Disproving the Existence of God

[six45ive]

Well, my quote was-

 

As I've repeatedly said through this thread, a lot of believers consider proof of God's existence to be absolutely irrelevant to their faith- it's atheists who fixate on the proof issue as the prime/only thing worth considering where religion is concerned and, it's deeply irrational to expect religious believers to share that fixation.

 

It's refering to the fact that, generally, people do not require proof for all their decision making.

 

It's actually difficult to come up with good examples, as, when spirituality is concerned, fundamentalist atheists routinely misunderstand/misinterpret what is said (examples in this thread include misinterpreting 'rational arguments by believers' as necessarily being arguments trying to prove God's existence, or, the recent example involving what the Chilean miner said).

 

So, as non-religious/spiritual example, I'll take art.

 

Lots of controversies/questions/decisions to be made, including, 'what is art', 'what is good art', is 'some of what passes as art actually not art' etc, etc.

 

None of which are particularly subject to scientific resolution.

 

Let's suppose that the atheists succeed in their quest to eliminate religion, might they be tempted to turn their attention to art, and insist that to qualify as 'art', an item must be measured by 'art scientists' who can measure the artistic value of the object?

 

That would be an innapropriate use of science.

 

Appreciators of art do not require evidence to judge the value of a piece (or rather, to be totally accurate, it would be safer to say that appreciators do not necessarily require evidence, as, it could be argued, that some appreciators do have a fixed framework of references by which they judge a piece).

 

Now, going back to faith- the fundamental question that fundamentalist atheists fixate on is the issue of proof of God's existence, or lack thereof: seeming to imply that, if there is no proof or strong physical evidence of God's existence, then people should not have faith or follow religious practices etc.

 

(apologies for the use of the term 'fundamentalist atheist'- it's just that I need to distinguish them from atheists in general, as many atheists/agnostics do not attack religion, i'm happy for people to suggest alternatives).

 

When it comes to faith, many believers, in contrast, do not require proof, and/or consider proof to be irrelevant.

 

That is often because, they have a personal relationship with God- as far as they are concerned, they, in whatever sense, feel God to be real and feel there is some form of communication tween them and God.

 

They are aware of the atheist hypothesese that such a feeling is nothing to do with a physically existing God, but rather, is caused by their own inner mental processes (e.g. a delusion/hallucination), but, they don't care- for several possible reasons, e.g.

 

1. there's no way to prove either way whether the feeling emanates from God or delusion

 

2. they find the relationship so valuable that they go along with it

 

3. the feeling is so real (to them), that they totally accept it (in the same way that we can hypothesise the whole world is a delusion (Matrix style), yet, despite the fact that there is no final proof that the world is/is not real, even hardcore scientific atheists will happily go along with the assumption that the world is real, not because of evidence, but because, ultimately, it just seems to be really real.)

 

4. Jung had a theory and spiritual practice based on the existence of powerful archetypal beings- when asked how he knew they were real, rather than simply products of his own subconscious, he replied that it didn't matter (to him)- his interactions with the beings was so valuable that he did not care about the difference

 

That's just 4 off the top of my head- nothing too detailed, just broad brush strokes to establish some possibilites for why those with faith do not care about proof/evidence (by which I mean scientifically admissable evidence) for the existence of the God they have a relationship with.

 

And, this, IMO, is the big problem in this current 'debate' tween fundamntalist atheists and believers.

 

The atheists simply cannot relate to the kind of viewpoints I touch on above- which is why the vast majority of published and video 'debates' are atheists taking on fundamentalist believers, rather than rational, well-adjusted believers.

 

Partly cos, when it comes to rational, well-adjusted believers, they have little interest in getting involved with these ego-ridden intellectual contests, whereas fundamentalist believers are total suckers for them.

 

Partly cos, if they do get involved with a debate with an atheist, they simply do not get pulled into the questions that the atheist wants to cover i.e. questions soley about whether there is evidence/proof for god. The points the rational believer wants to cover are ones that the atheist either cannot, or, is unwilling to debate (i.e. some of the ones I cover above).

 

My flabber is well and truly gasted.

 

 

Absolutely milquetoast. There are so many fallacies in the above nonsense that to respond to it would be like admitting that you accept onewheeldave's fallacious arguments. He keeps talking about 'rational believers', which is an oxymoron if ever I've heard one, without actually stating what his understanding of rational is.

This is the kind of 'poetic language' that Rowan Williams was using in his interview with Dawkins that I linked to earlier. I have a saying.....'theology, the art of making nonsense sound important whilst solving nothing'.

[onewheeldave]

Atheists withhold belief in god/gods. That's all. You have been told this previously in this thread. You misrepresent atheists by suggesting that they have a quest at all, never mind the specific one to which you refer.

 

 

Atheists shoud "withhold belief in god/gods. That's all." as you say, but, some atheists go way beyond that and claim that God does not exist.

