Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Why Atheism is rational

Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:43:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've seen many people (both on and off the site) saying that atheism isn't based in rational thought. To counter this, i'd like to show why it in fact is.

Rational being defined as:

Rational: Having meaning or understanding.

Now, theists and 'prophets' (such as Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc.) have made the claim that god(s) exist. Because of this, they have the burden of proof to show empirical and logical evidence that god(s) exist.

This also means that atheists DON'T have to prove that god(s) don't/doesn't exist.

Since there has been a lack of both empirical and logical evidence as to the existence of a deity, and their 'evidence' is based only in subjective 'faith'. Their claim is not valid, therefore meaning that atheism is the rational position.

To simplify this, I will use an example. Say that I claim that there is a magical, mystical teapot flying around Saturn at a speed of 5,000 mph. However, there is a catch. Only I, the chosen prophet of the holy teapot, can see it.

Now, since nobody else can see this teapot (thus meaning that nobody can disprove my claim), does this make my claim valid? Obviously not. However, theists are making practically the same argument.

P.S. I'm not trying to offend anyone here with my remarks about religion, nor am I trying to persuade anyone into changing their belief system. I'm simply making an argument here.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We have evidence of God. Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order. Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:01:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We have evidence of God. Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order. Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.

By saying that the universe exhibits intelligence that you are stating that everything is intelligently designed? If so, wouldn't God (an immensely intelligent being) also have been designed by an even more intelligent creator? Wouldn't this process ascend with an infinite number of creators for creators?

You say you have evidence of God, okay. Show me empirical and logical evidence that God exists.

Also, evolution (or at least I am assuming you were referring to evolution) is a repeatable process that has been shown to have an immense magnitude of empirical evidence behind it. Atheists are at least attempting to apply logic and empiricism to define how the world works. Whereas theists just say "God made all of this, because he is omnipotent and eternal. Beyond time and logic.".

However, it isn't my job to provide empirical evidence for the non-existence of God. That's a job for the theists, since it is their claim. If they can show me that God does exist, through empirical and logical evidence, I will drop my stance on atheism. If not, my stance is rational.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:08:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We have evidence of God. Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order. Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.

Evidence you say? I fail to observe any evidence that suggests A Deity. Anecdotal accounts do not impress me and are remarkably non robust justifications for evidence. Additionally, who is we? We have evidence you boldly assert. Demonstrate it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:21:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:01:59 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We have evidence of God. Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order. Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.

By saying that the universe exhibits intelligence that you are stating that everything is intelligently designed? If so, wouldn't God (an immensely intelligent being) also have been designed by an even more intelligent creator? Wouldn't this process ascend with an infinite number of creators for creators?

You say you have evidence of God, okay. Show me empirical and logical evidence that God exists.

The empirical evidence is all around you. Objective moral truths, intrinsic human worth, the origin of intelligence, the need for a transcendent cause beyond space, time, matter, an energy in order to create the Big Bang, the inconceivable odds against our existence, the sustained forces of order allowing for our existence, universal truths, or really just the question of why anything exists at all without a creator. I find it funny that by discovering HOW the physical properties in our world ALREADY works we somehow take responsibility for knowing why it exists.

Also, evolution (or at least I am assuming you were referring to evolution) is a repeatable process that has been shown to have an immense magnitude of empirical evidence behind it. Atheists are at least attempting to apply logic and empiricism to define how the world works. Whereas theists just say "God made all of this, because he is omnipotent and eternal. Beyond time and logic.".

Belief in God is not mutually exclusive with evolution. The divergence is believing in unguided, random mutations for all that exist as opposed to mutations guided by God.

However, it isn't my job to provide empirical evidence for the non-existence of God. That's a job for the theists, since it is their claim. If they can show me that God does exist, through empirical and logical evidence, I will drop my stance on atheism. If not, my stance is rational.

If you confine evidence only to tangible properties you are destroying mountains of evidence of God by disregarding conscious experiences of being.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:24:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unless you are defining atheism as religious, this may be the wrong forum.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:52:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:21:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:01:59 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We have evidence of God. Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order. Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.

By saying that the universe exhibits intelligence that you are stating that everything is intelligently designed? If so, wouldn't God (an immensely intelligent being) also have been designed by an even more intelligent creator? Wouldn't this process ascend with an infinite number of creators for creators?

You say you have evidence of God, okay. Show me empirical and logical evidence that God exists.

The empirical evidence is all around you. Objective moral truths, intrinsic human worth, the origin of intelligence, the need for a transcendent cause beyond space, time, matter, an energy in order to create the Big Bang, the inconceivable odds against our existence, the sustained forces of order allowing for our existence, universal truths, or really just the question of why anything exists at all without a creator. I find it funny that by discovering HOW the physical properties in our world ALREADY works we somehow take responsibility for knowing why it exists.


