The Next Pope

[thetank]

It is an interesting one. As much as I like questioning the conclusions and actions of some atheists, there's no doubt that atheism is increasingly prevalent in occidental society and that the communication of scientific advances in the fields of biology and physics has been a factor in this.

People who happen to be atheists should be participants at all levels of our representative democracy in the sane way that people who happen to be female, disabled or ginger should be. They are in Britain, they are not in America. Let the Americans worry about that though. I have no interest in solving problems here that don't really exist by means that don't really work.

Agree totally with your reasoning although I would say that I think atheists are probably participants in all levels of democracy in the States too but they just daren't say that they are. For example, Obama had very little by way of religious upbringing and it wouldn't be a massive stretch to
suggest that his church going is somewhat contrived. 

Indeed, there are undoubtadely atheists within the American system who keep these beliefs to themselves.

Don't have a problem with that on an individual level (indeed atheists who keep their atheism to themselves are my favourite type of atheists) but when none of them are happy to stand up and say they don't think there's a God it's symptomatic of a problem.

Similarly in Britain we have a suspicious lack of gay people in professional football. It's up to the individual whether to be out or not but when none of them are out there's probably an issue.

[Claw75]

Don't have a problem with that on an individual level (indeed atheists who keep their atheism to themselves are my favourite type of atheists) but when none of them are happy to stand up and say they don't think there's a God it's symptomatic of a problem.

I completed one of those equality monitoring form thingies over the weekend and, rather than select 'atheism' as my religious belief I chose 'prefer not to say'.  I don't know what this really says about anything, but I guess that, on some level at least, I believe it's still much more main-stream acceptable to be a christian (or otherwise religious).  This was situation dependent - i'd happily declare in other circumstances.

[redarmi]

Indeed, there are undoubtadely atheists within the American system who keep these beliefs to themselves.

Don't have a problem with that on an individual level (indeed atheists who keep their atheism to themselves are my favourite type of atheists) but when none of them are happy to stand up and say they don't think there's a God it's symptomatic of a problem.

Is this still your view when they are getting religion shoved down their throats?  I rarely ever discuss my (lack of) religious beliefs with anyone but I do get a little annoyed when I am expected to participate unthinkingly in Christian traditions.  Perhaps it is because my wifes family are religious I am unusual but things like saying grace before eating really tilts me.  It isn't so much the actual act but what the reaction would be if I refused to participate.   Like a typically henpecked husband I just stand there defiantly not shutting my eyes or saying amen but why should I?  Do I become a millitant atheist if I request that I am excused from these things?

[Rod]

Love this thread for some reason *lol*

Most of the discussion seems to be around religion and I agree with most of the Atheistic points about it (it does very little good and a lot of bad) and it is very interesting. However I am more interested in the Theism/Atheism debate, which I would argue has nothing to do with religion.

Kinboshi (whose views on religion I pretty much agree with btw) asked me to give a proof that a god exists. Well if I had this I might have gone and claimed the $1,000,000 prize for it by now :-) (although if you REALLY want me to outline one of the common arguments I will)

Obviously no such proof exists I have already stated in my second post on this thread I don't know of any proof for either position and I said proof probably doesn't exist but asked what people thought the evidence was. I also believe both sides take a lot on faith and both carry a burden of proof and should be willing to present evidence (my own opinion - I understand why atheism strictly speaking does not - as it is simply saying it does not believe a claim and it is the responsibility of somebody making an extraordinary claim to provide evidence).

The thing is theists will try and give you proof, it's fairly easy to dismiss usually  (this may be because most of the ones I have talked to are Christians or Muslims), but to be fair they try. Atheists just say they don't have too. Yet atheist's frequently make the positive claim "There is no God". This claim DOES carry a burden of proof, you are making a positive statement. I can give some evidence (not proof but evidence). For example

Almost everything that science has explained has previously been attributed to a god, some examples of this are:-

1) The birth of stars (observed by NASA)
2) Evolution (this is now a fact by any reasonable person standard)
3) The way gods have been moved throughout the ages, they started off at the top of a mountain, then were in the sky, then went to outer space and are now in a different dimension. We can never find them.

This is pretty compelling (if basic) evidence to back up the claim that no god exists (it is not needed and  and a lot of reasonable people already accept it. It is not proof yet but once science explains the origin of the Universe then that's pretty does it. The only way you could still believe in a god is to ignore the evidence.

Redarmi asked me if I really believed a god was more likely than fairies. I am inclined to say yes but have to confess to not being able to back this claim up at all. I want to say that I am 100% sure that fairies do not exist but can't carry the burden of proof for this position. This just does not feel like a valid analogy. Not too sure why though. It's a good point then.

[Delboy]

Indeed, there are undoubtadely atheists within the American system who keep these beliefs to themselves.

Don't have a problem with that on an individual level (indeed atheists who keep their atheism to themselves are my favourite type of atheists) but when none of them are happy to stand up and say they don't think there's a God it's symptomatic of a problem.

Is this still your view when they are getting religion shoved down their throats?  I rarely ever discuss my (lack of) religious beliefs with anyone but I do get a little annoyed when I am expected to participate unthinkingly in Christian traditions.  Perhaps it is because my wifes family are religious I am unusual but things like saying grace before eating really tilts me.  It isn't so much the actual act but what the reaction would be if I refused to participate.   Like a typically henpecked husband I just stand there defiantly not shutting my eyes or saying amen but why should I?  Do I become a millitant atheist if I request that I am excused from these things?

Surely its just good manners to sit in silence and wait for them to finish their prayer? 

