Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crownboy · 02-07-2003, 04:36 PM

Well, maybe not, but if just trying counted I'd at least give him half a star

. What do you think about this article?

here

GunnerJ · 02-07-2003, 05:12 PM

Quote:

No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians.

It seems a fair enough assumption that people are not born believing anything, as at that age they have too little reasoning ability to make informed decisions or take up opinions. Also, I contest that people can chose to believe anything. I believe what makes sense to me, I have as little choice in disbelieving in a diety as in believing in the keyboard I'm typing on.

Quote:

And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.

Unsubstantiated assertion, bordering a shifting of the burden of proof. Atheism is a lack of belief in something, I fail to see how a "belief system" can be based on not believing in one thing.

Quote:

"There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it.

By definition, all atheists disbelieve in a god. How strongly they put this sentiment varies. Claims to the effect that "there is no god" may amount to a cliam that god is impossible, which does bear a burden of proof, however, it is a burden which can be met, as we shall see.

Quote:

And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God.

Oh? And it doesn't require omniscience to say that no one is born an atheist?

Actually, one no more has to be omniscient to disprove god's existence than one has to be omniscient to disprove the existence of circles with corners. And even if some definition of god is not internally and logically inconsistent, defaulting to a negative position is completely rational in the absence of evidence.

Quote:

"I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world." Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder six million Jews."

A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world.

Actually, since the theist posits the existence of a god who supposedly sets down a code of morality, this is not so much a problem. God has defined morality, and has defined himself as being opposed to immorality, and despite being able to eradicate what he considers evil, has not done so. This is a contradiction.

Also, independant of any position on morality is the reality of pain, which anyone claiming to be benevolent has also claimed to be dedicated to minimizing. God, if omnipotent and omnibenevolent, is acting strangely when one considers the amount of pain in the world.

Quote:

At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail.

Having to deal with soemthing in a progressive way is a limitation that only beings of finate power have to deal with. God, being omnipotent, has no such restriction. It is not that God's only option is to deal with it at once, it is that his only logical option is to do so. See, if someone is opposed to something, it is only logical for them to get rid of it as soon as possible. God, being omnipotent and the creator of the universe, could have simply cut the problem off at the head and never allowed evil in the first place. In other words, god shouldn't have to "solve" the problem of evil; there simply shouldn't be a problem of evil to solve if the Xian diety is the creator.

Quote:

If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human history for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that at this very moment, God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every human being on the planet - present company included - would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?"

The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available.

Uh, yeah. No shit. What, is god one of those genies in a movie, you know, the ones that grant wishes with undesired consequences so we can ponder the "be careful what you wish for" moral?

Quote:

He may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

In order to show that humans would lack the ability to make free choices in such a scenario, one would have to show that we have the capacity to make free choices in the first place. And even then, if we do, our ability to chose is already limited. I may want to see the other side of the galaxy in my lifetime, but I don't have that choice, the physical laws, as the Xians say god made them, prevent me. If I am not a robot now for the lack of the many things I may want to do but am prevented from doing by god's laws, then I will be no more a robot for losing just one more choice.

Think of it this way: If your friend asks you for a drink, but doesn't specify which kind, you may offer him orange juice, soda, iced tea, water, coffee, or milk. But if you don't offer him antifreeze or bleach, have you stripped him of his free choice?

Also, the free will defense fail to deal with pain from natural disasters (or as insurance companies so nicely term them, "acts of God").

Quote:

If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.

The theist might be asked how quickly an omniscient being could come up with a solution. If it is possible that no such solution exists, it might be asked why an omnibenevolent being chose a course of action he knew full well would result in so much of what he supposedly abhors. Answers to the effect of a "greater good" that balences everything out in the end reduce to an ends-justify-the-means morality I doubt many Xians would want to attribute to their god.

Quote:

Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.

Well, we're always waiting for this "evidence" to present itself.

Psycho Economist · 02-07-2003, 05:37 PM

I'd give him straight C's across the board: yet another mediocre apologist trying to inspire others to be the same. I hope you're not on his side.

I'm not going to bother with a play-by-play... because we routinely hash out the particular arguements he makes, and no one (here, at least) has been able to successfully defend his side to any of our satisfactions (that I am aware of).

I will take time out to say his refutation of the argument from evil is flimsy. To paraphrase, "an athiest can't define evil because he doesn't have a reference point for infinite absolute good". While Mr. Rhodes (or perhaps Rev. Rhodes) may have to count back from infinity to define his number system, I'll take my starting point at zero. He neglects or is ignorant of the rich history of ethics, implying that there is no middle ground between Christian absolutism (whatever they may mean) and nebulous relativism. Creation myths aside, people had a sense of right and wrong long before Judaism or Christianity were on the scene.

