Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists

[davedan]

So lemme get this straight, some smart people have expressed the opinion that there might be multiple universes, therefore people should believe in god? Because that's what this whole brouhaha is about, right? Whether it's more sensible to believe in god or to not believe (let's ignore for the moment all of the different gods one might believe in an assume that "G/god" means your specific god). So any evidence you bring into play should either explain or add to your position. What the hell does the presence or absence of multiple universes have to do with the presence or absence of god (and therefore the rationality of believing in him/her/it/them)?

I think his logic is actually "multiverse theory isn't observable or testable, therefore scientific theories don't need to be testable and therefore apologetics are totally scientific".

Speaking of which, he's still yet to acknowledge that multiverse theory isn't actually a scientific theory, it's essentially idle speculation. Not that I expect him to at this point. If the rest of this thread is anything to go by, he'll just ignore it until he thinks of another straw to grasp at and the whole process will repeat.

Did I mention that some people use multiverse theory as an argument against God?  Because they do.  You can call it idle speculation all you want, but once it's entered into a serious debate, the one who entered it is expecting us to take it seriously.

 

Well you were the one who entered it into this debate. At this stage you are having trouble expressing a rational thought, let alone a rational argument for god(s).

This is your thread. You must have had some idea of the rational arguments you would seek to make before you commenced. If not why not simply concede that there is not presently a rational argument for god. There may be in the future but currently there isn't.

[mellenORL]

Perhaps it's UP unwittingly trying to merge science woo with metaphysics woo. Woo.

[Art Vandelay]

Did I mention that some people use multiverse theory as an argument against God?  Because they do.  You can call it idle speculation all you want, but once it's entered into a serious debate, the one who entered it is expecting us to take it seriously.

And that is relevant because..?

[mellenORL]

Woo?

[Sigmaleph]

And none of what mellen just said has anything to do with proving "God" exists.

Ironbite-like at all.

...it was a sub-point on a debate about what constitutes valid criteria for a scientific theory. UP brought it up as a counterexample to Ironchew's point. You can disagree on whether it's a good counterexample, but the relevance to the debate seems fairly obvious to me.

[Barbarella]

Alright, I'll bite....

I can see what both UP and the rest of you are saying.

That said, I feel the spiritual exists. I don't believe in God the same way as UP does...I'm a Spiritual Pantheist.

I believe the "spiritual" & "supernatural" is just as normal and natural as material reality.

There may not be strong proof but there's at least some circumstantial evidence.

As for James Randi and his Million Dollar Challenge, I feel it hasn't been won because his standards are too high. The thing about the so-called "supernatural" or "woo" is that it can't always be performed or examined on-cue perfectly like stuff in the material plane. He's applying strict standards meant for matter that wouldn't work well with spirit or psyche.

Do I believe there's a lot of bogus "psychics" & "mystics" out there? Yes! I'm no fool. I believe that extraordinary claims require a whole lot of scrutiny.

Do I believe there's a lot of crappy pseudoscience? Heck yeah! That said, some things related to scientific theories, the new physics or a multiverse shouldn't be tossed out as woo because it sounds too weird or hard to test in a lab.

Sometimes I feel that U.P. and I are the only people on this board who have any sort of spiritual belief. We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference. People like U.P. and I find Anti-Theists irritating because we hate being lumped together with whackjobs like Pat Robertson & DAESH. We hate religious frummery and ignorance as much as any rational person! We accept science, a billions-years-old world, humans as primates and all other modern science. We believe in equal rights.

It's insulting! I hate being compared to DAESH.

Let me say something else, sometimes I do side with guys like James Randi. There are many things in which I and the "skeptic" crowd agree. I respect his efforts to debunk phony psychics, faith healers, cults, televangelists. I love reading RationalWiki and I find conspiracy nuts, anti-vaxxers, many New Age trends (I do have New Agey beliefs but some New Age stuff is clearly stupid and a scam), certain forms of alternative medicine & anti-GMO foods to be ridiculous.

Why can't Atheists, Agnostics, Theists, Deists & Pantheists just all get along, find common ground and unite and fight FRUMMERY & FANATICISM instead?

Granted, even I think U.P. was kinda crusin' for a brusin' by starting this thread to begin with. However I feel that deep-down, he's a decent guy.

This thread gets way too snarky & unfriendly. Why can't you be like the folks over at the sister site of FSTDTs? Somehow, there's more a variety of people and they seldom turn on each other. I feel welcome there. Perhaps Paragon & I should ditch this place and hang out at FSTDTs exclusively.

[Art Vandelay]

Do I believe there's a lot of bogus "psychics" & "mystics" out there? Yes! I'm no fool. I believe that extraordinary claims require a whole lot of scrutiny.

