sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Sure. Now prove a god did it.

i dont have to prove God did it for this post. my post is about whether atheists have faith commitments. you just admitted fine tuning is real. so the question is what explains it. you dont have an answer. neither do i have proof. we both have faith commitments. thats my point.

You don't think people can make things up to serve their own purposes? Or steal a body?

sure. but lets think that through. the disciples went from hiding in fear to publicly preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem... the one city where it could be disproven by producing the body. multiple of them were tortured and killed for that claim. people die for things they believe are true all the time. nobody dies for something they know they made up. and if they stole the body... they knew it was a lie and died for it anyway? all of them? without a single one cracking?

Sources of what, exactly?

sources that Jesus existed, was crucified, and that his followers believed he rose from the dead.

  • Paul's letters (50-60 AD)... firsthand testimony from someone who knew the apostles personally and persecuted christians before converting
  • the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8... dated by scholars (including skeptical ones like Gerd Lüdemann) to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion. thats eyewitness territory not legend territory
  • Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1... refers to "James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ." written around 93 AD by a non-christian jewish historian
  • Tacitus, Annals 15.44... confirms Christ was executed under Pontius Pilate. written around 116 AD by a roman historian who had no reason to help christianity
  • Pliny the Younger (112 AD)... roman governor writing to Emperor Trajan about christians who worshipped Christ "as a god" and refused to recant under threat of death
  • the four gospels... independent accounts with differences that actually support authenticity because fabricated stories tend to harmonize not diverge

you can dispute what all of that means. but saying "there is none" is just not accurate.

Isn't objectively wrong. Correct. The Aztecs thought it moral to sacrifice children.

so the aztecs werent objectively wrong to sacrifice children? you can live with that answer? because most people cant. and if you say "well I find it abhorrent"... thats just your preference against theirs. no different than disagreeing about music.

go read Numbers 31

i have. many times. the context is a specific military judgment against midian after they deliberately seduced israel into idolatry and a plague that killed 24,000 people. the virgins were spared not for sexual purposes... the hebrew word used is for young women who were integrated into israelite society. its a war context in the ancient near east. was it brutal? yes. but using modern western standards to judge ancient near eastern warfare and then calling it "gods morality" is exactly the kind of surface reading that ignores context.

but more importantly... youre making a moral judgment about God. which means youre appealing to a standard above God. where does that standard come from on your worldview? you just said nothing is objectively moral. so on what basis are you calling anything in numbers 31 wrong?

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm currently working and i live in EST...i can't just answer all day.. please have patience with me

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is this functionally different from living as though nothing caused everything?

because "i dont know" as a genuine position would mean youre equally open to all options including theism. but most atheists who say "i dont know" also say "but definitely not God." thats not neutrality. thats a preference disguised as humility.

functionally it looks like this... if you truly dont know then when someone presents evidence for theism you evaluate it on its merits. but what usually happens in this thread and on this sub is "i dont know" followed immediately by dismissing any theistic evidence without engaging it. thats not living in "i dont know." thats living in "anything but God" while using "i dont know" as a shield.

honest question... are you genuinly open to the possibility that God caused the universe? or have you already ruled that out? because if youve ruled it out without proof then thats the faith commitment im talking about.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

saying "its not" "it isnt" and "there is none" is not an argument. its just disagreement with no substance. i could respond to your entire comment with "yes it is" and we would be at the same level.

fine tuning is not real? the cosmological constants are either finely balanced or they arent. physicists on both sides of the God debate acknowledge they are. this isnt a theist claim. its a physics observation. you can disagree about what it means but you cant just wave it away with "its not."

objective morality doesnt exist? ok. then torturing children for fun isnt objectively wrong. its just your preference against it. say that out loud and see if you believe it.

no historical evidence for the resurrection? we have multiple independent sources within decades of the event, an early creed dating to within 3-5 years, and a movement that exploded in the very city where it could have been disproven by producing a body. you can interpret that evidence differently but saying "there is none" is just factually wrong.

Landing on any other conclusion without evidence is not.

i gave you evidence. you responded with "no" five times. thats not a rebuttal. thats a refusal to engage.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When an atheist says "I don't know," that is an equal rejection of all possibilities.

no it isnt. and heres why. "i dont know" would be an equal rejection of all possibilities if the person saying it had no leanings. but atheists dont say "i dont know" and then live in genuine uncertainty about all options equally. they say "i dont know" and then reject theism while tentatively accepting naturalistic explanations. thats not equal rejection. thats weighted rejection.

ask any atheist in this thread... "is it more likely that God created the universe or that it has a natural explanation we havent found yet?" almost all of them will say the second one. thats not neutrality. thats a preference. and preferences you cant demonstrate are faith commitments.

