Atheism: What's the point?

[Schlusemann]

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

No.

Pull out a history book and look at how the Romans approached religion. It's far more likely that Romans would have incorporated Christianity into their circle of belief, with perhaps communal places of worship, and perhaps personal shrines of devotion.

No, they would have, because Christianity would not allow Christians to worship the emperor, or any other gods. And, you had to do that. So, they would have tried to destroy Christianity.

That's religion for you, especially the main monotheistic religions: Christianity, Muslim and Judaism. All three aggressively command that the followers must not even consider any other god as being divine or worth recognition. Religion is just mind control. It sets out to put the people in order and keep them from critically thinking. Why else would the first four commandments focus on which god you should worship, what not to say about that god, and how often you should worship it? "Thou shalt not kill" is fifth on the list...Can it be made any more apparent what the peddlers of religious dogma had in mind when they came up with these "laws"?

[Ashmoria]

I'd really like to read Origen's Hexapla, six versions of the Old Testament current in the 3rd century placed side by side. But noooo ... though I do hear someone's editing the fragments together.

its frustrating to know that so much has been lost that we will never get back.

[FreeSatania]

Even if it doesn't prove anything, the key is making that thing comprehensible. Without being able to understand, theism seems illogical because it asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why".

What exactly do you mean by 'seems illogical'.

"... asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why" " - who's asking that of you? theism or the church.

Both atheism and theism are asserting a belief based on no real evidence.

I think there is nothing more or less logical about asserting the non-existence of an unseen entity that asserting it's existence. If no reliable information exists for the existence of god then assuming it's non-existence is not the most logical choice - agnosticism is.

Until there is reliable evidence either way - and it is unlikely that there ever will be - then there is no logical reason to close your mind to the possibility.

[Farnhamia Redux]

I'd really like to read Origen's Hexapla, six versions of the Old Testament current in the 3rd century placed side by side. But noooo ... though I do hear someone's editing the fragments together.

its frustrating to know that so much has been lost that we will never get back.

I know.

<_<
>_>

Just to digress for a moment ... We have no autograph manuscripts of any ancient author, nor do we have any direct copies of any autograph manuscripts. I sometimes wonder that we have anything at all. And despite how little I thinkof Christianity as a religion, its monastic orders did preserve a great deal and get points for that.

[Treznor]

Even if it doesn't prove anything, the key is making that thing comprehensible. Without being able to understand, theism seems illogical because it asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why".

What exactly do you mean by 'seems illogical'.

"... asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why" " - who's asking that of you? theism or the church.

Both atheism and theism are asserting a belief based on no real evidence.

I think there is nothing more or less logical about asserting the non-existence of an unseen entity that asserting it's existence. If no reliable information exists for the existence of god then assuming it's non-existence is not the most logical choice - agnosticism is.

Until there is reliable evidence either way - and it is unlikely that there ever will be - then there is no logical reason to close your mind to the possibility.

This assumes that both sides of the argument have equal weight. On the one side we have multiple different religions that assert there are hundreds of different gods meddling in earthly affairs, or at least setting the whole thing off. On the other hand we have atheism pointing out the total lack of evidence to support even the suggestion of gods being responsible for so much as the manipulation of a single subatomic particle, let alone creating or guiding anything.

While lack of evidence prevents us from saying conclusively that there are no gods, the weight of evidence strongly suggests there aren't any. The two arguments do not have equal weight.

[Polishnigrad]

Well, where's the point in religion, eh? FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!

[Grave_n_idle]

I'd really like to read Origen's Hexapla, six versions of the Old Testament current in the 3rd century placed side by side. But noooo ... though I do hear someone's editing the fragments together.

its frustrating to know that so much has been lost that we will never get back.

The desire to wipe your enemies and ancestors from history is an unfortunate (if understandable) trend that shows little likelihood of disappearing.

Sure, Stalin was a monster. But when you've done smashing the statues and looting the palace (or whatever), you've left half a century of blank pages in the history books.