First, there is no such thing as 'objective morality'. The dichotomy between right and wrong is variant to the individual you are speaking to. For instance, if I asked a psychopathic murderer about what he thought was right or wrong, it would be far different than what most people would say. Thus showing that morality is not an objective thing.

Second, if things can't happen without a cause, then what caused God to exist? Is he just eternal? If so, then my argument is just as justified, if not more.

However, by Ockham's Razor, saying that an event (X) occurred without cause instead of saying X was caused by Y (when Y was not caused by anything either) is the more rational answer.

Also, evolution (or at least I am assuming you were referring to evolution) is a repeatable process that has been shown to have an immense magnitude of empirical evidence behind it. Atheists are at least attempting to apply logic and empiricism to define how the world works. Whereas theists just say "God made all of this, because he is omnipotent and eternal. Beyond time and logic.".

Belief in God is not mutually exclusive with evolution. The divergence is believing in unguided, random mutations for all that exist as opposed to mutations guided by God.


The atheist view of evolution isn't that it is random. It is that evolution occurs due to a need for a species to gain a new trait that would ensure their collective survival and reproduction. This isn't random, it is based in logic. This itself doesn't require a God.

However, it isn't my job to provide empirical evidence for the non-existence of God. That's a job for the theists, since it is their claim. If they can show me that God does exist, through empirical and logical evidence, I will drop my stance on atheism. If not, my stance is rational.

If you confine evidence only to tangible properties you are destroying mountains of evidence of God by disregarding conscious experiences of being.

So, what you're saying is, there isn't any empirical evidence for God? Since anything that is 'empirical' is something that can be observed and tested with repeatable results via the scientific method. Therefore, there is still no empirical evidence for God.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:43:16 PM, Chimera wrote:
I've seen many people (both on and off the site) saying that atheism isn't based in rational thought. To counter this, i'd like to show why it in fact is.

Rational being defined as:

Rational: Having meaning or understanding.

Now, theists and 'prophets' (such as Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc.) have made the claim that god(s) exist. Because of this, they have the burden of proof to show empirical and logical evidence that god(s) exist.

This also means that atheists DON'T have to prove that god(s) don't/doesn't exist.

Since there has been a lack of both empirical and logical evidence as to the existence of a deity, and their 'evidence' is based only in subjective 'faith'. Their claim is not valid, therefore meaning that atheism is the rational position.

To simplify this, I will use an example. Say that I claim that there is a magical, mystical teapot flying around Saturn at a speed of 5,000 mph. However, there is a catch. Only I, the chosen prophet of the holy teapot, can see it.

Now, since nobody else can see this teapot (thus meaning that nobody can disprove my claim), does this make my claim valid? Obviously not. However, theists are making practically the same argument.

P.S. I'm not trying to offend anyone here with my remarks about religion, nor am I trying to persuade anyone into changing their belief system. I'm simply making an argument here.

I am an atheist too. You should read my topic 'atheists,right scientific errors in religion'. And refer to it whenever you want to tell anybody about atheism.

http://www.debate.org...

I talked with a theist. They wrongly believe atheism to be irrational and think atheists believe that there is no reason of existence and everything is out of nothingness. See link below on how i challenged theist interpretation of 'out of nothing ' concept.

http://www.debate.org...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 11:15:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:52:48 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:21:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:01:59 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We have evidence of God. Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order. Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.

By saying that the universe exhibits intelligence that you are stating that everything is intelligently designed? If so, wouldn't God (an immensely intelligent being) also have been designed by an even more intelligent creator? Wouldn't this process ascend with an infinite number of creators for creators?

You say you have evidence of God, okay. Show me empirical and logical evidence that God exists.

The empirical evidence is all around you. Objective moral truths, intrinsic human worth, the origin of intelligence, the need for a transcendent cause beyond space, time, matter, an energy in order to create the Big Bang, the inconceivable odds against our existence, the sustained forces of order allowing for our existence, universal truths, or really just the question of why anything exists at all without a creator. I find it funny that by discovering HOW the physical properties in our world ALREADY works we somehow take responsibility for knowing why it exists.


First, there is no such thing as 'objective morality'. The dichotomy between right and wrong is variant to the individual you are speaking to. For instance, if I asked a psychopathic murderer about what he thought was right or wrong, it would be far different than what most people would say. Thus showing that morality is not an objective thing.

People can recognize objective moral truths and disregard them. If some morals aren't objective, why do we collectively recognize human rights? Or know that raping an murdering somebody is objectively wrong? Is it not objectively immoral for every last human being to be systematically raped and murdered? It's an extreme example but it follows logically that it is not objectively immoral in your view.

Second, if things can't happen without a cause, then what caused God to exist? Is he just eternal? If so, then my argument is just as justified, if not more.

Actually something must exist outside of temporal time in order to create it so something must've existed eternally. Something always existing in a temporal state of time is incoherent because it would lead to an infinite regress. It's like saying once this chain of infinity is finished I'll reach one minute from now. Infinity -1 or +1 is still infinite and sequential progress can be reached.