 

Some go even further beyond their remit and attack believers in quite irrational ways (e.g. the claim of some Dawkins supporters (and possibly Dawkins himself?) that a belief in God is incompatible with being a rational human being.

 

However, you're right, in that i should have referred to some atheists in the quote you refer to-

 

Let's suppose that the atheists succeed in their quest to eliminate religion, might they be tempted to turn their attention to art, and insist that to qualify as 'art', an item must be measured by 'art scientists' who can measure the artistic value of the object?

[onewheeldave]

There clearly persists this idea that the burden of proof lies just as much with atheists as it does with theists.

 

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person making the claims.

 

Let's examine the claims:

 

1. Theist: There is a god.

2. Atheist: I don't believe in the claim made in 1.

 

If the theist has the burden of proof then he has an obligation to define god and then provide sufficient evidence for their position.

 

If the atheist has the burden of proof then he has an obligation to establish what the theist means by god and then provide sufficient evidence against their position.

 

In other words, the theist has the burden of proof.

 

But as I said earlier, some evidence would be a start.

 

According to the dictionary though, atheism is 'a belief that there is no God'.

 

That's the dictionary I've just looked in, anyway.

 

Clearly, the validity of points like the one you're making depend on which definition of atheist people are using.

[plekhanov]

Atheists shoud "withhold belief in god/gods. That's all." as you say, but, some atheists go way beyond that and claim that God does not exist.

 

Some go even further beyond their remit and attack believers in quite irrational ways (e.g. the claim of some Dawkins supporters (and possibly Dawkins himself?) that a belief in God is incompatible with being a rational human being.

 

However, you're right, in that i should have referred to some atheists in the quote you refer to-

 

Let's suppose that the atheists succeed in their quest to eliminate religion, might they be tempted to turn their attention to art, and insist that to qualify as 'art', an item must be measured by 'art scientists' who can measure the artistic value of the object?

So you follow up one strawman with an even more wrong-headed one. Leaving your odd charge that "the atheists' have a "quest to eliminate religion" aside, theists are forever seeking to control artistic expression, censoring art they disapprove of and trying to persecute and even kill artists who don't tow the line. In contrast 'new atheists' are decidedly liberal advocates of free speech, regardless of whether that speech is religious, political, 'artistic'...

 

Not only does the group you are attacking do the exact opposite of what you accuse it of the group you are defending has done just that for millennia.

[onewheeldave]

So you follow up one strawman with an even more wrong-headed one. Leaving your odd charge that "the atheists' have a "quest to eliminate religion" aside, theists are forever seeking to control artistic expression, censoring art they disapprove of and trying to persecute and even kill artists who don't tow the line. In contrast 'new atheists' are decidedly liberal advocates of free speech, regardless of whether that speech is religious, political, 'artistic'...

 

Not only does the group you are attacking do the exact opposite of what you accuse it of the group you are defending has done just that for millennia.

 

Atheists vary radically in their approach, beliefs, attitude etc- they are not all aligned along the noble lines you claim.

 

The 'new atheists' by which I suppose you're talking about the new wave of 'rationalist' atheists, such as dawkins et al, should, by definition, be rational- use rational arguments and refuse to use irrational ones.

 

They claim to want to communicate their ideas to others- to clear up the igmorance, delusion and irrationality that so often accompanies religious belief, doctrine and dogma.

 

If they stuck to that,they would most certainly be on a noble and useful quest, and, i would be supportive of it.

 

But, it's not the case that all atheists in the 'new wave' stick to that noble, useful approach.

 

What we get are multiple instances of irrational arguements (I've pointed out several in these 2 current 'god' threads), deliberate provocation and insults (arguably, anyway) and a clear lack of emphasis on sincere communication.

 

What do you need for sincere communication of ideas (or anything else). Rationality? Yes, to an extent, it is a useful tool- one of many.

 

But, for communication, rationality is not the only tool needed, nor the most important one-especially on an issue so heated/personal/controversial as God and personal belief.

 

I would suggest that the prime tool in the box for effective communication on such a divisive issue is a grasp of diplomacy.

 

Best way to ensure the ears of your debating opponent close up so they do not listen to you, is to wind them up and/or insult them.

 

Best way to maximise the chances of them listening, and, of your attempt at communication being successful, is to avoid, as far as is possible, winding them up or insulting them.

 

Not at the expense of watering down your message, of course, but instead, whilst maintaining the integrity of your message, avoiding unnecessarily winding up or insulting.

 

Do you believe that the current 'new wave' atheists have that focus on diplomacy, that focus on avoiding imflaming debates, avoiding windups and ainsults,in short, being diplomatic.

 

I don't.

 

Some of this people are so enamoured of rationality that they think it's all they need to debate and to communicate. That's kind of understandable- if they happen to be people who, personally, are primarily rational and who understand life itself primarily via logic, then OK.