Oh?

As for James Randi and his Million Dollar Challenge, I feel it hasn't been won because his standards are too high. The thing about the so-called "supernatural" or "woo" is that it can't always be performed or examined on-cue perfectly like stuff in the material plane. He's applying strict standards meant for matter that wouldn't work well with spirit or psyche.

Clearly not, seeing as you already believe an extraordinary claim when you know full well that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[Ironchew]

We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference.

That's...not what anti-theism is. Anti-theism is a specific subset of atheism involving the positive claim that no gods exist.

To compare to a monotheist like UP, he already believes every god doesn't exist except his own. Anti-theists go one god further.

[davedan]

Spandex Space Kitten,

The whole point of this thread was the assertion that there is a rational argument for god and so theism is as rational a position as atheism. No one appears to have been overly rude to UP, particularly given the arrogant tone of the beginning of the thread.

Couple of things given what you have said - and please note - just because I'm not agreeing with you doesn't mean I'm attacking you:

What is the circumstantial evidence for god?

As for the supernatural just being another part of the normal/natural world, that's kind of wrong. The supernatural is, by definition outside of the natural order.

How can you accept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence on the one hand but on the otherside of your mouth claim that scientific, repeatable tests are too difficult for psychic powers?

[pyro]

There may not be strong proof but there's at least some circumstantial evidence.

There's also circumstantial evidence that the moon landing was faked (more specifically, there was plenty of motive to fake it, actually getting there is hard, and we haven't repeated the feat in over a decade). There's a reason people don't trust circumstantial evidence.

Since I should probably give a more rigorous reason why circumstantial evidence should be ignored; the probability of observing the evidence when it's true isn't higher than the probability of observing the evidence when it's false. It's not evidence.

As for James Randi and his Million Dollar Challenge, I feel it hasn't been won because his standards are too high. The thing about the so-called "supernatural" or "woo" is that it can't always be performed or examined on-cue perfectly like stuff in the material plane. He's applying strict standards meant for matter that wouldn't work well with spirit or psyche.

Then how can you tell it apart from random chance?

Do I believe there's a lot of bogus "psychics" & "mystics" out there? Yes! I'm no fool. I believe that extraordinary claims require a whole lot of scrutiny.

Already been explained why that's exactly what Randy thinks, too.

Do I believe there's a lot of crappy pseudoscience? Heck yeah! That said, some things related to scientific theories, the new physics or a multiverse shouldn't be tossed out as woo because it sounds too weird or hard to test in a lab.

The only reason the multiverse hypothesis isn't woo is because it's proponents are trying to come up with experiments instead of selling fake "contact your parallel universe self" tools. (It should go without saying that if it turns out somebody actually is selling contact with your parallel universe self, they're peddling woo.)

Sometimes I feel that U.P. and I are the only people on this board who have any sort of spiritual belief. We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

I've noticed, and I strongly appreciate that. And though I do not think your ideas make any sense, I fully oppose anyone who says you shouldn't be allowed to believe them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference. People like U.P. and I find Anti-Theists irritating because we hate being lumped together with whackjobs like Pat Robertson & DAESH. We hate religious frummery and ignorance as much as any rational person! We accept science, a billions-years-old world, humans as primates and all other modern science. We believe in equal rights.

Misrepresenting people is, of course, wrong, and comparing you to DAESH is practically libel.

I'm afraid, whether you want to or not, if you're arguing that belief in god(s) is rational, then you're trying to refute any atheist who does not believe due to (in their estimation, of course) lack of evidence. Not just the obnoxious ones, though they're far more likely to participate in debates like this one.

It's insulting! I hate being compared to DAESH.

The quiet majority of religious people do not and will not go kill-all-heretics. I get that. That does not, however, make your beliefs rational. It merely makes them safe.

Let me say something else, sometimes I do side with guys like James Randi. There are many things in which I and the "skeptic" crowd agree. I respect his efforts to debunk phony psychics, faith healers, cults, televangelists. I love reading RationalWiki and I find conspiracy nuts, anti-vaxxers, many New Age trends (I do have New Agey beliefs but some New Age stuff is clearly stupid and a scam), certain forms of alternative medicine & anti-GMO foods to be ridiculous.

Why can't Atheists, Agnostics, Theists, Deists & Pantheists just all get along, find common ground and unite and fight FRUMMERY & FANATICISM instead?

(A) that line is not as easy to draw as you make it seem. Anon-e-moose from FSTDT seems pretty fanatical to me (one word: "thoughtcrime"), but I don't think you'd agree. And that's before the possibility of hyperbole comes in.

(B) some of them ARE frummers and fanatics, you just said so yourself a few paragraphs ago. Even among the pantheists.