However, by Ockham's Razor, saying that an event (X) occurred without cause instead of saying X was caused by Y (when Y was not caused by anything either) is the more rational answer.

Tell me what can begin to exist without requiring space, time, energy, or matter in order to create these things.

Also, evolution (or at least I am assuming you were referring to evolution) is a repeatable process that has been shown to have an immense magnitude of empirical evidence behind it. Atheists are at least attempting to apply logic and empiricism to define how the world works. Whereas theists just say "God made all of this, because he is omnipotent and eternal. Beyond time and logic.".

Some people see that the intelligence present in our universe necessitates a designer and others believe it is the product of random unguided mutation.

Belief in God is not mutually exclusive with evolution. The divergence is believing in unguided, random mutations for all that exist as opposed to mutations guided by God.


The atheist view of evolution isn't that it is random. It is that evolution occurs due to a need for a species to gain a new trait that would ensure their collective survival and reproduction. This isn't random, it is based in logic. This itself doesn't require a God.

You're presupposing a purpose to advance genetic code when everything is objectively purposeless. Deriving the purpose of propagation from the natural process of natural selection can just as easily be applied to deriving purpose from the natural process of death. Why would one be favored over the other when everything is objectively purposeless?

However, it isn't my job to provide empirical evidence for the non-existence of God. That's a job for the theists, since it is their claim. If they can show me that God does exist, through empirical and logical evidence, I will drop my stance on atheism. If not, my stance is rational.

If you confine evidence only to tangible properties you are destroying mountains of evidence of God by disregarding conscious experiences of being.

So, what you're saying is, there isn't any empirical evidence for God? Since anything that is 'empirical' is something that can be observed and tested with repeatable results via the scientific method. Therefore, there is still no empirical evidence for God.

I've already stated some empirical evidence. I'm saying that evidence of God is not only limited to tangible phenomena but also applies to spiritual experiences as well. I can safely say that the Rosetta Stone exhibiting specified-complexity was the product of intelligence the same way I can see the specified-complexity in this universe around me. No arbitrary functions, purpose, or simplistic mechanisms exist in one of life's smallest living things: the cell. It would take an extraordinary leap of faith for me to believe that even this tiny living thing was formed from unguided, random mutation when I can clearly see specified-complexity in this cell.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 11:27:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We have evidence of God. Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order. Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I especially like this:

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon". Stenger argues that science may provide an explanation if a Theory of Everything is formulated, which he says may reveal connections between the physical constants. A change in one physical constant may be compensated by a change in another, suggesting that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a fallacy because, in hypothesizing the apparent fine-tuning, it is mistaken to vary one physical parameter while keeping the others constant.


Furthermore, check out all of the alternative explanations that science already has (who knows what more we will come up with in the future, e.g. the theory of everything) for the apparent fine-tuning for life.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:16:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We have evidence of God.
Well, no you don't. You have a subjective and false interpretation of natural mechanisms which exhibit mechanical precision, rather than the decision-making which marks intelligence.

Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.
No, it's a perfectly equated comparison.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order.
And what does intelligence exhibit? Intelligent exhibits changing methodologies and even changes within methodologies. Is there a street corner near your house? Do you drive exactly the same path each time you traverse that corner? A non-intelligent mechanism would do exactly that. An intelligence (such as a human driver), not only makes decisions, but lacks the capacity to do such things with the mechanical precision of non-intelligent mechanisms. And what the universe exhibits, is fully indicative of mechanical precision, not intelligent decisions.

Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.
Which is likely one of the reasons atheists don't believe that, and one of the reasons theists continually toss such non-sense out as strawman arguments because there is no such absurdity within the real arguments.
The entire point of natural mechanisms is that they're not random. Ever mix salt and water and get salt-water? Have you ever mixed salt with water, resulting in Coca-Cola? Don't you see? Nothing about natural mechanisms is random.

Morality was a necessary development for humans to thrive in social groups. Take away morality and a social group would quickly destroy itself. This is why we find various moral codes among nearly all social creatures. Those such as ants operate more on a chemical code and so have no need of morals.

Consciousness emerges from the fact that we (and many other higher species), possess more than one cognitive processing center in the brain, and those two centers can monitor each other. This gives us the ability to think about our thoughts, as we think them. This makes us self-aware (AKA: conscious). The two primary centers in our brain are the ("old brain") amygdala and dopamine neurons, and the ("new/rational brain"), the pre-frontal cortex. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this system is that the pre-frontal cortex can act as a switching center, where the decision is made to process input through the "old/emotional brain", or through the "new/rational brain". And to believe in religion requires routing processing through the emotional brain. If you did that when balancing your checkbook or deciding whether or not you can afford that sparkly new Mercedes, you'd quickly find yourself broke. You'd make your spending decisions based on the dopamine hit you receive from possessing the bling you had your eye on, rather than on rational factors such as income/expenditure analysis.

