Andrew_theist

Your analogy fails, however, in that it is known that it is possible for the victim to have been murdered because it is known that murder is a possibility--people exist, can kill each other, etc. In the case of the theistic belief, we have no basis; it is not known that any god exists to do the designing or creating in the first place.

Your rebuttal assumes the question it asks. If the universe has attributes of design this is evidence of an intelligent creator. Just as a knife wound is evidence of foul play. Of course this is inferential evidence just as a knife wound is.

Are you arguing for God, or for design? The former is interesting, the latter pointless. How do you even identify the difference between a designed and naturalistic universe? What are your criterion based on?

The same criterion that is used in forensic science, cryptography and SETI. Suggesting intelligent design is allowed in some branches of science. For instance the search for intelligent life in the universe is allowed because finding other life tends to support the idea of evolution. How ever looking for design in biology is disallowed since that may tend to support the idea of a creator. Why would the latter be pointless?

Island3

I always kinda thought that SETI originated from the simple curious nature of people to explore the universe (which is a big ass place) and to maybe find out whether or not we are alone, as opposed to SETI simply being *allowed* because it might yield findings one day that happen to support evolution.

Because for the most part it relies heavily on the opinion of the individual. Some person might give me all the improbable odds that had to be beat for us simply to exist and live on this planet, thus showing that a designer obviously must be responsible somehow, while I would simply say that stating all this after the fact proves nothing. It would be like a person who won the lottery saying that the odds were so high, there is simply no way that he/she could have won. It is in my opinion that the fact that we are here right now talking about this is because we simply beat the odds and not because a supernatural entity willed it to be.

[dennismiller]
Of course that's my opinion I could be wrong.
[/dennismiller]

...stupid typo...

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: blind watchmaker ]</p>

HelenM

Are you saying you're arguing like a theist who is hellbound would argue?

I don't understand why

I don't get what you're doing, Andrew

love
Helen

Island3

Maybe he's a deist calling himself a theist?

MikeG

Should I take that as a "yes" - you believe my claim (hypothetically of course)?

If yes, let me summarize your views as I understand them so far (please correct me if I am wrong):
1) Atheism is wrong (as evidenced by your link "challenging atheism".
2) Theistic belief, no mater what the nature of that belief or the contradiction of that belief to other theistic beliefs (be it god, Allah, IPU, great sprits, The Sun, Zeus, a volcano...) is inherently superior to atheism because...
lack of belief is always wrong (or if you prefer, not believing in a claim is always wrong).

3) If I am reading too much into your response then please clarify by answering the orignal question. Let me rephrase it - the idea is the same - I would really like an honest answer here. If you dismiss it as "baloney" then I suppose I could dig up some other real world example of a strange religion, but I am short of time:

Question rephrased: A person comes to you with a very strange religious claim that they sincerely believe. It could be something such as, the world was created by a giant singing grapefruit that orbits the universe, and that it cares deeply about citrus fruits as they were made in it's image, and that humans were created only to tend the orchard groves, consume the fuit, and send it to heaven by eating it.

would you:

a) Believe him
b) Not believe him
c) Claim you don't know... if this option please assign a probability one way or the other.

On your analogy - it is flawed because for the case of your "anaturalist", he is making a positive claim (to any rational observers point of view, whether or not he sees it that way)- that foul play occurred. Our legal system, imperfect as it may be, at least understands the difference between a positve claim (ie, guilt) and innocence (the default state). Your attempt to confuse the postive claim by swtichng labels "ie, anaturalist" is fine however how far would this get in court?

Let me ask you one last question. Suppose you are on the jury for the trial of a person accused of murder. However there isn't much evidence, just circumstantial bits here and there, and initially all observers agree that the prosecution is lacking.

However now comes a witmess for the prosection - it's a relative of the deceased who claims that Jesus told her in a dream that the accused committed the crime. As a jury member please tell me what your verdict would be (assume that prior to this witness you would have aqcuited).

On your challenge to a debate, may I suggest that you post something in a separate thread stating your claim and I am sure you will get takers. Are you a deist by any chance? I have more respect for a simple deist position. It's all dogmatic stuff that religions bring that I prefer take issue with.

Andrew_theist

Hello MikeG and others..

You know part of the problem with discussing issues on these boards is by and large we are so polarized to our own points of view that even the smallest concession is seen as a failure or loss. Of course my analogy is not perfect, none are they always break down somewhere and some are more useful than others. You mention a court of law and negative claims need to be proved just as much as positive claims. I could be hauled to court under the accusation of not paying my taxes. In this case by law the negative claim has to be proven and the positive statement doesn’t have to be defended at all. I can’t think of any argument or discussion I have in life where I demand the other side to provide proof of their point of view and if they fail to convince me then they should concede I am right. The old saw is that theists are making the claim. Doesn’t anyone think atheists are making a claim also? There are many claims I don’t believe in but I don’t single them about by declaring myself an awhatever. I think the reason most atheists prefer not to argue the positive claim of naturalism is because they don’t want to subject there conclusion to the same skepticism they have for theism. Everyone knows as well as I do that naturalism is a faith proposition. No one knows for certain if natural forces alone can account for all we observe. Ultimately the counter position is a competing belief system. Who wants to admit that?

