Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists

[Ultimate Paragon]

Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.

Not to mention your "scientific argument" is the fact that a scientist believes--on FAITH--that god drives the laws of our universe. I would like to point you to my previous point about Ben Carson and smart people being susceptible to irrational beliefs.

This also sounds like an argument from that abortion of a movie "God is not Dead." The reasoning sucked then, and it sucks now.

I would also like to reiterate that Paragon has danced around the formal logic issue and burden of proof since I came into this thread. I now invoke the direct question rule: do you acknowledge that because it is easier to prove a positive (the existence of X) than a negative (the absence of X) that the burden of proof in this debate on the existence of god falls on you, Paragon? Follow-up, if not, then why?

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

And by the way, what I did earlier was called nitpicking.  I'd think you'd have come to expect it, because the Internet is the greatest refuge of the pedant.

[pyro]

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

Are you going to explain why?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

Are you going to explain why?

Because with metaphysics, gathering evidence either way is ridiculously hard.

[pyro]

Because with metaphysics, gathering evidence either way is ridiculously hard.

"Gathering evidence is hard" -> "The laws of evidence don't apply"?

[Art Vandelay]

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

Are you going to explain why?

Because with metaphysics, gathering evidence either way is ridiculously hard.

What do you know, making supernatural woo seem reasonable is hard. Who'd have thunk it?

[Ghoti]

What do you know, making supernatural woo seem reasonable is hard. Who'd have thunk it?

I'm putting that one in my signature.

[Art Vandelay]

I am honoured.

[guizonde]

i invoke the direct question rule.

ultie, what's your faith, exactly? i'm curious.

[Ultimate Paragon]

i invoke the direct question rule.

ultie, what's your faith, exactly? i'm curious.

I'm a Methodist.

[The_Queen]

i invoke the direct question rule.

ultie, what's your faith, exactly? i'm curious.

I don't think the rule works that way, as it was originally created to hold Skyfire accountable for avoiding points made in a debate. There is a reason I politely reminded Paragon 2-3 times that I made that point and he ignored it before invoking the rule.

And Paragon did jack shit to address the underlying issue of my burden of proof argument. The nuance between physical and theoretical is again a red herring. The burden of proof remains on Paragon because all he has to do is come up with one argument for God's existence and not on Art because the only way that Art could disprove God is to find all the arguments for God's existence--including the ones that people haven't thought of or cannot conceptualize--and then disprove them. Practically speaking, if the burden of proof were on Paragon, then it would take him only one decent argument. However, if it were on Art, then it would take Art a lifetime and he would still be no where near done.

The other thing is that, as much as Skyfire, I mean Paragon, wants to argue that the existence of God is the default "because it is in our DNA" or something, he's wrong. It honestly rings of the fundamentalist argument that because everyone believes in god, in theistic debates the burden is on the atheist to disprove. But formal logic doesn't care about how many people think X. Further, we know that Art does not bear the burden of proof because we can explain the world absent god's existence (Occam's razor), and the default position is that god does not exist or interact with our world. I feel like I'm going in circles here.

[rookie]

I agree with you L 100%. Except in this case, a discussion about faith and God, the more you can be on the same page the better. Saying one is a Christian is almost meaningless as mainstream protestants, JWs, Mormons, catholics, the Westboro Baptist Church, and snake handlers are all self proclaimed christians. Now, in answering a very personal question (in that there are few things in life more personal than religion), UP had allowed everyone to at least grasp the platform of what he believes.

I know he's dealing with apologetics way too much, and that whether he's a methodist or lutheran or catholic or snake handler had no real relevance to the discussion as it stands right now. But should that change, it's nice to have a baseline for his beliefs as it would be nice if he had a baseline for whoever he was talking to.

That's my thoughts anyways.

[guizonde]

thanks ultie, that'll help everyone grasp basically your views. 

[Canadian Mojo]

I was merely trying to provide some historical context.  More to the point, the Bible is less inaccurate than it was once claimed to be.  Skeptics used to scoff at many of its claims, but archaeology ultimately proved a lot of them right.

And "magical sky fairy?"  Appeal to ridicule will not help you here.  All it does is make you sound like a manchild.

Moreover, you're beating up a strawman.  Not all theists believe due to faith and/or tradition.  Some believe because of reason or science.  For example, Antony Flew used to be a staunch proponent of Atheism.  Then he wrote a book called There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.  Why the change of heart?  Because of his commitment to following the evidence.

It's pretty dishonest to to use Anthony Flew in any defense of the Bible. The man was a deist who specifically said "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian." (obligatory wiki ref.)

In all honesty, using Flew to prove the case for god isn't particularly good anyways since his argument came down to "I haven't seen any science that I believe in to explain the origin of life -- therefore god." His background and biases as a philosopher crept into the mix and he essentially asked himself why would the universe do this and the only answer that can explain a purpose and motivation to the universe is an intelligence of some sort. The catch is no overriding purpose or motivation is necessary for the universe to function and his presupposition that one is necessary forced him down a single path and into god's arms. Embracing randomness and chaos theory as the drivers of the universe would have sent him down another and to the big bang.

In either case it is simply a name for the spark that started the whole ball rolling and not advocating for a classically styled God. At best you could say he was a deist of the gaps.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I wasn't using Flew to defend the Bible, merely to defend God's existence.  If you'll notice, I never claimed he was a Christian, merely that he was a theist.  But if you want an actual Christian, I can cite none other than C. S. Lewis.

And as for his background as a philosopher, what about the many atheist philosophers who didn't start believing in God(s)?

[mellenORL]

This is the gist of what I'm gleaning from your more recent responses, UP:

Working theories that are incomprehensible for some science dude or philosopher (and most people) i.e., quantum mechanics + big bang + primogenesis + Higg's Boson + dark energy + string theory = "Hey-Itsa-Me! God".

Innate human propensity to feel emotional responses from abstract patterns observed in the world, and to apply abstract patterns onto reality = instinct for belief in god (or magic) = GodExists.