But when it comes to religion, one has to pass cognitive processing to the amygdala and dopamine neurons, because there's simply no rational means by which to arrive at a belief in anything for which there is no objective evidence. And while I see theists claiming they have evidence for God, just about every single day here; the other common trait is that they tend not to provide any such evidence. And that's likely because they know all they have to offer is "we don't know, therefore God", or simple subjective interpretation, purposely favored toward their obvious agenda. Neither one qualifies in any way as "evidence".

When it comes to the "intricate interdependence of all living things", explain to me how diverse forms of existence can co-exist within a common environment where competition exists for necessary raw materials without an intricate interdependence developing. It's automatic and unavoidable.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:40:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
^ lol. I'm glad that we have such a great philosopher of mind here. He just solved the hard problem of consciousness in less than a paragraph.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 2:06:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:21:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

The empirical evidence is all around you. Objective moral truths
...do not exist. All moral judgements are subjective. Suppose one looks to the damage mankind has done to the planet and thereby, to the habitats of all other Earth species? It can then be said that humans are a detriment to the planet and to other species. And that simple change in perspective turns your idea of objective moral truths on its head. Your ideas of morality are all based on the assumptive perspective that humans are good.

intrinsic human worth
All a fallacy. Humans have intrinsic value to other humans. But ants have intrinsic value to other ants (and anteaters). In every case, non-sentient raw materials are given greater value than our fellow humans. When was the last time a war was waged over a person? The very concept of war shows that humans hold no particular intrinsic value in humans.

the origin of intelligence
That's a purely subjective call, issued upon a subjective interpretation. Intellect is simply one of many different methods employed by evolution, to ensure reproduction. One's intelligence improves the odds of survival, just as speed, strength, stealth, suppressed metabolism, camouflage, chemical weapons and flight help to insure survival/reproduction. Intellect is a product of evolution, not an evidence for God.

the need for a transcendent cause beyond space, time, matter
That's just emotional immaturity and is certainly not a universal human need.

an energy in order to create the Big Bang
You don't know what energy (if any), or order was necessary for big-bang. So you're subjectively assigning it to God. It may be nothing more than a vacuum fluctuation ripple rebounding across the very fabric of existence. Assigning that as evidence of God makes as much sense as claiming Bugs Bunny created carrots, then claiming carrots as evidence of Bugs Bunny. It's a circular claim.

the inconceivable odds against our existence
There are no odds at all against our existence. The odds that something would exist in any universe are exactly 1 to 1. We just happen to be what exists. Anything else would be just as likely/unlikely.
This is the theist fascination of a simple card trick. Pick a card - any card! The odds against you picking the one you select are 52 to 1. If we expand the deck to contain 200 X 10^141 cards, then the odds of picking any given card become 200 X 10^141. But you'll still pick a card and the odds of picking A CARD, are 1 to 1.

- "When all possible outcomes are highly unlikely, a highly unlikely outcome becomes an absolute certainty." See if you can process that.

the sustained forces of order allowing for our existence
Such as?
You're making a very common theist mistake of assuming that we are the supreme goal of the universe. Of course that makes everything seem highly unlikely. What are the odds that the exhaust port of an internal combustion engine would so precisely meet the needs for the build-up of carbon-emission residues? Certainly such residue (if sentient), might jump to the ridiculous conclusion that the entire engine exists simply so that it can exist. And that would show the residue to have no greater capacity for objective understanding than you're demonstrating.

Isn't it amazing that entire plumbing systems have been created simply to provide for the needs of hard water deposits? One can stand in amazement that huge aquariums have been built simply to provide for the needs of the algae which thrive within the tubes of the filtration system. And let's not forget the fantastically complex jet liners being built for the exclusive purpose of distributing hydrocarbon wastes throughout the atmosphere. Any residue, byproduct, side-effect or form of corrosion can be named as the central purpose for any system. That doesn't mean that such assigned purpose is accurate or even rational.

universal truths
Such as? Most "universal truths" require a given perspective. Alter the perspective and the truth becomes a falsehood.

or really just the question of why anything exists at all without a creator.
Which is as rational as asking how it could have been possible that nothing could have existed without a destroyer. Nothingness is just as likely as somethingness. Neither one requires a cause. If you insist that the existence of a universe requires a creator, then you should be just as insistent that the lack of a fruit-stripe, candy-coated universe requires a destroyer of fruit-stripe, candy-coated universes.

I find it funny that by discovering HOW the physical properties in our world ALREADY works we somehow take responsibility for knowing why it exists.
I find it funny that theists think asking why is a rational question. Science doesn't claim to answer a question of why, because it sees no evidence of a why to be asked.