[Delboy]

Obviously no such proof exists I have already stated in my second post on this thread I don't know of any proof for either position and I said proof probably doesn't exist but asked what people thought the evidence was. I also believe both sides take a lot on faith and both carry a burden of proof and should be willing to present evidence (my own opinion - I understand why atheism strictly speaking does not - as it is simply saying it does not believe a claim and it is the responsibility of somebody making an extraordinary claim to provide evidence).

The whole point of faith is that there is no burden of proof.

[redarmi]

Surely its just good manners to sit in silence and wait for them to finish their prayer? 

This is what I do in general and I don't have a massive issue with it but it generally works that everyone is called into a circle or something to say grace (tends to be the bigger family gatherings that aren't around a table rather than a regular table based dinner and I would just prefer to not join the circle and participate in any way. 

[Delboy]

Surely its just good manners to sit in silence and wait for them to finish their prayer? 

This is what I do in general and I don't have a massive issue with it but it generally works that everyone is called into a circle or something to say grace (tends to be the bigger family gatherings that aren't around a table rather than a regular table based dinner and I would just prefer to not join the circle and participate in any way. 

Oh I see.

I don't think they should have an issue with you not joining the circle. most people of faith, understand that their practices may not be for everyone. I imagine that they wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable.

[kinboshi]

Rod, wasn't asking for proof - just one piece of evidence, no matter how small.

[Delboy]

Rod, wasn't asking for proof - just one piece of evidence, no matter how small.

Love

[Rod]

Rod, wasn't asking for proof - just one piece of evidence, no matter how small.

OK if I must, this one is not exactly new but it is probably the most compelling the hardest one to deal with, although there are some decent counter arguments.

*Disclaimer, I do not believe this to be "true" but would love to see Kinboshi's response.

The Argument of Intelligent Design (AKA Fine Tuning)

The universe does appear to be fine tuned. There are a number of universal constants including the force of gravity that unless they were set at there exact level would make life in the universe totally impossible, the appearance of fine tuning is accepted by even secular scientists . Even the often mentioned Richard Dawkin's considers this to be the most compelling argument in favor of Theism and the one that would be most likely to convince him could he ever be convinced (blatant appeal to authority ftw there).

I would say that is a piece of evidence, at least for intelligent design (which is basically creationism). ie if it is designed there has to be a designer (please note this does not mean that there has to be a designer just because the universe is here - it's not the watchmaker fallacy).

Go for it :-)

[ManuelsMum]

Both religious people and atheists suffer from the hangover of 2000 years of organized religion, and it prohibits both from framing the questions properly.
Religious types are hanging on to their notion of all powerful beardy guy, and similarly atheists become all 'ontological', like 'provide one piece of evidence for that being that you say exists'. Atheists are just allowing themselves to be forced to frame the paradigm according to the 2000 year legacy of god figures that believers have brought with them, really because they know they're wrong in that respect and can easily be poked in the eye.
Grow up lol

Don't look at it in terms of ontology and entities, the existence of which you have to prove/disprove. Look at it in terms of models that allow you to best explain the world which you encounter.
A good analogy to demonstrate this paradigm would be the theory of evolution (I'm not arguing about evolution, just the historical paradigm). When Darwin is first postulating it, you don't really have much direct evidence of it (even though you have obv speciation). Nowadays you have many intermediate fossils and other fossils, and DNA studies, which are almost direct evidence. He didn't have that then, but his theory was still the best model to explain why there are so many varied species etc. So look at the world now with the limited evidence we have (maybe it'll arrive) for or against the existence of 'God'. But look at the merits of a model which suggests that there was
-intention in the origin of the universe
-design, intelligence in the origin
-a specific place for man in the universe

Thuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus..........all many theists are really doing is positing a model where, on the face of it, there appears to be some degree of planning and design in the world, the suggestion that there may have been intention and that man may have a special role (Goldilocks theory, quantum observation etc).
And what fantastic model do atheists/agnostics have to repudiate this model? Very little really. Which is why so many are intent on concentrating on the entity of 'god' especially the christian god, because it's so easy to knock over.
We actually know so little about the actual real origin of the world (what brought about the Big Bang) and know few answers to the really fundamental questions (why there is matter and not nothing, why there should be a delicate arrangement that permits life), that to flick a hand and dismiss any model that would seem *extranatural* is more than a little cavalier.

[kinboshi]

Rod, wasn't asking for proof - just one piece of evidence, no matter how small.

Love

?

Chemical reactions in the brain, experienced by many animals, including mammals and birds for example, and favoured by evolution in order to ensure the procreation and the successful survival of young until they develop  into self-sufficient adults.

Not sure why that's evidence of a god. I'm guessing those who don't experience love (for others or from others) have done something wrong and have deemed unworthy of this gift?

[Jon MW]

...

Almost everything that science has explained has previously been attributed to a god,


.... It is not proof yet but once science explains the origin of the Universe then that's pretty does it. The only way you could still believe in a god is to ignore the evidence.
...

Almost everything attributed to gods can now be explained by science - but not all of it can be proved

It would be hard to quantify but I expect the majority of the sum total of scientific knowledge is evidence to support the scientific argument rather than literal proof.

There are some good theories to show how matter could spontaneously come into existence from nothing - a pre-requisite for doing away with god creating the universe - but even if you can recreate this in a lab for example, that would only be proof that it could have happened that way - not that it did.

[kinboshi]

ManuelsMum, just because an answer isn't known the solution that "goddidit" doesn't provide a sensible answer.

It merely moves the goalposts. If there's complexity in the universe that cannot yet be explained, to say it must be down to a designer doesn't solve anything. Where would this god come from - with all their inherent complexity?