(C) despite this, it is happening. That's why organizations like the ACLU exist. But where disagreement exist, there will be some arguing; the only question is whether it's kept civil.

Admittedly, though I've tried not to make it worse, this thread isn't a shining example of civility.

Granted, even I think U.P. was kinda crusin' for a brusin' by starting this thread to begin with. However I feel that deep-down, he's a decent guy.

This thread gets way too snarky & unfriendly. Why can't you be like the folks over at the sister site of FSTDTs? Somehow, there's more a variety of people and they seldom turn on each other. I feel welcome there. Perhaps Paragon & I should ditch this place and hang out at FSTDTs exclusively.

Fights are less common on FSTDT because people have a common target to vent at. See also the Worst Political Cartoons thread.

[Rime]

We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference.

That's...not what anti-theism is. Anti-theism is a specific subset of atheism involving the positive claim that no gods exist.

To compare to a monotheist like UP, he already believes every god doesn't exist except his own. Anti-theists go one god further.

I recall your definition of Anti-theism to be "positive atheism," except for that last sentence.  That's just the definition of atheism.  So when did this change?

Anti-theism also carries overtones of fundamentalist attitudes toward those who don't agree with them in terms of gods.

[R. U. Sirius]

Okay, given the feelings of aloneness that Barb has expressed, I guess I should come out and say it: I also hold beliefs about the universe that are currently considered irrational. If forced to describe myself with a label, I would probably call myself a spiritual pantheist as well.

That being said, I don't believe in the supernatural per se. After all, many phenomena we now understand the mechanics of were once attributed to supernatural causes. I just think that we haven't come up with the proper tools to measure things like psychic abilities, ghosts, etc. The short version is that I think the universe is both more subtle and more responsive to consciousness (and may itself BE conscious) than is generally believed.

What's my evidence? A whole lot of personal experiences, which happen often enough that I feel it at least stretch the boundaries of pure probability, if not break it entirely. At the same time, the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence", so I try to remain skeptical of extraordinary claims. The difference I see between my mindset and most people here is that I try to use skepticism as a method rather than holding it as a worldview; the difference I see between my mindset and U.P. and Barb's is that if I can't come up with an explanation for something, I'm more likely to shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, that's a toughie" than say "because God."

Is this way of looking at the world less rational than the pure reason many of the people here seem to go for? Possibly. Am I trying to derive a sense of purpose and comfort from the universe that it simply doesn't owe me? Possibly. But I don't try to make the claim that my views are just as rational as the current scientific consensus, nor do I try to claim that they give me insight into some divine plan or that I have a direct line to the Universal Consciousness (as I call it). After all, it's a big universe; even if I'm right about it being conscious in itself, it may not care about us any more than we care about individual cells in our bodies. If these beliefs are irrational, then it's an irrationality I'm comfortable enough with not to argue about or debate with others. I don't care if you're a pantheist, polytheist, monotheist, deist, atheist or anti-theist; I care about how you treat other people and animals and the impact you try to leave on the world around you.

[The_Queen]

We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference.

That's...not what anti-theism is. Anti-theism is a specific subset of atheism involving the positive claim that no gods exist.

To compare to a monotheist like UP, he already believes every god doesn't exist except his own. Anti-theists go one god further.

I recall your definition of Anti-theism to be "positive atheism," except for that last sentence.  That's just the definition of atheism.  So when did this change?

Anti-theism also carries overtones of fundamentalist attitudes toward those who don't agree with them in terms of gods.

Not necessarily. The term has never been consistently applied. Some famous atheists use the term to denote the positive assertion as to the non-existence of god. Others, such as myself, hold it as a view antithetical to theism; i.e. the view that religion, in the aggregate, has been a detriment instead of a benefit to society. Which, now I must ask Paragon and Spuki, where did this hatred for anti-theists come from

It's one of the downsides of having a group of people united in a lack of belief, but not really much else. No real central group to define things for the rest of us.

[guizonde]

i usually view the distiction gramatically: a-theism is passive unbelief. anti-theism is active unbelief with the goal of attacking theism.

[Ironchew]

Not necessarily. The term has never been consistently applied. Some famous atheists use the term to denote the positive assertion as to the non-existence of god. Others, such as myself, hold it as a view antithetical to theism; i.e. the view that religion, in the aggregate, has been a detriment instead of a benefit to society.

Fair point. I see that popping up in a lot of commonly-held definitions of anti-theism.

i usually view the distiction gramatically: a-theism is passive unbelief. anti-theism is active unbelief with the goal of attacking theism.

Holding the belief that religion is generally harmful to society isn't the same thing as "attacking theism", and only a highly repressed society that forbids any criticism of religious beliefs would perceive it as such.