Belief in God is not mutually exclusive with evolution. The divergence is believing in unguided, random mutations for all that exist as opposed to mutations guided by God.
In evolution, the random mutations are guided not by God, and not without guidance; they're guided by natural selection.

If you confine evidence only to tangible properties you are destroying mountains of evidence of God by disregarding conscious experiences of being.
There is no actual evidence of God to be accepted or destroyed. Everything you've mentioned is just one possible subjective interpretation - no different than assuming that since most of the universe is a near vacuum, that the universe is evidence of a cosmic battle between Hoover and Dyson.
Consciousness is fully explained by the multiple processing centers in our brain, which provides us with the evolutionary advantage of rational thought (for those who choose to use it). Nothing you've mentioned is anything but circuitous arguments (i.e. because I assert it to be of God, then it is evidence for God). Evidence (real evidence), doesn't work that way. If I claim that blueness is superior to all other colors, can I then proclaim the perceived hue of the sky as evidence for my claim?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 3:21:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 1:16:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:50:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We have evidence of God.
Well, no you don't. You have a subjective and false interpretation of natural mechanisms which exhibit mechanical precision, rather than the decision-making which marks intelligence.

No you don't. precision is relative measure of incident compared with optimal possibilities against all possibilities. What is a decision making process? To find the best choice out of all possible choices. They are extremely similar and mutual descriptions of the same observation.

Now you say decision-making marks intelligence. But not when the case is non-human. You merely say that when a human is around it is a decision-making process of intelligence, but when no human is around it is nature's mechanical precision. Subjective and semantic.

Can an intelligence produce mechanical precision? YES


Can nature perform decision-making? NO

So your so called evidence is a subjective denial of evidence, by semantically exchanging the evident arrangement to mechanical precision. Which still does not exclude Intelligence.


Claiming that belief in a celestial teapot is analogous to belief in God is silly.
No, it's a perfectly equated comparison.


No you don't. A teapot has only a few observable effects on the reality we live in. If a tea pot orbited Jupiter with the advancement in optics we could eventually see it.

God on the other hand if one existed would have many more observable effects on the reality we live in. this being the case it is just a rational of the evidence that is up for debate. Like people debate whether the universe ends in a crunch, or ends in a slow death.. Which is interesting I should bring that up because Atheist who want to say they are rational and there is no God so often accept an eternal cyclic universe. Despite the evidence to the contrary and none to support a cyclic universe exists.

The universe exhibits intelligence and universal, unchanging forces of order.
And what does intelligence exhibit? Intelligent exhibits changing methodologies and even changes within methodologies. Is there a street corner near your house? Do you drive exactly the same path each time you traverse that corner? A non-intelligent mechanism would do exactly that. An intelligence (such as a human driver), not only makes decisions, but lacks the capacity to do such things with the mechanical precision of non-intelligent mechanisms. And what the universe exhibits, is fully indicative of mechanical precision, not intelligent decisions.


Anthropomorphic straw man for God. It is clear that the nature of God and his decisions are said to be unchanging. But you paint a picture to say that humans choose different paths and that is a sign of intelligence. Clearly not true in all cases. If a human chooses to never leave the country, they are intelligent and have made a choice that will not change.

You are arguing because you have not seen god make a choice or change a choice, then there is no intelligence. Obviously your logic does not follow. It can't because you are ascribing human traits (change mind) to a God that is of one mind, that doesn't change.

Believing that consciousness, morality, or the intricate interdependence of all living things are the by-product of randomly evolving non-living space junk created in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial instance is harder to believe in my opinion.
Which is likely one of the reasons atheists don't believe that, and one of the reasons theists continually toss such non-sense out as strawman arguments because there is no such absurdity within the real arguments.
The entire point of natural mechanisms is that they're not random. Ever mix salt and water and get salt-water? Have you ever mixed salt with water, resulting in Coca-Cola? Don't you see? Nothing about natural mechanisms is random.

No you don't you confusing Random with impossible. Getting Coke from salt plus water is impossible. I say impossible in that the odds of it's occurence in this universe is so astronomical it will not happen. Awe but there is the rub. if there is even one chance in 10 to the trillion power that Coke will form, there is no one of saying it won't happen this time I mix salt and water. But If I say there is a chance I can mix salt and water and get Coke. I am irrational

This is the astronomical odds an Atheist cling to. There is a 1 in 10 trillion chance we could get here by accident. But now it does not sound crazy.

Come on be intellectually honest I am just as valid to say coke can come from salt and water.


Morality was a necessary development for humans to thrive in social groups. Take away morality and a social group would quickly destroy itself. This is why we find various moral codes among nearly all social creatures. Those such as ants operate more on a chemical code and so have no need of morals.

No you don't. Understanding why a God gave us the ability to discern ethical conduct, is not prove God does not exist.