[FreeSatania]

Even if it doesn't prove anything, the key is making that thing comprehensible. Without being able to understand, theism seems illogical because it asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why".

What exactly do you mean by 'seems illogical'.

"... asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why" " - who's asking that of you? theism or the church.

Both atheism and theism are asserting a belief based on no real evidence.

I think there is nothing more or less logical about asserting the non-existence of an unseen entity that asserting it's existence. If no reliable information exists for the existence of god then assuming it's non-existence is not the most logical choice - agnosticism is.

Until there is reliable evidence either way - and it is unlikely that there ever will be - then there is no logical reason to close your mind to the possibility.

This assumes that both sides of the argument have equal weight. On the one side we have multiple different religions that assert there are hundreds of different gods meddling in earthly affairs, or at least setting the whole thing off. On the other hand we have atheism pointing out the total lack of evidence to support even the suggestion of gods being responsible for so much as the manipulation of a single subatomic particle, let alone creating or guiding anything.

While lack of evidence prevents us from saying conclusively that there are no gods, the weight of evidence strongly suggests there aren't any. The two arguments do not have equal weight.

Ok prove it.

It's a fallacious argument to say that because most religions are probably false that that in any way implies the non-existence of god.

Back to square one.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'd really like to read Origen's Hexapla, six versions of the Old Testament current in the 3rd century placed side by side. But noooo ... though I do hear someone's editing the fragments together.

its frustrating to know that so much has been lost that we will never get back.

I know.

<_<
>_>

Just to digress for a moment ... We have no autograph manuscripts of any ancient author, nor do we have any direct copies of any autograph manuscripts. I sometimes wonder that we have anything at all. And despite how little I thinkof Christianity as a religion, its monastic orders did preserve a great deal and get points for that.

Monastic orders certainly preserved documents that were of interest to them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ok prove it.

It's a fallacious argument to say that because most religions are probably false that that in any way implies the non-existence of god.

Back to square one.

On the other hand, if religions TEND to claim to be true, and TEND to claim that all OTHER religions are false - then they can't all be true but they CAN all be false.

In the presence of conflicting accounts on the 'yuh huh there are gods!' side, it's not illogical to favour the side of skepticism about the whole thing.

After all, (almost) all of those religions are at LEAST as dismissive of each other, as Atheists might be.

[Bassyruk]

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

Henry F. Schaefer III:

The Anthropic Principle
I must say something here about the anthropic principle: there are a number of scientific parameters or constants, any one of which, if changed just a little bit would make the earth uninhabitable by human beings. A book that I strongly recommend is by Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos. He has a substantial discussion of the anthropic principle and demonstrates why many physicists and astronomers have considered the possibility that the universe not only was divinely caused, but in fact divinely designed.

One such person is the pantheistic astronomer, George Greenstein, who makes this statement: "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially created the cosmos for our benefit?"

I think Greenstein has gone a little too far in the other direction. I do not think we have proof of the existence of God but I think we do have, in the big bang understanding, some good evidence for the existence of God.

Others have commented on this evidence. A book I recommend is Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg. He doesn't have God in the title, but God is discussed in the book. He tells the story about a poem by the Venerable Bede, a religious person of the Middle Ages. In the poem, Bede talks about the banqueting hall being our ordinary existence and Weinberg's comment on this is, "It is an almost irresistible temptation to believe with the Venerable Bede that there must be something for us outside the banqueting hall." There must be something beyond materialism.

Of course this view is echoed in the New Testament. For example, Paul the Apostle wrote, "Ever since the creation of the world, God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made"(Romans 1:20). This is exactly what Weinberg is talking about-that almost irresistible temptation.

Atheism
It is very rare that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why is this true? Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty member, has said, "Nature has been kinder to us than we had any right to expect."

Martin Rees, one of Hawking's colleagues at Cambridge, stated, "The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."

Some scientists express surprise at so many accidental occurrences. However, that astonishment quickly disappears when one sees divine purpose instead of arbitrariness in the laws of nature.

