Questions for Atheists

**Brother of Yeshua** · #1 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 06:35 PM

I hope this isn't inflammatory. This is a video from an agnostic I stumbled across. He asks some good questions to atheists regarding their definitive stance against any sort of higher power.

My own personal question, based on his line of logic and questioning, is barring using the fallacies of religious text (which anyone who has read my posts knows I have no problem with admitting this point) and hypocrisy of religious followers (again, no problem admitting this), what legitimate proof is there against a higher power? Science explains a lot, but not all. And if you are using good scientific process, the absence of evidence (for a higher power) cannot mean evidence of absence.

Again, I'm not looking to start a fight, but this seemed like it could be an edifying conversation for someone who does not understand or agree with the rationale of the atheist viewpoint.

Here's the video.

YouTube - A Few Questions Every Intelligent Atheist Must Answer

10-25-2007, 08:41 PM

Well, I guess I'm not really atheist, more agnostic or just-don't-care-ist or whatever...

But you're right, it's impossible to prove the non-existence of a god. But if a specific person doesn't feel the faith that moves believers to believe... There is no definitive proof of a god's existence, either.

It's my opinion that it just depends on each individual person, and whether or not they have that faith in their heart. I, for instance, have no faith in the existence of an active god. But I know there are people that do, so there ya go.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 10-25-2007, 08:49 PM

That's kind of my point as well. We DON'T know. None of us. We have to respect that we have no proof one way or the other, and it is faith in a God of some sort, or faith that there could never possibly be something considered God.

That's why I don't want to fight. We have to agree that none of us know! We're going to share ideas, opinions, and the like, but we can't defame another, only share why we believe or don't believe certain things.

Good ideas always flourish. Bad ideas may thrive, but eventually die.

Education, Empathy, and Open Mindedness are critical to aiding in good ideas and thwarting the bad ones.

Ideas cross all belief systems.

10-25-2007, 08:54 PM

Haha, I definitely think you and I are on the same train of thought here...

**Ristaron** · 10-25-2007, 09:11 PM

Issue #1: You are not agnostic if you don't believe that a higher power exists. Agnosticism is an epistemological term stating that God cannot be known, not that we can't know whether or not he exists. A lack of theistic faith (no conviction in the belief that he exists) makes you an a-theist, or atheist. That is where the word comes from.
Issue #2: There are not only two options. It's not God vs. Science, it's religion vs. Science. Religion, as in every creation myth ever conjured in the minds of people who didn't have the scientific knowledge to explain that rain occurs from water moisture thousands of feet in the air, and not from evil spirits (or benevolent Fathers) working their supernatural power. Atheists not only deny the illogical conclusion that the JudeoChristian God, who cannot possibly exist because he is a paradox within himself and ultimately self-contradictory, but also the that Odin, Zeus, or any other mythological figure is responsible for the creation of the world.
Issue #3: The burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic. Otherwise I would be able to say "You're so blind, can't you see that the celestial teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars, which is so small even our best telescope can't see it, made the universe when it tipped some of its succulent Earl Gray blend from its spout?" and you would have no way of saying that I can't teach this in schools, or put "In the Celestial Teapot We Trust" on the national currency. Indeed it is ridiculous and flabbergasting that incredibly fallible accounts like the Bible should be taught to people as fact, but I will not accept it until you, the believer, can provide proof to your outrageous claim.
Issue #4: Science does not work on the premise that everything science has a theory for must be correct in order for science to be acceptable. Science is constantly changing as our understanding of the world changes, and you sorely misunderstand it if you assume that we take conjecture as proof for anything. The fact of the matter is, the scientific explanation is the most reasonable conclusion.
Issue #5: Intelligent Design is not science. It gives the explanation of the supernatural when really you speak of a "God of the gaps". Science is able to replicate results, meanwhile Intelligent Design is a farce on the scientific method, citing that there is no explanation but God... that is, until such an explanation is discovered.
Issue #6: Faith is not an excusable recourse. Atheists don't go on faith that God doesn't exist, we go on there being A) No evidence B) No evidence and C) No evidence. There is no conclusive evidence regarding the JudeoChristian God, Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or any supernatural being aside from what you conjure (by conjecture!) to be a connection between otherwise unrelated events. And I refuse to be lectured to on being "closed-minded" when I look for evidence and you can't get off the fence. You don't have to take sides, you just need to pick where you stand before you start questioning my stance.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 10-25-2007, 09:19 PM

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

All you've done is told me why you disagree with religions specific concepts of God, not refuted the idea that there is something that could be called God that we do not yet understand.