Consciousness emerges from the fact that we (and many other higher species), possess more than one cognitive processing center in the brain, and those two centers can monitor each other. This gives us the ability to think about our thoughts, as we think them. This makes us self-aware (AKA: conscious). The two primary centers in our brain are the ("old brain") amygdala and dopamine neurons, and the ("new/rational brain"), the pre-frontal cortex. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this system is that the pre-frontal cortex can act as a switching center, where the decision is made to process input through the "old/emotional brain", or through the "new/rational brain". And to believe in religion requires routing processing through the emotional brain. If you did that when balancing your checkbook or deciding whether or not you can afford that sparkly new Mercedes, you'd quickly find yourself broke. You'd make your spending decisions based on the dopamine hit you receive from possessing the bling you had your eye on, rather than on rational factors such as income/expenditure analysis.

But when it comes to religion, one has to pass cognitive processing to the amygdala and dopamine neurons, because there's simply no rational means by which to arrive at a belief in anything for which there is no objective evidence. And while I see theists claiming they have evidence for God, just about every single day here; the other common trait is that they tend not to provide any such evidence. And that's likely because they know all they have to offer is "we don't know, therefore God", or simple subjective interpretation, purposely favored toward their obvious agenda. Neither one qualifies in any way as "evidence".

No you don't, Dopamine neurons even when an Atheist is talking about no god. He is talking about something he believes in, and that makes them feel good. If they didn't feel good about talking no-god they would refrain from talking. So your claim is irrelevant.

When it comes to the "intricate interdependence of all living things", explain to me how diverse forms of existence can co-exist within a common environment where competition exists for necessary raw materials without an intricate interdependence developing. It's automatic and unavoidable.

Life is amazing isn't it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 7:29:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:43:16 PM, Chimera wrote:
I've seen many people (both on and off the site) saying that atheism isn't based in rational thought. To counter this, i'd like to show why it in fact is.

Rational being defined as:

Rational: Having meaning or understanding.

Now, theists and 'prophets' (such as Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc.) have made the claim that god(s) exist. Because of this, they have the burden of proof to show empirical and logical evidence that god(s) exist.

This also means that atheists DON'T have to prove that god(s) don't/doesn't exist.

Since there has been a lack of both empirical and logical evidence as to the existence of a deity, and their 'evidence' is based only in subjective 'faith'. Their claim is not valid, therefore meaning that atheism is the rational position.

To simplify this, I will use an example. Say that I claim that there is a magical, mystical teapot flying around Saturn at a speed of 5,000 mph. However, there is a catch. Only I, the chosen prophet of the holy teapot, can see it.

Now, since nobody else can see this teapot (thus meaning that nobody can disprove my claim), does this make my claim valid? Obviously not. However, theists are making practically the same argument.

P.S. I'm not trying to offend anyone here with my remarks about religion, nor am I trying to persuade anyone into changing their belief system. I'm simply making an argument here.

Definition Atheism: The rejection of belief in the existence of God.
Definition Rational: Having meaning or understanding.
Definition Belief: to accept a statement as true

So the title of this post deconstructed is:

The rejection of accepting the statement "God exist" has meaning and understanding.

P1: Understanding is the relationship between the knower and a conceptual object.
P2: Atheism rejects the existence of the conceptual object God.
P3: The relationship between an Athiest (the knower) and God (the conceptual object) is void.
P4: If the relationship between Knower and object is void, there is no understanding.
P5: Atheist can not know of something they have a no understanding of.
C1: Atheist do not understand God.

P1: Atheism accepts a negative existence of God as being true therefore they have no understanding of a being that does not exist to them. (previous syllogism)
C2: To be with out understanding or meaning of an object Knower then lacks rational.

Therefore I argue Atheism is NOT rational.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 7:40:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 7:29:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:43:16 PM, Chimera wrote:
I've seen many people (both on and off the site) saying that atheism isn't based in rational thought. To counter this, i'd like to show why it in fact is.

Rational being defined as:

Rational: Having meaning or understanding.

Now, theists and 'prophets' (such as Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc.) have made the claim that god(s) exist. Because of this, they have the burden of proof to show empirical and logical evidence that god(s) exist.

This also means that atheists DON'T have to prove that god(s) don't/doesn't exist.

Since there has been a lack of both empirical and logical evidence as to the existence of a deity, and their 'evidence' is based only in subjective 'faith'. Their claim is not valid, therefore meaning that atheism is the rational position.

To simplify this, I will use an example. Say that I claim that there is a magical, mystical teapot flying around Saturn at a speed of 5,000 mph. However, there is a catch. Only I, the chosen prophet of the holy teapot, can see it.

Now, since nobody else can see this teapot (thus meaning that nobody can disprove my claim), does this make my claim valid? Obviously not. However, theists are making practically the same argument.

P.S. I'm not trying to offend anyone here with my remarks about religion, nor am I trying to persuade anyone into changing their belief system. I'm simply making an argument here.