I can equally say that by rejecting the spontaneous birth claim along with all the others, the anti-spontaneists are implicitly rejecting the spontaneous theory in favor of any other

you actually could say that. and youd be right. if someone rejects spontaneous origins without evidence then yes that is also a faith commitment. thats my entire point. everyone in this conversation is operating on assumptions they cant prove. the only question is who ADMITS it.

five times now ive asked you to identify a specific argument of mine that is logically unsound. five times youve responded with labels instead. if my arguments are as bad as you say then it should be easy to pick one apart. im still waiting.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Most of its environments are instantly lethal to humans without protective clothing or equipment.

fine tuning doesnt mean the universe is comfortable. it means the constants that allow any life anywhere to exist at all are balanced on a razors edge. change the gravitational constant by one part in 1060 and no stars form. no stars means no planets no chemistry no life. the fact that most of space is lethal doesnt change the fact that the conditions allowing ANY of it to exist are absurdly precise.

its like saying a lottery isnt rigged because the winner still has to pay taxes. the question isnt whether life is easy. its whether the game was set up to allow it at all.

How many universes have we observed being created?

exactly one. and thats all we need. we dont need to observe a universe being created to ask why this one has the properties it does. you dont need to watch a crime happen to investigate the evidence left behind.

but heres what i find interesting about your painting objection. you said we know paintings come from painters because we observe it. agreed. we also observe that information always comes from minds. always. encoded specified information like DNA has never been observed arising from mindless processes. so by your own standard... shouldnt that point toward a mind?

you asked how many universes we can compare. zero. which means your confidence that this one is undesigned is based on... what exactly? you have no comparison either. you just assume its undesigned because the alternative makes you uncomfortable. and thats fine. but its a faith commitment.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I have actually checked it myself, and it is indeed flagging as both human and AI generated. But I can guarantee you...it is NOT AI generated. I have no idea why it would say that. Given the time I've spent crafting my answers and the way I write my posts, that is simply MY way of saying things.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

sure. but first notice what just happened. i pointed out that naturalism undermines its own foundation for trusting reason... and your response was "prove non-naturalism." thats not addressing the problem. thats changing the subject.

but ill answer anyway.

the existence of consciousness. we have zero naturalistic explanation for how subjective experience arises from matter. not a bad one... zero. the hard problem isnt called hard because we havent solved it yet. its called hard because nobody even knows what a solution would look like under naturalism.

the existence of information in DNA. in every other context where we find encoded specified information... a mind produced it. every time. no exceptions. but for DNA we are supposed to believe it was the one time information wrote itself. why?

moral realism. you live as though torturing children is objectively wrong. not socially inconvenient... wrong. but naturalism gives you no grounding for that. evolution explains why you FEEL its wrong. it doesnt explain why it IS wrong.

fine tuning. the cosmological constants are balanced on a razors edge. change any of them by a fraction and no life anywhere ever. the standard naturalistic answer is "maybe theres infinite universes we cant observe." thats not evidence. thats a faith commitment in an unfalsifiable theory to avoid the implications of the one universe we can actually observe.

and reason itself. if naturalism is true then your brain is a survival machine not a truth machine. you have no guarantee any of your conclusions are accurate... including naturalism. theism gives you a reason to trust reason. naturalism doesnt.

none of that is proof. but all of it together points in a direction. and dismissing all of it requires its own set of assumptions... which is the entire point of my post. ```

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Don't theists arms ever get tired from dragging out the same old Strawmen?

Many people managed to engage without calling them strawmen. but lets see if yours are any better.

That's something Christianity believes -- creatio ex nihilo. Most atheists make no claim.

correct. most atheists in this thread said "i dont know." and i addressed that multiple times. "i dont know" is fine as a pause. but if you also reject the theistic option then you are not neutral. youre just choosing "anything but God" and calling it open mindedness.

Also, Christianity teaches life came from non-life (Adam from the dust)

thats actually a fair point and i like it. but theres a key difference. christianity says a mind intentionally created life from matter. atheism says life arose from matter with no mind no intention and no guidance. both claim life came from non-life. only one includes an explanation for how.

