe you should it take it up with him?

Except the evidence doesn't point elsewhere, unless of course you'd like to show us the evidence that no gods exist. What evidence there is, as I've outlined in threads linked to in prior posts, all points to the existence of a god, not to the conclusion that no gods of any sort exist. Atheism is the faith position, not theism.

Meleagar, if you are going to say this again and again at least respond to the responses. I have no belief that there are no gods as you said there is no evidence.
There is 'evidence' of god(s). It is weak, subjective, conflicting and needs to support something extraordinary. It is the kind of evidence that would be thrown out of court with very little deliberation. It would not be enough to support a criminal act let alone a deity.

Imagine how the world would work if everyone entirely and summarily dismissed all testimonial and anecdotal evidence. Most of what everyone believes about anything would vanish. What of the scientific evidence avialable? Apparently, it too should simply be ignored.

Realize that in most cases this evidence is not supporting something extraordinary. Give some specific examples. Without something concrete I can't really respond.

Outside of straw man characterizations and unsupportable rhetoric, the atheist has absolutely no support for their view whatsoever; they are not even willing to honestly defend their view, but rather just keep denying the vast amount of available evidence that undermines their view.

It is because you create a straw man. The various people you debate with tell you over and over we do not have a belief that there are no god(s) we simply do not see the weak, subjective and conflicting evidence is enough to support something so extraordinary.

[Peter]

I understand atheism is simply a lack of belief.

You quite obviously do not understand.

My argument is that it requires just as much faith as theism.

How much faith do you require to NOT believe in Santa Claus?

That's how much faith an atheist requires to NOT believe in gods!

[Dave In Canada]

[QUOTE]

I am suggesting just that, that atheism "spoke" to him and told him to take the easy way out. After all, theism takes faith where as atheism relieves one from being concerned about their life, thoughts and deeds being judged against a back ground of perfection. Then if one finds in the end God is, well they can just blame God for hiding the evidence, right?

Once again finder leaving your faith is difficult. It is not easy. To suggest that atheism "relieves one from being concerned about their life, thoughts and deeds" once again shows that Christians are ignorant about atheists, and secondly they show how intellectually bankrupt they are when they make assertions such as their god as being a "background of perfection."

Obviously people of faith continue to dismiss the notion that atheists actually have great concern for how we live our lives, how we think and how we are judged because we have the belief that this is the only life we get. We understand that we have to make the most of the time we have. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that nations who are largely secular also have the lowest crime rates.

Actually your statement above, especially the embolden part, causes me to understand even more that atheists who claim to have been theists in the past never really understood theism and generally confused it ( and still do) with religion.

The majority of theists on this planet follow a particulat religion or God. WE understand that quite well.

[Dave In Canada]

Ok Dave in Canada,

I went to get the book by Sam Harris (kindle) but first I checked out what was in it here: Letter To A Christian Nation: Quotes

Admittedly he makes a correct observation that beliefs tend to not make sense when things like Are discovered although I don't know where he got his statics. But overall he seems to misrepresent Christianity and is obtuse in his approach to theism in general. I have heard of and listened to Sam Harris before. So I am not compeled at this time to spend 10 bucks on trash, sorry.

I find it ironic that you haven't read the book and dismiss it as trash, yet when Atheists dismiss the bible, a book that they most definitely have read you have a huge issue with it.

The bible is an incoherent mess compared to the Sam Harris' book "Letters to a Christian Nation"

However, I am not surprised that a Christian is afraid of a book that questions there faith. Not surprising that a Christian is afraid to take a good look at a sound and reasonable argument for the nonsense written in the bible.

[Meleagar]

I was responding to finder saying theism requires faith. Maybe you should it take it up with him?

You agreed with his statement so I took it up with you.

Meleagar, if you are going to say this again and again at least respond to the responses.

I can't help that the responses offer up the same tired rhetoric and denials, and so garner the same response from me - pointing this out, over and over.

I have no belief that there are no gods as you said there is no evidence.

So, you agree there is **no** evidence that there are no gods. Keep that in mind.

There is 'evidence' of god(s).

Here, you agree there is evidence of some sort of god. Regardless of how strong or compelling the evidence for god is, it is more evidence than for the proposition that no gods exist. Therefore, simply logic indicates that, at our current level of evidence, it is at least slightly more likely that a god of some sort exists than that no gods exist. Anyone that accepts this rational position certainly cannot be called an atheist; atheists do not believe that it is slightly more likely that a god of some sort exists than not.