Definition Atheism: The rejection of belief in the existence of God.
Definition Rational: Having meaning or understanding.
Definition Belief: to accept a statement as true

So the title of this post deconstructed is:

The rejection of accepting the statement "God exist" has meaning and understanding.

P1: Understanding is the relationship between the knower and a conceptual object.
P2: Atheism rejects the existence of the conceptual object God.
P3: The relationship between an Athiest (the knower) and God (the conceptual object) is void.
P4: If the relationship between Knower and object is void, there is no understanding.
P5: Atheist can not know of something they have a no understanding of.
C1: Atheist do not understand God.

P1: Atheism accepts a negative existence of God as being true therefore they have no understanding of a being that does not exist to them. (previous syllogism)
C2: To be with out understanding or meaning of an object Knower then lacks rational.

Therefore I argue Atheism is NOT rational.

And how would you argue theism is rational. The very beginning of theism is an assumption. Theists assume a God is all by himself. After making such an assumption they go on to say that this supposed God made everything. Theists also interpret God as a personality for example who sits on a throne. You should ask NASA if the sky is a solid dome or not. Moreover there is no claim from any deity . All are human claims.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 7:46:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Except there is logic that supports the existence of a god, so your argument is not completely accurate.

At 5/27/2014 9:43:16 PM, Chimera wrote:
I've seen many people (both on and off the site) saying that atheism isn't based in rational thought. To counter this, i'd like to show why it in fact is.

Rational being defined as:

Rational: Having meaning or understanding.

Now, theists and 'prophets' (such as Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc.) have made the claim that god(s) exist. Because of this, they have the burden of proof to show empirical and logical evidence that god(s) exist.

This also means that atheists DON'T have to prove that god(s) don't/doesn't exist.

Since there has been a lack of both empirical and logical evidence as to the existence of a deity, and their 'evidence' is based only in subjective 'faith'. Their claim is not valid, therefore meaning that atheism is the rational position.

To simplify this, I will use an example. Say that I claim that there is a magical, mystical teapot flying around Saturn at a speed of 5,000 mph. However, there is a catch. Only I, the chosen prophet of the holy teapot, can see it.

Now, since nobody else can see this teapot (thus meaning that nobody can disprove my claim), does this make my claim valid? Obviously not. However, theists are making practically the same argument.

P.S. I'm not trying to offend anyone here with my remarks about religion, nor am I trying to persuade anyone into changing their belief system. I'm simply making an argument here.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 8:22:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 7:40:49 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:29:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:43:16 PM, Chimera wrote:
I've seen many people (both on and off the site) saying that atheism isn't based in rational thought. To counter this, i'd like to show why it in fact is.

Rational being defined as:

Rational: Having meaning or understanding.

Now, theists and 'prophets' (such as Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc.) have made the claim that god(s) exist. Because of this, they have the burden of proof to show empirical and logical evidence that god(s) exist.

This also means that atheists DON'T have to prove that god(s) don't/doesn't exist.

Since there has been a lack of both empirical and logical evidence as to the existence of a deity, and their 'evidence' is based only in subjective 'faith'. Their claim is not valid, therefore meaning that atheism is the rational position.

To simplify this, I will use an example. Say that I claim that there is a magical, mystical teapot flying around Saturn at a speed of 5,000 mph. However, there is a catch. Only I, the chosen prophet of the holy teapot, can see it.

Now, since nobody else can see this teapot (thus meaning that nobody can disprove my claim), does this make my claim valid? Obviously not. However, theists are making practically the same argument.

P.S. I'm not trying to offend anyone here with my remarks about religion, nor am I trying to persuade anyone into changing their belief system. I'm simply making an argument here.

Definition Atheism: The rejection of belief in the existence of God.
Definition Rational: Having meaning or understanding.
Definition Belief: to accept a statement as true

So the title of this post deconstructed is:

The rejection of accepting the statement "God exist" has meaning and understanding.

P1: Understanding is the relationship between the knower and a conceptual object.
P2: Atheism rejects the existence of the conceptual object God.
P3: The relationship between an Athiest (the knower) and God (the conceptual object) is void.
P4: If the relationship between Knower and object is void, there is no understanding.
P5: Atheist can not know of something they have a no understanding of.
C1: Atheist do not understand God.

P1: Atheism accepts a negative existence of God as being true therefore they have no understanding of a being that does not exist to them. (previous syllogism)
C2: To be with out understanding or meaning of an object Knower then lacks rational.

Therefore I argue Atheism is NOT rational.

And how would you argue theism is rational.
Do you find something wrong with the argument I gave against this OP's resolution?

You see that's what is being discussed. The validity of the OP's resolution "Atheism is Rational" does not change based on the merits of another argument around the resolution of "Theism is Rational". No more than if we argued "Spongebob is Irrational", The strength of my argument against this forums title is unaffected by what you are asking for.