I can understand why the theist is probably more animated about there point of view than the atheist after all many theists invest time and energy into practicing their brand of theism. In chatting with atheists for many years many of them seem quite reasonable that if there was some potent evidence for the existence of God they would abandon their atheism in a heartbeat and at least be a theist. Does anyone here really think it would be that easy? As it is I think there is enough evidence that a person could come to the conclusion that there is a designer/creator. But there is no incontrovertible evidence and it still requires a modicum of faith. I think that is by design. No more faith than landing a plane at night in complete darkness and fog relying only on instruments to land you safely. Sound easy? Many experienced pilots crash because of it.

I have been involved with discussion boards for many years and as a result I may come off as too cold and impersonal. To answer one of the questions I am a Christian theist. I made it a rule a while back never to argue the bible or doctrine with unbelievers. Because even if you write 50 pages worth of dialog and get an agreement on a minor issue the unbeliever will usually say ‘okay I see your point but there is no God and miracles can’t happen'. The way I see it if there is no God no theistic belief system is right. If there is a God than at least one of them might be right. But to argue a particular brand of religion is putting the cart ahead of the horse. While I’m at it I don’t believe in a young earth, bible inerrancy and I do believe in separation of church and state. I think evolution should be taught in schools but with a little more critical thinking. I can’t buy into creationism being taught it’s too obvious. However if intelligent design gains steam or evidence than it should. I am sharing for information not to argue these points. Also I am not for forcing Christian values or any other values on anyone save the values we as a democracy force on each other. Nor am I for paying for the mistakes of others as they experiment with values. I am not a deist though I think deism is so much closer to theism than to atheism.

Question rephrased: A person comes to you with a very strange religious claim that they sincerely believe. It could be something such as, the world was created by a giant singing grapefruit that orbits the universe, and that it cares deeply about citrus fruits as they were made in it's image, and that humans were created only to tend the orchard groves, consume the fuit, and send it to heaven by eating it.

I could agree with the created part and little else. As I mentioned above the only area I will contend with an atheist is regarding the basic nature of the cosmos. Is it created by design or a naturally occurring event. Is the theistic (or even deistic) worldview truer or is a materialistic/naturalism worldview more accurate?

On your analogy - it is flawed because for the case of your "anaturalist", he is making a positive claim (to any rational observers point of view, whether or not he sees it that way)- that foul play occurred.

Of course I agree. It’s just as plain to me that the atheist is really a materialist or naturalist. Look, if you or anyone else claims to be an objective reviewer of the facts with no axe to grind or investment in the outcome in your evaluation isn’t it just as important to analyze materialism? Is it really being objective to go along with materialism on the basis of theism failing? Shouldn’t the claims of existence being nothing more than matter in motion be viewed skeptically as well? Or is it honest to apply selective skepticism?

If no one here takes up my debate challenge I may bring it elsewhere.

HRG

And what are the attributes of design ? The only designers that we know of are humans; thus something has them if it looks like something designed by humans.

No human would design a system with about 1 in 10^30 parts useful space (i.e. planetary surfaces vs. estimated volume of the universe to the event horizon). Therefore, the universe does not have the attributes of design.

If you know of some other designers who have different design principles, please tell us.
Sure. But we know independently that putative knife operators exist, and the mechanism by which a knife does harm.

Regards,
HRG.

Wyrdsmyth

Yes, let's.

There are attributes that are not necessarily all deific. The attribute of "creator of the world" is not a universally deific attribute. Neither is "omniscience," "omnipotence," and the list goes on. In Greek Mythology, the universe and the gods arise out of Chaos, but the gods make men. In Norse Mythology, the gods didn't age but some could be killed. Not all gods that have been believed in are the "same thing, but just with a different name." Someone who believes in a different supernatural-claim from you isn't necessarily just pasting a different name on the same god-concept. So, the Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't necessarily a euphemism for God. Devotees of the Invisible Pink Unicorn aren't necessarily equivalent to the followers of Yahweh, as if they'd just switched a label. The supernatural entities they believe in could have attributes in common ("this thing created the world") but others not in common ("the Invisible Pink Unicorn, unlike Yahweh, is not omniscient, and in fact is largely ignorant of the world").

If a homicide detective is called in, there probably already is something about the case which makes people think there might possibly be foul play. Homicide detectives don't get called in on every single death in our society. If a ninety-year old lady dies of a heart attack in a rest home, I don't think any detectives will get a phone call for that... unless there is something else beyond that fact, to suggest differently. Detectives generally look for evidence that foul play was done, but I don't think they assume it in lieu of evidence. They assume foul play could have occurred. Overall, I don't like this analogy, because I think in our society we have a default position in regards to death, which can be either "natural causes" or "unknown." Without evidence for foul play, we don't assume it. The detective who calls himself an "a-naturalist" and contends that all deaths should assume foul play unless proven otherwise is simply going to get laughed off the force. Do you realize how much paperwork that would entail, how many homicide detectives would have to work in order to examine every single death that occurred?