Against overwhelming logic, some atheists continue to claim that the universe and human life were created by chance. A reply to this argument has been developed by the philosopher, William Lane Craig. The atheist's argument states that since we're here, we know this must have all happened by material forces. Craig's counter-argument states,

Suppose a dozen sharp-shooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad. They all shoot a number of rounds in that direction, but the prisoner escapes unharmed. The prisoner could conclude, since he is alive, that all the sharp-shooters missed by some extremely unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to some remarkable piece of good luck. But he would be far more rational to conclude that the guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharp-shooters had deliberately missed. Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance, almost immediately, perhaps in as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.

[Grave_n_idle]

Both atheism and theism are asserting a belief based on no real evidence.

No they aren't. Atheism asserts a LACK of belief... based on the fact that - as you say - there's no real evidence.

[Farnhamia Redux]

its frustrating to know that so much has been lost that we will never get back.

I know.

<_<
>_>

Just to digress for a moment ... We have no autograph manuscripts of any ancient author, nor do we have any direct copies of any autograph manuscripts. I sometimes wonder that we have anything at all. And despite how little I thinkof Christianity as a religion, its monastic orders did preserve a great deal and get points for that.

Monastic orders certainly preserved documents that were of interest to them.

Granted. Better than nothing. And they did preserve things accidentally, like some texts that under other, later ones and that have been retrieved through careful processing of the originals.

[Farnhamia Redux]

Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance, almost immediately, perhaps in as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.

Argument from incredulity. Just because it amazes you doesn't mean God did it. And ten million years is actually quite a long time, you know.

[Grave_n_idle]

Granted. Better than nothing. And they did preserve things accidentally, like some texts that under other, later ones and that have been retrieved through careful processing of the originals.

Better than nothing - unless you weigh it against how much material they may have chosen to see destroyed.

It's a thorny one. Are we better off for the Christianised retelling of Celtic lore, or are we worse off because the heathen were largely silenced?

[Grave_n_idle]

Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance, almost immediately, perhaps in as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.

Argument from incredulity. Just because it amazes you doesn't mean God did it. And ten million years is actually quite a long time, you know.

Gah, I know it. I had to wait ten million years for a bus, one time. Thank God I brought a crossword puzzle.

[FreeSatania]

Ok prove it.

It's a fallacious argument to say that because most religions are probably false that that in any way implies the non-existence of god.

Back to square one.

On the other hand, if religions TEND to claim to be true, and TEND to claim that all OTHER religions are false - then they can't all be true but they CAN all be false.

In the presence of conflicting accounts on the 'yuh huh there are gods!' side, it's not illogical to favour the side of skepticism about the whole thing.

After all, (almost) all of those religions are at LEAST as dismissive of each other, as Atheists might be.

The truth doesn't take sides it just is.

There either is a god or there isn't.

What various religions claim about it is as relevant as how cool and intelligent I sound while smoking a cigarette and quoting Nietzsche

[Farnhamia Redux]

Granted. Better than nothing. And they did preserve things accidentally, like some texts that under other, later ones and that have been retrieved through careful processing of the originals.

Better than nothing - unless you weigh it against how much material they may have chosen to see destroyed.

It's a thorny one. Are we better off for the Christianised retelling of Celtic lore, or are we worse off because the heathen were largely silenced?

It is thorny, indeed. And I did say "some points" not "major points." It's like sacred music, we have some amazing music because of the Church. Would we be better off without it if the Church didn't exist? I don't know.

[Farnhamia Redux]

Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance, almost immediately, perhaps in as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.

Argument from incredulity. Just because it amazes you doesn't mean God did it. And ten million years is actually quite a long time, you know.

Gah, I know it. I had to wait ten million years for a bus, one time. Thank God I brought a crossword puzzle.

Have you read Waiting For The Galactic Bus? Oddly enough, it touches on some of the issues we're talking about here, in a speculative, satirical way.

