Keith

I appeal to the highest authority in the universe, which is God. Now I must ask you...who, or what, is your authority? Are atheists ever susceptible to a mind/belief phenomena of any kind?

We could have all the facts contained in every library, the whole internet, and all the world's written documents, and nothing would get settled. The facts aren't the problem, and the facts aren't the solution. The problem is... how does one interpret the facts correctly? Who gets to decide which interpretation of the facts is most reasonable? Is there an objective standard for truth?

Keith

Philosoft

They're not. But there is an entire sub-branch of biology that's pretty darn good at classifying behaviors.

I don't know what 'natural' has to do with it, but otherwise, that's why I singled out purpose as something that is often erroneously inferred.

Order and design are relatively easy. That's why I choose to indict purpose in particular. Any assumption of purpose is question begging when applied to the universe.

Bah. You've got a long way to go before you make your case for what is "rational and coherent." I wouldn't go around assuming my conclusions among this crowd if I were you.
Funny you should mention that. I suppose the omnipotent creator of everything (except himself) would be able to supply the Truth™ or the correct "interpretation of the facts" or whatever. So why doesn't God do this? Why does God instead choose a book written by humans that must be compiled by humans and translated by humans into languages that don't always share concepts? Why does God choose to reveal to Fred Phelps that God intensely dislikes homosexuals, while at the same time assuring some gay Christians that their sexuality won't factor into divine judgement?

Should the omnipotent creator show up and start telling us what is right and wrong, your argument for theistic foundationalism would be hard to refute. Unfortunately, all you have are a bunch of individuals who often claim contradictory things about what God wants and what God says. This is arguably a much less desirable situation than a bunch of individuals saying, "I don't know yet."

Dr Rick

Even for those atheists who believe that humans evolved a need for religion and morality to facilitate survival, there is nothing inconsistent in mocking, putting down, or laughing at those that believe in gods. It may be rude, but it's not inconsistent.

Atheists have beliefs; we just don't believe in gods. We can believe in almost anything else, and we can certainly expect things.

I expect that the laws of physics will operate in the same way tomorrow that they did today, and I have evidence from my experiences yesterday to support that expectation. I believe that there is a Mt Everest because, even though I have never seen it, I have evidence from reliable sources that it does, and the reason I believe that the sources are reliable is that they have been reliable in the past.

I don't believe in gods or demons or talking snakes or worldwide floods because I have no evidence to support such beliefs, I have no evidence from any reliable sources to support such beliefs, and there is reliable evidence that the last two didn't exist or ever happen. The sources of information that do tell me about such things are therefore not reliable, and so when the Bible tells me to believe in gods after it tells me about a talking snake and a worldwide flood, I have reason not to trust or believe it.

Rick

Sue Sponte

I understand your position, Keith. But consider that you are merely taking what you understand and connoting that belief to what god would do. Your position is self-fulfilling.

Thus, if in fact things were not uniform, you could simply rephrase your answer to state that "I can understand that god cherishes variety." In other words, you can "understand" things to be the result of god, but that in no way advances any objective reason to believe that understanding to be true.

As an aside, I would even quibble with your characterization of this scenario as the uniformity of nature. Science disproving widely-held beliefs about man, the earth and the universe is a stark change in human development, not uniformity. Unless, of course, the uniformity is that things always change.

Taking this one step further, for the same reason that I don't believe the earth is flat (because it has been proven otherwise), why isn't it wholly possible that the Christian belief set will be conclusively proven false? In my mind, it already has. But for Christians, they must at least recognize that their view may be false, otherwise I cannot respect their position. I have a belief set that I concede may be wrong. I'm pretty confident it isn't, but I cannot rule out another possibility. Can you say the same?

Because for the thousands of days I've awaken in my life to date, that has always been the case. Thus, there is overwhelming, OBJECTIVE evidence to conclude these things will be the same tomorrow as today.

But that aside, what about Christianity provides YOU with an answer to this question? Other than simply concluding that god keeps things orderly (which is a conclusion, not an explanation), I am curious what it is in Christianity that makes these things more explanable, in an OBJECTIVE sense.

I have observed the sun rise each day of my life, and thus I conclude that it will, in all reasonable likelihood, rise again tomorrow. What am I lacking from not believing in the Bible that precludes me from reaching this conclusion?

John Page

Apologies in advance for the above mis-quote in the title of this post, but thats what your post amounts to.

There is no " highest authority", IMO you're just looking for a super-father figure.
I'm not going to attempt to speak for all atheists. As I stated before, it seems we are all subject to mind/belief phenomena. Furthermore, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong - just pointing out that our opinions obviously vary so we can either:
a) Agree to disagree.
b) Try to persuade each other purely on the basis of opinion.
c) Proceed to debate our viewpoints based on facts.

If we can first agree on some facts then there is the possibility we might agree on some interpretation of them. Please see suggestions in the attached link on Fundaments as to how we might start such a process.

Because the truth is uncertain, I think it appropriate to observe that while atheism doesn't really explain anything, Atheists generally arrive at that position as a result of trying to explain them.

Cheers, John

Keith

No, for the atheist order and design are a very big problem which atheism has no ability to explain. This has already been admitted by some of you in this thread. Atheism doesn't explain anything because it can't explain anything. Atheism is merely the denial of reality...not an explanation of it.

Do atheists ever assume their conclusions while they are arguing for their conclusions? If there are such things as rationality and coherence, what, or who, is the ultimate standard or authority for determining what is and isn't rational and coherent? How do we decide this?

Keith

Keith

Your assumption is that God hasn't provided us with the Truth, the correct interpretation of the facts, and what is right and wrong. The bible is God's way of communicating everything he wants us to know about him, about our place in his creation, and what is morally right and wrong. And last time I looked, the bible wasn't unclear that some specific sexual acts are wrong. Regarding homosexuality, God detests sin of every kind...and loves the sinner. I'm no better (or worse) than any other sinner.

The fact that many theists--even Christians, have conflicting views about God, religion, and what the bible says, doesn't necessarily mean that God has failed to make himself clear.

Keith

Keith

I don't understand how it can be consistent for these atheists (who believe that religion and morality are evolved traits in humans) to mock, put down, or laugh at people who believe in a god. Can you explain this?

Keith

Keith

I'm not saying that nature is so uniform that nothing ever changes. What I'm asking is...on your assumption (atheism) why should you, or anyone assume that the future will resemble the past--that the sun will rise again tomorrow, that next winter will again be colder than the summer was, that science will continue to make more discoveries, etc.? Why, as an atheist, should you believe these things? I don't understand this at all.

Keith

Keith

There has to be a highest (ultimate) authority. If there is no ultimate authority then you have a real epistemological dilemma: You want to be reasonable and coherent but your worldview can't and won't allow it. Your worldview has destroyed--at the very outset, the preconditions for understanding anything.

If no one can prove their case by some objective authoritative standard, then your arguments have no force. Like moral relativism, you are now stuck with mere facts and no way of knowing the correct interpretation of those facts. You and I can have the same exact body of evidence--as huge as you want, and no way to decide who's interpretation of the evidence (if any) is correct. Life is completely meaningless without God.

Keith