When naturalists can account for what occurs, when they can give explanations that rely on nothing more than natural causes... then there are no big gaps to fill in with supernatural spackling.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

doodad

I hear you. If you mean the religious right to be the fundies, they are a little pushy at times.
However, the more moderate sects pretty much live and let live. Yes, they would like to see atheists become believers, but are interested in spinning their wheels if the prospect doesn't want to be bothered.
I wouldn't want a theocracy either, and at present the American government is far from being one. However, Mr. Bush seems to think that religion is a good thing for people in that it helps to promote social responsibility. That's not to say that there are other ways to do it, but religion is organized and familiar to people, where other schools of thought such as atheism are not well organized and are not familiar to most people. I have yet to meet an atheist in real life and I'm 63 years old, so that should serve to illustrate my point that atheists are relatively few in number. I think
ten percent is the commonly held view of the portion of the USA that is not theist.

Dr. Retard

Andrew:

1. Some atheists are making a claim -- those who claim that there is no God. But as you surely must realize, some atheists make no such claim -- some say that no one can make any claims whatsoever directly to the question of God's existence -- and they usually call themselves "weak atheists" or "negative atheists". Now you might insist that you know the true definition of 'atheism' and that these people are not atheists at all. But first, you'd be ignoring a perfectly good definition that's employed in both common and philosophical practice. And second, you'd be engaging in a purely verbal disagreement -- both you and your opponent would agree that certain people are claiming that there's no God and that they bear a burden of proof and that there are other people who make no such claim who don't bear any such burden. The dispute would be how to best describe the situation; but unless you're translating a book into English, such an issue is beside the point.

2. Perhaps if 90% of US citizens believed in "crystal power", and some term arose to describe the 10% nonbelievers, you'd adopt that term to describe yourself, even if you had no pro-or-con beliefs about the topic.

3. Atheists needn't be naturalists in any sense of the term. But those who are still needn't be "strong" naturalists. They might just believe in natural forces and lack any belief in supernatural forces, claimng that they really don't know whether there are any supernatural forces. And then they don't have to argue their position -- unless some nut who didn't even believe in natural forces came along.

4. And I think this is a weird definition of 'faith'. Just because you don't know something for certain normally doesn't mean that you must have faith to believe in it. A detective who comes to a crime scene and infers that the killer was wearing boots isn't buying into a "faith proposition," even though he could easily be wrong. It's just an empirical proposition, the kind that none of us know for certain, so we stick with the best evidenced propositions. I always took a belief based on faith to be a belief without any direct evidence that is held because it accords with one's religious worldview. At least that definition explains everyday use of the term. But if you insist on your definition of 'faith', then I cheerfully accept the claim that my naturalism is faith-based -- this is a 'faith' that even an atheist can love. A trivial victory at best.

1. I think it would be that easy. For a great number of reasons, I would be pleased to discover that there was a God. But of course, I disagree that there is enough evidence to favor the idea of a designer/creator. So I remain an atheist. Of course, incontrovertible evidence isn't necessary, just the kind that makes theism very likely.

2. If someone's belief in God is akin to belief in the reliability of a plane's instruments, then I wouldn't call it 'faith'. Maybe if the believer participated in a religious tradition, I could say that he or she belonged to a faith, but I'd say the belief is based on everyday reason and evidence. And I imagine that the experienced pilots crash due to some irrational anxiety -- even though they believe that the instruments are reliable, they still get really frightened. I don't see the parallel with the scenario where atheists switch to theism because of potent evidence. What would be so scary about that? And even if those former-atheists did get really anxious about the existence of God, there's no reason to suppose that they'd be unable to continue their theism -- it's not as if, like the plane case, anxiety about theism risks one's life.

[...]

My question would be: do you see why you needn't support a case against that weird religious view in order to be unconvinced? Because that is the parallel to the "negative atheism" case being argued -- the negative atheist needn't support a case against theism in order to be unconvinced. (Just for completeness: of course the positive atheist does need to support such a case in order to claim that theism is false.)

1. Why must "the atheist" be a materialist or naturalist? I think the two views are plausible ones, but I have no idea why you keep acting as though they logically follow from atheism. In any case, I can name some non-materialist and non-naturalist atheists to drive home the point.

2. Again, there are weak and strong versions of the views you criticize. Usually, the kinds of entities and forces accepted by the materialist and naturalist are uncontroversial -- material bodies and natural forces. It is (customarily) the dualist and supernaturalist who enter the picture, accepting all of this and making still further claims: that there are non-material entities and supernatural forces. In a dialogue between these theories, it is right for the dualist and supernaturalist to bear the burden of proof, so long as the materialist-naturalist doesn't make any claims directly to the existence of non-material entities and supernatural forces. Now, if the materalist-naturalist wants to claim that dualism and supernaturalism are false, then she does bear a burden of proof. Similarly, if a Berkelian idealist comes by, then any materialist is charged with the duty of justifying the existence of material bodies. But the latter case is rare and the former case is presumably not at issue.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Retard ]</p>