It is weak, subjective, conflicting and needs to support something extraordinary.

The fine-tuning evidence is empirical and scientific, so I don't see where you can say it is subjective. Whether or not one finds the proposition "a god of some sort exists" to be "extraordinary" is a matter of personal bias.

It is the kind of evidence that would be thrown out of court with very little deliberation. It would not be enough to support a criminal act let alone a deity.

First-hand testimony and empirical, scientific facts are never thrown out of court, to my knowledge. I think the combination of the testimony of countless credible witnesses and a plethora of scientific facts (the fine-tuning parameters) would be enough to convict any suspect.

Realize that in most cases this evidence is not supporting something extraordinary.

It is because you create a straw man. The various people you debate with tell you over and over we do not have a belief that there are no god(s) we simply do not see the weak, subjective and conflicting evidence is enough to support something so extraordinary.

Note the double-standard. The kinds and amounts of evidence that are enough to satisfy one's conclusion in virtually any other arena of life is suddenly not enough when it comes to this one claim. It reveals an a priori bias.

The simple logic is: some evidence (regardless of how weak one finds it) for a proposition, and zero evidence for the converse proposition. The only rational conclusion is that it is more likely than not that the first proposition is true (even if it is not enough evidence to actually believe the proposition true).

Atheists do not believe that it is more likely than not that a god exists; there is evidence god exists, and no evidence that no gods exist. Obviously, atheism cannot be an informed, rational position, but rather relies upon a biased double-standard of evidence, an assumption that the proposition is "extraordinary" (disergarding the commonness of the worldwide belief in that proposition) and an abandonment of inference to best (most likely) conclusion based on comparison of available evidence.

[Dave In Canada]

The fine-tuning evidence is empirical and scientific, so I don't see where you can say it is subjective. Whether or not one finds the proposition "a god of some sort exists" to be "extraordinary" is a matter of personal bias.

The experts on the subject below seem to indicate that perhaps your personal bias might have got in the way which leads to your subjective interpretation of fine-tuning.

Physicist Paul Davies has stated that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".^{[SIZE=2][2][/SIZE]} However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".^{[SIZE=2][2][/SIZE]}


Victor Stenger argues that "... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God of the gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".^{[SIZE=2][12][/SIZE]}
The argument from imperfection suggests that if the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not.^{[SIZE=2][35][/SIZE]} In fact, most of the universe is highly hostile to life.
Additionally Stenger argues, "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."^{[SIZE=2][36][/SIZE]}

[Dave In Canada]

The only rational conclusion is that it is more likely than not that the first proposition is true (even if it is not enough evidence to actually believe the proposition true).

In other words the value of your proposition is just a tad shy of being absolutely worthless. Unless of course you believe that the value of the existence Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as being the truth is something that we should be pursuing with all our philosophical & scientific vigor that we can possibly muster.

[BlackSheep]

You agreed with his statement so I took it up with you.

Most of the theists I speak with, not theologians or philosophers simply accept it on faith that it is true. Generally this is in the form of faith in people they love and trust who believe in it.

I can't help that the responses offer up the same tired rhetoric and denials, and so garner the same response from me - pointing this out, over and over.

But I responded to your response and you ignore it.

So, you agree there is **no** evidence that there are no gods. Keep that in mind.

Basically yes. What evidence can you have?

Here, you agree there is evidence of some sort of god. Regardless of how strong or compelling the evidence for god is, it is more evidence than for the proposition that no gods exist. Therefore, simply logic indicates that, at our current level of evidence, it is at least slightly more likely that a god of some sort exists than that no gods exist. Anyone that accepts this rational position certainly cannot be called an atheist; atheists do not believe that it is slightly more likely that a god of some sort exists than not.

There is just the proposition of god(s). It can be accepted or denied. As I said it is weak, subjective, conflicting and needs to support something extraordinary. You can't really have evidence there are no god(s).

The fine-tuning evidence is empirical and scientific, so I don't see where you can say it is subjective. Whether or not one finds the proposition "a god of some sort exists" to be "extraordinary" is a matter of personal bias.

Of course it is subjective. You see fine tuned and I see a puddle in the shape of the whole. I began with the bias a god did exist.

First-hand testimony and empirical, scientific facts are never thrown out of court, to my knowledge. I think the combination of the testimony of countless credible witnesses and a plethora of scientific facts (the fine-tuning parameters) would be enough to convict any suspect.

Easily countered by the fact that this testimony is weak, subjective and conflicting. Your scientific fact is based on the assumption that what we have was a goal. If we want a puddle exactly this shape then the hole must have been perfectly fine-tuned for it to exist.