 

But, it's actually irrational to persist in attempting to communicate to others who do not share that emphasis on rationality, even when it is obvious that they're simply not listening.

 

Human communication is not primarily rational and, anyone who is rational needs to understand that if they are to communicate successfully.

 

 

 

Worse than that though, is the wind-ups/insults.

 

How many posts do we see here, and online in general, in which the smug atheist (not all atheists- just some) starts their reply to a post with the word 'FAIL'.

 

I see it a lot. How very, very, undiplomatic- can they really expect to maximise the chances of their point being taken on board when they preceed it with 'FAIL' as an assessment of the previous posters ideas?

 

Can you imagine a diplomat engaged in sensitive discussion/negotiations commenting on the oppositions comments with the word 'FAIL'.

 

Regardless of what you think of the comments/ideas, if you want to debate them and genuinely communicate them, you can do so without putting the other person down.

 

What use of the word 'FAIL' does suggest (to me), is an atheist whose prime intent is not to communicate, but to show that they are intellectually superior- that's an ego thing, not a communication thing.

 

Same with the very common term 'Xtians': it winds up (some) christians. Regardless of whether the atheist using it regards it as offensive/insulting is, with regard to diplomacy, irrelevant.

 

What counts is whether the person you're communicating regards it as offensive- purely and practically because, if they do, their ears will close and you have killed any hope of communication.

 

So, diplomatically speaking, you should bite your tongue, and use a more appropriate term.

 

And when Dawkins supporters claim that it's not possible to be both rational and possess a belief in God- is that diplomatic? is that a good precursor to communication?

 

I could go on, and on: but, the point I'm making is that not all atheists are that interested in promoting rational debate and engaging in productive communication on this issue- by their actions, they seem to reveal that some of them are more interested in provoking people and boosting their egos.

 

What's the point in that?

[Grahame]

So then, if the evil doesn't come from an external source, it follows that we were created with evil within us.

 

I don't think we were created with evil in us and I don't believe babies are born evil. If you see or hear a baby telling lies, stealing, committing adultery or any other number of things then let me know. The problem comes when we see something we want (for example) and we have the choice to either take it or walk away.

 

This is where self comes in and you are in control of self. Self says I want that for myself and self takes it. It is down to you and you are in control of yourself so don't go blaming God for your actions. Some women's groups are fond of saying "It's my body - its my choice" and dead right it is. Only you can take responsibility for your actions and it is you (not you personally) who will have to answer in court for what you did.

 

The trouble in the world is down to 'self'.

 

 

[Grahame]

I'm not doubting that Grahame.

 

Then either you have misunderstood it, or I have, and in turn you've misunderstood me. There is a difference in the meaning of love oneself, and know oneself. The aren't the same thing.

 

Look again at the beginning of the originally quoted post...

 

I know myself and I know I have wrong thoughts and I won't deny that on occasions I have succumbed to those wrong thoughts. In Bible language that makes me a sinner and I admit it, but I think I am the only one on here who does.

 

Other people on here tell me how good they are. All I can say is that I am pleased for them, but I just wonder how well they really know themselves?

 

 

[milquetoast1]

According to the dictionary though, atheism is 'a belief that there is no God'.

 

That's the dictionary I've just looked in, anyway.

 

Clearly, the validity of points like the one you're making depend on which definition of atheist people are using.

 

What an unusual dictionary you have. Doesn't it have the other, original, definition, or have you omitted it for convenience?

 

Most dictionaries I've seen provide two definitions:

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

I find it curious that most theists usually always refer to 1. to describe us, whereas every atheist I know describe themselves with reference to 2.

 

Even more curious is that if I look in my grandfather's dictionary there is just one definition which is similar to 2. Looking at the online 1828 definition in Websters gives the following:

 

A'THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

 

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,atheism

 

Again more similar to the definition to the one in my grandad's dictionary, and the one actually used by most atheists to describe their position. Notice the presentation there as well ... a'theism ... cool.

 

Incidentally the word "agnostic" fails to make an appearance in either my grandad's dictionary or the 1828 online edition.

 

I have heard people argue that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position to take with regard to gods. According to this viewpoint, theism and atheism are arrogant affirmations of being certain about something that is intrinsically unknowable. This is bunkum, because belief is a binary position, you either believe in something or you don't. The old dictionaries had it right.

[sccsux]

I know myself and I know I have wrong thoughts and I won't deny that on occasions I have succumbed to those wrong thoughts.

 

It's called being human.

 

In Bible language that makes me a sinner and I admit it, but I think I am the only one on here who does.

 

That's fine and dandy for yourself, but you can't expect everyone to agree that you are a sinner as the word has religious implications/overtones.

[six45ive]

Anyway, to lighten the mood a little (at least for us atheists/scientists) here's something I came across earlier.