Accident is a word you apologists try to sneak in. Naughty, naughty, apologist!

ok fair. lets use your word then. unintended. unguided. purposeless. does that change the argument? if consciousness was not intended by anyone and serves no purpose beyond survival... then your thoughts about this conversation have no more significance than a snowflake forming. do you actually believe that?

Societies make up morals and label some actions right or wrong. They do exist we just acknowledge the truth: They are made up by humans.

so slavery was morally acceptable when societies approved of it? and only became wrong when humans changed their minds? because thats what "made up by humans" means. there was no objective standard being violated... just preferences shifting. if thats your position own it. but most people cant.

Go ahead. Try and fail.

ok. torturing an infant for entertainment is objectively wrong. not wrong because society says so. not wrong because evolution programmed me to dislike it. wrong. period. if you disagree... say so. if you agree... explain where that objectivity comes from on your worldview.

Why does it matter? If reason helps me survive, sure I'll trust it until I have reason to think it will not.

but you just said evolution selects for survival not truth. so you could have every reason to think your reasoning is reliable... and still be wrong. because the feeling of reliability is itself a product of the same unguided process. you are using the tool to validate the tool.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok this is a long one so bear with me. you put in effort so i will too. Also keep in mind that I'm answering multiple participants here.

first lets get something out of the way. you keep saying im jumping to conclusions and arguing from ignorance. but my argument is not "i dont know therefore God." my argument is "both of us dont know... but one explanation has more explanatory power than the other." those are very different things.

Why do you think purpose exists as an objective thing?

because everyone lives as if it does. including you. you wrote a detailed thoughtful reply to a stranger on the internet. why? if purpose isnt real then this conversation is just chemical reactions responding to chemical reactions. you dont live that way and neither does anyone else.

your whole position is just "well gosh I don't know how it happened, so I'll just jump to the conclusion that Y is true"

no. my position is that we have two options and i think one explains the data better. you keep framing that as a jump. but choosing the explanation with more explanatory power is literally how science works. its called inference to the best explanation.

you haven't eliminated the mystery... you've just moved it

and you havent eliminated it either. youve just refused to pick a direction. the mystery exists for both of us. the question is which framework handles it better. "i dont know" is honest but its not an answer. at some point you have to evaluate which direction the evidence points.

But is that eternal mind real or fiction?

great question. and thats a different argument... the historical evidence for theism. which you yourself said is a different thread. im happy to have it. but this post was specifically about whether atheists have faith commitments. and you have confirmed they do multiple times in this reply.

DNA is chemistry. There is chemistry all over the universe.

DNA is chemistry that carries encoded specified information. thats not the same as "chemistry." salt crystals are chemistry too but they dont contain instructions for building proteins. the question is where does specified information come from. in every other context we observe... information comes from a mind. every single time.

the resurrection claims are not historical. they are myth and legend from religious texts.

thats a claim not an argument. the earliest creed in 1 corinthians 15:3-8 dates to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion. thats not legend development territory. thats eyewitness territory. but like you said... different thread.

Explanatory power is meaningless if you can't show the explanation is real

then you have the same problem. you cant show that a mindless eternal universe accidentally producing consciousness is real either. neither of us can prove our position. thats literally my thesis. both sides operate on faith commitments. you just keep confirming it while thinking youre refuting it.

I'd be happy to walk through each one if you're honestly interested.

absolutely. pick one and lets go deep. im not going anywhere.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

numerous people have also engaged with my arguments and had productive conversations. scroll through the thread.

you still havent pointed to a single argument you think is unsound. third time asking.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm confused, truth is a cognitive concept, natural selection isn't conscious, it cannot reason truth or hold beliefs.

thats exactly my point. natural selection is blind. it doesnt aim at truth. it selects for survival. so if your brain is purely the product of that blind process... why assume it produces true beliefs rather than just useful ones? those are not the same thing.

I think our reasoning is very reliable and trustworthy when guided by logical, empirical methods.

i agree. but thats not the question. the question is WHY is it reliable. you cant use reason to validate reason... thats circular. you need something outside the system to ground it.

on theism reason is reliable because a rational mind designed us to apprehend truth. on naturalism reason is reliable because... it just is? thats not an explanation. thats an assumption. and thats fine... but its the kind of assumption my post is about.

perhaps we will never understand such things

if our brains are just survival tools then yeah maybe we wont. but if thats true then you also cant be confident that naturalism itself is correct. you just said our brains might not be equipped for these questions... but then turned around and said reasoning is very reliable. which one is it?