[Grave_n_idle]

The truth doesn't take sides it just is.

Right. Now, if only we knew what it is.

There either is a god or there isn't.

Again, right. But we don't know which.

What various religions clam about it is as relevant as how cool and intelligent I sound while smoking a cigarette and quoting Nietzsche

Unfortunately, 'what various religions clam(sic)' is the sum and substance of the evidence.

[Enadail]

Pages from an Intelligent Design Proponent

You found an Intelligent Design proponent to tell us that atheists scientists are rare? And that God is likely true? Wow, that's unheard of.

Even though, most of the physicists I know are either atheist or non-denominational, being agnostic. My friend who is a physicist says few of his colleges are religious or practicing.

Sorry, an Intelligent Design proponent saying God's likely is like getting a bishop to say evolution is false. Besides, are you read through this stuff, a lot of it is true, but starts with the assumption that God exists and that humans are special, rather then leading to those conclusions.

Earth isn't made for humans, humans are made for earth. If a number of things were different, definitely, humans couldn't have survived here... but doesn't mean something else could, and couldn't reach the same level as humans, call themselves something and talk about an zombie god out to save them.

And of course, yet again, appeals to authority don't matter. I couldn't care less if tomorrow Richard Dawkins said he believes in God... it wouldn't change my opinion.

When you start with a conclusion and find that your results match your conclusion, you aren't worthy of being called a scientist.

[Tmutarakhan]

No, it is CLAIMED as an account of events from 50 years earlier, and what people said about the alleged perpetrators.

We don't KNOW that, 50 years earlier, they were blaiming Christians - we just know that Tacitus - 50 years on - said that they were.

I don't understand what you think the motivation is. Can you try and tell this story in some way that makes sense? You lambasted me earlier for trying to piece together what it is that you think was going on; obviously I don't get it. So OK: nobody in the 60's thought the Christians were founded by a rabblerouser who got executed; nobody was really paying much of any attention to them at all; the whole "persecution by Nero" thing never happened; but decades later, at a time when all sources agree that there wasn't any particular controversy about Christians, Tacitus decides to invent a story about Nero persecuting Christians, because he despises Christians for some reason we haven't heard, but he makes it plain that Nero was in the wrong about these things he didn't do??? That's the best I can come up with for what it is that you are trying to postulate: please explain what it is that you actually think.

No, I would not write about WBC picketing the Kennedy funeral; that would be absurd, particularly when my audience would include a lot of people who had also been around since 1963.

In days of mass instantaneous media? Sure. But if you were writing for an audience with little knowledge or interest, about events that most of your audience would not be contemporaries for.... you could write whatever you wanted.

No, he is writing for the audience who is interested, of course, mostly senior members of the Roman elite, many of them just as old as he was or nearly so.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is thorny, indeed. And I did say "some points" not "major points." It's like sacred music, we have some amazing music because of the Church. Would we be better off without it if the Church didn't exist? I don't know.

I'm quite a big fan of sacred music, to be honest. But, as you allude to - if the Christian sacred music didn't exist, might we not still have some tradition of other sacred musics, now long dead?

I'm glad for what we still have, but I lament what was lost.

[Bassyruk]

Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance, almost immediately, perhaps in as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.

Argument from incredulity. Just because it amazes you doesn't mean God did it. And ten million years is actually quite a long time, you know.

That is not my statement. And secondly, I didn't write that, William Lane Craig did.
And if something's improbable, it's not likely to happen

[FreeSatania]

The truth doesn't take sides it just is.

Right. Now, if only we knew what it is.

There either is a god or there isn't.

Again, right. But we don't know which.

What various religions clam about it is as relevant as how cool and intelligent I sound while smoking a cigarette and quoting Nietzsche

Unfortunately, 'what various religions clam(sic)' is the sum and substance of the evidence.

And the evidence for your side?

*tumble weed roles by*

Atheism is not the assertion that theism can't be proven -thats agnosticism - atheism it's the assertion that theism is wrong.