Note the double-standard. The kinds and amounts of evidence that are enough to satisfy one's conclusion in virtually any other arena of life is suddenly not enough when it comes to this one claim. It reveals an a priori bias.

Not at all, you ignore the extraordinary claim part. If a man tells me he is an accountant I will likely accept it for a number of reasons.
1. I know accountants exist.
2. I know accountants are pretty common.
3. The fact that he is an accountant has no real effect on me.

If a friend tells me he won the lottery jackpot I am far less likely to accept it even if this is a person I trust.
1. Lotteries are real and many people play them, but it is very unlikely to win the jackpot.
2. Friends not uncommonly play pranks of this nature on each other.
3. This likely would have an effect on me.

In neither case do I have any edivence their claim is wrong and it doesn't matter as there s just their proposition and I believe it or I do not.

The simple logic is: some evidence (regardless of how weak one finds it) for a proposition, and zero evidence for the converse proposition. The only rational conclusion is that it is more likely than not that the first proposition is true (even if it is not enough evidence to actually believe the proposition true).

And yet we often disbelieve propositions where the only evidence is positive, because it is not enough to support the claim.

Atheists do not believe that it is more likely than not that a god exists; there is evidence god exists, and no evidence that no gods exist. Obviously, atheism cannot be an informed, rational position, but rather relies upon a biased double-standard of evidence, an assumption that the proposition is "extraordinary" (disergarding the commonness of the worldwide belief in that proposition) and an abandonment of inference to best (most likely) conclusion based on comparison of available evidence.

It is an extraordinary claim that a personal entity or entities exist that we can not perceive but have a massive effect on our universe and yet no one notices it. It is not about how common that belief is, it is how much it deviates from our daily experience.
The fact that most matter is made up of empty space is also extraordinary, and yet most believe it. It is extraordinary because it doesn't seem obvious or even possible. Even most theists think other mythologies seem silly and extraordinary.

[Meleagar]

The experts on the subject below seem to indicate that perhaps your personal bias might have got in the way which leads to your subjective interpretation of fine-tuning.

Physicist Paul Davies has stated that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".^{[SIZE=2][2][/SIZE]} However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".^{[SIZE=2][2][/SIZE]}


Victor Stenger argues that "... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God of the gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".^{[SIZE=2][12][/SIZE]}
The argument from imperfection suggests that if the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not.^{[SIZE=2][35][/SIZE]} In fact, most of the universe is highly hostile to life.
Additionally Stenger argues, "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."^{[SIZE=2][36][/SIZE]}

That there are other interpretations of the evidence, or other conclusions that can be drawn from it, doesn't change the fact that the evidence is (1) empirical & scientific, and (2) is used in the fine-tuning argument for god. As such, it is scientific, empirical evidence for the proposition that a god of some sort exists. From the other thread:

From Discover Magazine:

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: Multiverse Theory
Quote:
But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.

Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn’t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents.

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” [physicist Andre] Linde says.

Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics.
Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The universe appears to be finely-tuned for life; multiverse theories are offered in order to avoid the "intelligent designer" alternative.

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." - Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics)

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." - Fred Hoyle, Astronomer, Mathematician

"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." = George Ellis, British Astrophysicist

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." - Tony Rothman (physicist)

"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." - Vera Kistiakowsky. MIT physicist

"I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." Roger Penrose, mathematician

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

"The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". - Paul Davies. British astrophysicist

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." - Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy):

"We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA)

"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." Arthur Eddington, astrophysicist

It is clear that a valid interpretation of the empirical, scientific facts that make up the fine-tuning evidence and argument is that it indicates a god of some sort, or else there would be no reason to generate theories that account for the fine-tuning that avoid such a conclusion - such as the multiverse hypothesis Hawkings proposed specifically to demonstrate that no god was necessary.

Unless the evidence can obviously be interpreted towards a conclusion that a designing intelligence is necessary, there is no need to come up with alternative explanations for the evidence that do not include a god. A designing intelligence is a fully rational inference from the scientific, empirical fine-tuning evidence. That there may be other interpretations or possible conclusions doesn't change that. Evidence can be interpreted according to several competing views; obviously, however, they don't call it "fine-tuning" evidence for no reason, and don't seek theories that are alternatives to "a benevolent creator" for no reason.

It has been established that there is scientific, empirical evidence that a god of some sort exists. Whether or not that evidence is convincing, or can be used to support competing theories, is irrelevant to this point.