The very beginning of theism is an assumption. Theists assume a God is all by himself.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this? Theism accepts a certain being's existence being true. Atheism rejects a certain being's existence as true.

Now a theist or an atheist may come to identify with either -ism based on some assumptions. But the assumption you are speaking of is not indicative of theism.

After making such an assumption they go on to say that this supposed God made everything.

Or as most theist on this site argue, Everything was made therefore God exists. You see the confusion you cause with mixing words up? In the example I give the existence of everything is a confirmation for God's existence.

I understand your confusion, because your statement is saying theist made up an explanation to explain what they see. Well that is no different than science coming up with theoretical hypothesis. The next step is too see if the theoretical hypothesis conforms to the data we already know or can test for. And as most theist on this site claim, is God hypothesis is in accordance with our known knowledge.

But the example you give is meant to aggravate not illustrate. I hope I have elaborated.

Theists also interpret God as a personality for example who sits on a throne.

You ever here of allegory or metaphor? As you like to point out so often, it is important to distinguish between reality and imagination.

You should ask NASA if the sky is a solid dome or not.

Oh I see you are picking on Christian or Muslim religous text now. This is an attempt to make your statements more believable by drumming up a single point of data from the entire collection of Theist Belief Systems.

That's fine. I know in the Bible where it says the firmament above.. which is the sky. Says firmament in King's James. Well you see when you talk about old manuscripts, be it "Principia" by Newton, or Prior "Analytics" by Aristotle translations are great but not perfect. You have to see how the word was used at the time it was being used. Words change meanings with time.

So lets look at the hebrew word for firmament in the bible. It is "raqiya" coming from a root word meaning "to beat out" or spread out, roll out, etc.. Also in Isiah 40:22 "He stretches out the skies like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in." So this firmament and vault are not concrete solid, but malleable. Now I'm sure you know from the Big Bang that the universe is expanding. That the sky is spreading outward.

Moreover there is no claim from any deity . All are human claims.

Well this is your assertion, with no supporting evidence.

I suggest you read how God speaks to people. It's like If I told my friend to tell the rest of you on this forum I was going to do something. Simple put I don't think "evidence" could be found to support either case... but...

If a god did exist and was so powerful then it should know the future. So if someone said they were speaking a message from God, then God could tell that guy about the future and the people around could see this event happen or not happen. If it happened, and another event foretold happened, then the people might start believing this someone really was speaking for God.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 9:01:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:43:16 PM, Chimera wrote:
I've seen many people (both on and off the site) saying that atheism isn't based in rational thought. To counter this, i'd like to show why it in fact is.

Rational being defined as:

Rational: Having meaning or understanding.

Now, theists and 'prophets' (such as Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc.) have made the claim that god(s) exist. Because of this, they have the burden of proof to show empirical and logical evidence that god(s) exist.

This also means that atheists DON'T have to prove that god(s) don't/doesn't exist.

Since there has been a lack of both empirical and logical evidence as to the existence of a deity, and their 'evidence' is based only in subjective 'faith'. Their claim is not valid, therefore meaning that atheism is the rational position.

To simplify this, I will use an example. Say that I claim that there is a magical, mystical teapot flying around Saturn at a speed of 5,000 mph. However, there is a catch. Only I, the chosen prophet of the holy teapot, can see it.

Now, since nobody else can see this teapot (thus meaning that nobody can disprove my claim), does this make my claim valid? Obviously not. However, theists are making practically the same argument.

P.S. I'm not trying to offend anyone here with my remarks about religion, nor am I trying to persuade anyone into changing their belief system. I'm simply making an argument here.
Remind me.. What % of people believed in God before all children were sent away into state school to live out their childhood? What % of people believe in God, who sleep under the stars rather than street lamps? What % of people believe in God, who live in rural areas, and does that % differ from people who live in concrete jungles?

The major error in your argument is "Now, theists and 'prophets' (such as Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc.) have made the claim that god(s) exist.", it is just untrue. None of these people originated the claim of God, none of these people had to explain the concept of God to anyone, only their idea of God needed relaying.

God is a universal idea, present in all cultures and peoples. According to scientists, it is human nature to believe in God, and children growing up alone on a desert island, would most likely come to believe in God

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

So your claim that because these people (prophets, theists), are making the claim, they have the burden of proof, is totally wrong. Belief in God is a human precept, it is apparent everywhere, and people have to be taken out of nature, live apart from nature, and spend their childhood in indoctrination camps, to assume atheism.

As theism is quantifiably the default position, it is the person who denies what is apparent to the vast majority of us across the world and throughout history, who has the BOP.

"Since there has been a lack of both empirical and logical evidence as to the existence of a deity, and their 'evidence' is based only in subjective 'faith'. Their claim is not valid,"

This is just a ridiculous statement which needs some substantiation before the russels teapot game can even be played, but you cannot substantiate it.