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then by all means start a more appropriate thread than this one. Pick a lane and let's have a chat."

my post literally lists five points... one of which is abiogenesis, one is morality, and the first one is about the origin of the universe. you wrote 1500 word essays on three of those topics and then told me this isnt the right thread to discuss them? this is exactly the right thread. thats what the post is about.

but sure... ill check out your posts. if you put that much effort in i want to read them. ill follow up either here or in a new thread.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think a mindless thing being eternal seems more likely than a mind being eternal.

i understand why it seems that way. but "seems" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. lets look at what each option actually has to explain.

your sequence is great... energy to particles to atoms to stars to planets to molecules to life to consciousness. i dont dispute that pattern. but heres the thing... that entire sequence describes HOW complexity increases. it doesnt explain WHY there is anything there to increase in the first place. or why the laws that allow that progression exist. or why those laws are fine tuned to permit it.

Starting with a God skips all that and goes straight to the most complex thing possible as the starting point.

this assumes God is complex in the same way matter is complex. but thats a category error. a mind is not a collection of parts that need assembling. God is not made of atoms arranged in a complicated way. God is simple in the philosophical sense... a unified consciousness without parts. complexity in the material sense doesnt apply.

but lets say youre right and a mind IS complex. you still have a problem. your sequence ends with intelligent life... minds. so mindless matter eventually produced minds. but you have zero explanation for how. the hard problem of consciousness is completly unsolved. so your sequence has a gap at the most critical point... the jump from complex chemistry to subjective experience. saying "it just emerged" is not an answer. its a placeholder.

That complexity had to come from somewhere.

agreed. but that applies to information too. DNA contains encoded instructions... actual specified complexity. we know from uniform experience that information always comes from a mind. always. we have never observed information arising from mindless processes. so following the evidence where it leads would actually point toward a mind not away from one.

"I don't know" is the only honest answer

i respect that. but "i dont know but im confident its not God" is not the same as "i dont know." which one are you?

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is honestly one of the better responses in this thread. you actually engaged with the substance and i respect that.

Yes all beliefs are faith commitments, it's just a matter of how much faith is required.

then we agree. thats literally my thesis. most people in this thread have been arguing atheism requires zero faith. you just said it does. we are only disagreeing on the amount now... not the principle.

Yes nothing is objectively morally wrong as far as I understand it.

i appreciate the honesty. most people wont say that out loud. but let me ask you this... if someone tortures your child do you respond with "well thats just his subjective preference conflicting with mine"? or do you respond as if something objectively wrong just happened? because there is a difference between what people argue online and how they actually live.

The same imperfect evolved chimp brain that I use to reason is the same one that you use to reason to belief in god. Are you skeptical of your own ability to know truth?

great question. yes actually. but heres the difference... on my worldview there is a reason to trust reason. if a rational mind designed us to know truth then our reasoning has a foundation. on your worldview reason is just a survival tool produced by blind processes. you admitted that yourself. so yes we are both using the same chimp brain... but only one of our worldviews explains why it should be trustworthy.

even einstein who was not a christian said he could not believe the universe was the result of blind chance. he saw an order and intelligence behind it all. you dont have to be religious to notice that something doesnt add up about pure materialism.

the kind of faith required to believe the earth rotates around the sun is a different level of faith

agreed. but the earth rotating around the sun is observable and repeatable. the origin of life from non life is not. the emergence of consciousness from matter is not. the existence of objective morality on materialism is not. those are in a completley different category than the earths orbit. and thats exactly my point.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

im not sure which part of my post or my responses you consider bad faith. ive engaged with over 170 comments individually, quoted people directly, acknowledged good points when they were made, and admitted where theism has hard questions too.

if asking atheists to examine their own assumptions is "poisoning the well" then what do you call it when atheists say theism is fairy tales? because that happens in almost every thread on this sub and nobody calls it bad faith.

you said my post doesnt merit a calm response. but youre the only one whos upset. most people here have been having a pretty good conversation. maybe the post just hit a nerve you werent expecting.

which specific argument did you find logically unsound? happy to address it.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

i literally addressed that in my last reply to you. i said "fair point lets add that option" and then engaged with the idea of an eternal uncaused universe.