I'm not trying to change your viewpoint, but I'm very serious when I say we have to start admitting that we don't know. It's the only way we can let go of these shackles.

It's possible that there is no such thing as God and my entire experience has been misconstrued by me.

I do not believe that, but it is possible.

If everyone could step back, and admit that they could be wrong about such things, we'd all get along much nicer.

**Ristaron** · 10-25-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

All you've done is told me why you disagree with religions specific concepts of God, not refuted the idea that there is something that could be called God that we do not yet understand.

I'm not trying to change your viewpoint, but I'm very serious when I say we have to start admitting that we don't know. It's the only way we can let go of these shackles.

It's possible that there is no such thing as God and my entire experience has been misconstrued by me.

I do not believe that, but it is possible.

If everyone could step back, and admit that they could be wrong about such things, we'd all get along much nicer.

It is remotely possible that there is some unseen, extremely intelligent (beyond genius) force guiding the way that evolution has ... well, evolved. But to assert that it's some fictitious being from a random mythology conjured by a primitive culture is plain ridiculous to me.
I'm not trying to change your viewpoint, but if there is something greater out there, it doesn't give a flying fuck about prayer, good intentions, or any of that other bullshit. Something of that magnitude would consider us as we consider lab-rats... nay, as we consider bacteria in a petri-dish. Inconsequential and inferior. So in the end, it changes nothing. It would work through "natural laws", as researched by science. And it doesn't confirm the notion of an afterlife or sin, thus our morals would still be entirely subjective... it would be a meaningless discovery.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 10-25-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

It is remotely possible that there is some unseen, extremely intelligent (beyond genius) force guiding the way that evolution has ... well, evolved. But to assert that it's some fictitious being from a random mythology conjured by a primitive culture is plain ridiculous to me.
I'm not trying to change your viewpoint, but if there is something greater out there, it doesn't give a flying fuck about prayer, good intentions, or any of that other bullshit. Something of that magnitude would consider us as we consider lab-rats... nay, as we consider bacteria in a petri-dish. Inconsequential and inferior. So in the end, it changes nothing. It would work through "natural laws", as researched by science. And it doesn't confirm the notion of an afterlife or sin, thus our morals would still be entirely subjective... it would be a meaningless discovery.

I really apprecaite this, even with all your snide commentary.

Coming from you, this means a lot to me.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

Namaste!

Zen · 10-26-2007, 11:05 AM

My difficulty with atheism is that "God" is such a broad, virtually undefined term, it needs to be specified before one can say it doesn't exist...

If an atheist said, "I don't believe in the organized approach to God," or, "I don't believe in the God that has been defined and categorized by humans," then we would be of like mind...

But when an atheist says simply, "There is no God," there's too many ways to take this, and it fails to make sense...

For example, when one person believes that God = Love...
Is an atheist, with their denial of God, therefore denying Love?

Or some believe that God is the Sun itself, giving light and allowing life...
Surely, no atheist would deny the sun...

And then some believe that God is the Santa Clause of the Heavens, and are willing to kill and die for their cause, and this is where I understand the atheist's anger and choice...
But their disbelief still needs to be specified to That God...
Or will be confused, and just generate unintentional anger...

In my beliefs, God is the underlying energy of creation that exists through out everything...
Saying "there is no God" to me, would be like saying to a scientist, "there is no Matter...."

**Ristaron** · 10-26-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zen

In my beliefs, God is the underlying energy of creation that exists through out everything...
Saying "there is no God" to me, would be like saying to a scientist, "there is no Matter...."

I'm fine with people believing such things, and even that this energy is sentient and therefore intelligent enough to create patterns in its creation. What I'm not fine with is people calling that "science". There is nothing scientific to such a conjecture; it can't be proven, it doesn't follow the laws of fallibility, and it can't be tested. So when the issue arises of why I have a problem with it being taught -- as the person in the video and many others are ardent that it should -- I am baffled by the ludicrousness of the assertion.

When I deny the existence of a God, it's in that context of an intelligent creator. There is no evidence to support it, and therefore it is only a hypothesis (an unproven theory, by definition) meanwhile the theory of evolution is a theory because it is supported by other scientific laws and can be tested.