On the other hand, I will grant that if one presupposes a deity exists, it's impossible to disprove his second refutation that the deity is working to minimize the amount of suffering in the universe. But why presuppose one exists?

K · 02-07-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

I'd give him straight C's across the board

More evidence of grade inflation. He's getting C's for D+ work.

Psycho Economist · 02-07-2003, 05:49 PM

Heya Rimstalker... that's the Play-by-Play I didn't write! I guess you got a head-start on me. But you have inspired me to take this one on myself:

Quote:

Sayeth Mr. Rhodes (or perhaps Rev. Rhodes)
Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.

What's with the unrealistic constraints? Neurological evidence hints free-will may just be an illusion anyway: while I may want "human freedom", I have no compelling reason to assume it exists. Secondly, we have yet nothing better than your assumptions of your god's existance and nature to accept the constraint of not violating its nature.

Lastly, why do I have to do your grunt-work for you? You're the one asserting 1) free will is real, 2) an omnimax deity exists and 3) that omnimax deity is doing all that he can to minimize evil in the world. You explain it.

Psycho Economist · 02-07-2003, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by K
More evidence of grade inflation. He's getting C's for D+ work.

Not grade inflation... strict grading on a curve. How is this any better or worse than "average"? Among all the attempts (good bad and ugly) at refuting atheism. Heck, if certain incomprehensible, evangellical pantheists who haunt these boards and think they're Christian (sometimes) were reprinted with permission, he'd get an A by comparison!

rainbow walking · 02-07-2003, 09:49 PM

(1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.

This one is just catagorically false. One of the christian god's attributes is said to be omnipresence. If this is the case a person need not be everywhere at once to notice his absence from any single place. If god is not detectable by any single person then either this god is not omnipresent or more than likely not existent at all.

beyelzu · 02-07-2003, 11:30 PM

I take exception to the children arent born atheists. I think thati its pretty obvious that they are born without god belief and thus begin life as weak atheists or perhaps agnostics. Only with the introduction of god concepts can someone become strong atheists or theists.

So I guess I disagree with you on that one rimstalker, but on the whole, I really liked your post.

Religion is obviously taught, why else do they have sunday school.

GunnerJ · 02-08-2003, 06:22 AM

Quote:

I take exception to the children arent born atheists. I think thati its pretty obvious that they are born without god belief and thus begin life as weak atheists or perhaps agnostics. Only with the introduction of god concepts can someone become strong atheists or theists.

So I guess I disagree with you on that one rimstalker, but on the whole, I really liked your post.

beyelzu · 02-08-2003, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rimstalker

Maybe I misunderstood the first part of your post. I dont understand the angry face however. I thought when you said that its a fair "assumption that people are not born believing anything," I thought that you were agreeing with that part of the post. When I reread your post this morning, I am still not sure what you meant by this statement. I was pointing out that people are born without godbelief and are thus atheists

02-07-2003, 04:36 PM	#1
crownboy Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: NYC, New York Posts: 114	Atheism refuted Well, maybe not, but if just trying counted I'd at least give him half a star . What do you think about this article? here

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2003, 05:37 PM	#3
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	I'd give him straight C's across the board: yet another mediocre apologist trying to inspire others to be the same. I hope you're not on his side. I'm not going to bother with a play-by-play... because we routinely hash out the particular arguements he makes, and no one (here, at least) has been able to successfully defend his side to any of our satisfactions (that I am aware of). I will take time out to say his refutation of the argument from evil is flimsy. To paraphrase, "an athiest can't define evil because he doesn't have a reference point for infinite absolute good". While Mr. Rhodes (or perhaps Rev. Rhodes) may have to count back from infinity to define his number system, I'll take my starting point at zero. He neglects or is ignorant of the rich history of ethics, implying that there is no middle ground between Christian absolutism (whatever they may mean) and nebulous relativism. Creation myths aside, people had a sense of right and wrong long before Judaism or Christianity were on the scene. On the other hand, I will grant that if one presupposes a deity exists, it's impossible to disprove his second refutation that the deity is working to minimize the amount of suffering in the universe. But why presuppose one exists?

02-07-2003, 09:49 PM	#7
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	(1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God. This one is just catagorically false. One of the christian god's attributes is said to be omnipresence. If this is the case a person need not be everywhere at once to notice his absence from any single place. If god is not detectable by any single person then either this god is not omnipresent or more than likely not existent at all.

02-07-2003, 11:30 PM	#8
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	I take exception to the children arent born atheists. I think thati its pretty obvious that they are born without god belief and thus begin life as weak atheists or perhaps agnostics. Only with the introduction of god concepts can someone become strong atheists or theists. So I guess I disagree with you on that one rimstalker, but on the whole, I really liked your post. Religion is obviously taught, why else do they have sunday school.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.