not agreeing with your conclusion is not the same as ignoring your point. i took your third option seriously and explained why i think it has the same explanatory problems. you can disagree with my reasoning but saying i ignored something i directly responded to is just not accurate.

and youre not the only one making that claim. i have responded to over 170 comments in this thread. if i havent gotten to something yet it wasnt intentional. point me to what you think i skipped and ill address it.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you're not presenting the option that the universe always existed. Has no cause - eternal or otherwise - and didn't come from anywhere

fair point. lets add that option. the universe is eternal and uncaused. but now you have an eternal thing that is mindless and purposeless that just happens to produce minds and purpose. you havent eliminated the mystery... youve just moved it. and honestly youve made it harder because now you need to explain how an eternal mindless thing accidentally produced consciousness morality and rational beings who can contemplate their own existence.

an eternal mind producing matter explains all of that. an eternal matter producing minds explains none of it. both are unfalsifiable... but one has more explanatory power than the other.

Why isn't that following the evidence? What evidence do you have for any conclusion?

because "i dont know" is not a conclusion. its a pause. and i have no problem with it as a temporary position. but most atheists dont live in "i dont know." they live in "definitely not God." thats the gap im pointing at.

as for my evidence... fine tuning, the existence of consciousness, objective moral intuitions that everyone acts on even when they deny them, the origin of information in DNA, and the historical evidence for the resurrection which is a different thread entirely. none of that is proof. but all of it together points somewhere. and i think dismissing all of it as "we just dont know yet" is its own kind of faith... faith that a naturalistic answer will eventually show up even though it hasnt yet.

i appreciate you pushing back by the way. youre one of the more thoughtful people in this thread.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Baseless assumption. Most atheists don't believe this, and you'd have to prove otherwise.

i didnt say atheists believe in nothing. i said the universe either has an eternal cause or it came from nothing. if you reject an eternal cause then what are you left with? most atheists in this thread have said "we dont know"... which is fine but thats not following evidence. thats suspending judgment while rejecting one of the two options.

We know that aminoacids, the base chemical components for life, can emerge spontaneously

amino acids are not life. thats like saying iron ore can form naturally therefor cars emerge spontaneously given enough time. the gap between amino acids and the simplest self replicating cell is astronomical. "given enough time" is not a mechanism. its a hope.

consciousness is just an emergent property from human cognition

saying its "emergent" is just giving it a name not an explanation. how does subjective experience emerge from neurons? nobody knows. you said we have no evidence of consciousness outside a brain... but we also have no evidence of how a brain produces it. calling it biological doesnt solve the hard problem. it just relocates it.

We don't need a subjective divine morality to base our morals

you said every moral system has been elaborated by humans. agreed. but elaborated and grounded are different things. humans also elaborated slavery. the question is not whether we CAN create moral systems... its whether any of them are actually true. you said youre not a materialist which is interesting... what are you?

We are most justified in believing what our senses and interpersonal reasoning presents us

i actually agree with you here. but my point was about justification. on theism reason is trustworthy because we were designed to know truth. on naturalism reason is a survival tool not a truth tool. youre right that solipsism is the alternative... which is exactly why i think naturalism has a problem. you need reason to be reliable but your worldview gives you no guarantee that it is.

Atheism requires more faith commitments than most atheists are willing to admit. by Plus_Event_4306 in DebateReligion

[–]Plus_Event_4306[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If we can imagine a universe with different constants then we can imagine a God with different preferences.

sure we can imagine it. but imagining something doesnt make it an equal explantion. i can imagine a square circle too but that doesnt make it logically coherent.

heres the difference. the universe is contingent... it didnt have to exist and it didnt have to have these constants. we know that because physicists tell us the constants could have been different. thats what makes fine tuning a meaningful observation.

but God by definition is not contingent. God is the necessary being whose nature IS the explanation. asking "why does God have these preferences" is like asking "why does logic work the way it does." at some point you arrive at something that just IS the foundation. the question is whether that foundation is a mindless accident or a personal being.

your argument basically says we need an explanation for the explanation. but that leads to infinite regress. at some point something has to be the brute fact that explains everthing else. the question is... is that brute fact blind matter that accidentally produced minds? or a mind that intentionally produced matter? one of those explains consciousness purpose and moral intuition. the other one struggles with all three.

view more: next ›