Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

[ultimate777]

I'm all for questioning, digging, probing and trying to understand things as best as we reasonably can.

Christians are said to be ignorant by a growing secular majority. And yet, a stumbling block for me with Atheism--besides its pretense that it actually inspires enquiry--is that it wants to accept ignorance as a valid response to the underpinnings of reality. Oh, the irony. Atheists don't want to explore questions about the nature of reality at all, but just accept the world around us without questions. As someone who likes philosophising I find this extremely boring. And it literally sets up a worldview of reality that is based upon thin air. Just like "magic".

Consider the following questions:

• Q: What caused the "big bang" that brought our universe (time, space, energy, matter) into existence?
  God did.
  A: "The universe just is" or retort "who made God?"
  God existed before a first cause was neccesary, Some scietists believe natural law only came in with the big bang. So God needed no first cause.
  
  Q: How do you know what you experience is true?
  A: Because its obvious.
  I don't know its true, I belive its true unless I have evidence to the contrary.
  
  Q: How do the physical laws hold together?
  A: Huh?
  
  Q: How is it possible for someone to come back from the dead?
  A: Dead people don't come back to life.

I think God and Jesus can and have made it happen.

Ok, so I improvised on the responses and likely setup some strawmen. But, my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.

For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!

Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!

Google the TV Show Awake

Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.

An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?

Atheists are boring. They're predictable. They don't like to be wrong. And yet, their trust to only accept what can be known beyond a doubt as complete truth via our physical senses which would never lie to us except in someone delusional (nevermind the question that all of the reality we experience might be delusional) --- to the Atheist reading --- Come on! At least change and put some ideas on the table that discuss the nature of reality.

I'm all for at least trying, and getting things wrong and then learning and growing. Metaphysical questions are not pointless. They provide logical possibilities for why things are the way they are and how reality might function. At least with Christianity, Christians back a view of reality that is placed on the table to be scrutinised and picked apart. As a Christian I might be wrong, but at least I had the guts to back something.

An Atheist thinks its absurd to be skeptical of Atheism, and this just shows they don't like putting anything on the table. They refuse to answer any questions about the underpinnings of reality, and yet love taking the micky out of anyone elses beliefs. No wonder so many Atheists in online discussions seem so arrogant and confident -- they don't place anything on the table and criticise anyone who does whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhism or the like. How easy is that!?

If you're an Atheist reading this and have been offended, then please, break out of your mould and ponder questions regarding the nature of reality. Put something on the table and stop criticising everyone else.

Well, actually I am skeptical about belief, but I believe the Shroud of Turin can be traced back to Jesus' time and doubt the evidence against it.

[tiopapo]

Is the declaration "God exists" true by definition and "God does not exist" unprovable?

My best friend is an atheist his contention is the lack of evidence for God despite not having any evidence of the non existence of God (which is not important for him) and compound by the genetic fallacy he sees as lack of evidence of true belief (if truth believers are themselves inauthentic believers, why would anyone be interested in their ideas since most likely they'll be untrue).

My friend doesn't like philosophy, so he adheres only to his common sense in a sort of popular science and the scientific method as far as he understands it. He brings lots of "what ifs" to our arguments and the notion that we can only based our understanding in things known and not in things we don't know does not seem to impress him!

What would make him re-consider his position, any ideas?

Thanks!

[Thadeyus]

*Raises hand*

Okay...as one of the A-A (Agnostic-Atheists) currently toddling around on this forum, I'll bite.

Which part of your initial, large opening post do you want to start with to tackle a conversation between our-selves?

Very much cheers to you and yours.

[domokunrox]

Is the declaration "God exists" true by definition and "God does not exist" unprovable?

This is 2 separate questions, correct?

Let me go ahead and put emphasis on the first one
The declaration "God exists" is not only true by definition alone, but it also is reality (forcefully) once it is acknowledged as INTUITIVE knowledge about said reality. Weather or not someone wants to admit that they have that intuitive knowledge is up to them.

As for
"God does not exist" being unprovable. Depends on what someone calls a "Proof", and that depends on what theory of knowledge someone subscribes to. If someone believes that ALL knowledge comes from and ONLY FROM sense experience, then the answer is yes BUT there is a MASSIVE AMOUNT of knowledge that such a person cannot show "Proof" for and as a consequence their worldview is circular in reasoning and full of phenomenalism that cannot be rationally explained.

My best friend is an atheist his contention is the lack of evidence for God despite not having any evidence of the non existence of God (which is not important for him) and compound by the genetic fallacy he sees as lack of evidence of true belief (if truth believers are themselves inauthentic believers, why would anyone be interested in their ideas since most likely they'll be untrue).

Well, I would ask him, "Where is there a lack of evidence?" and "What kind of evidence are you looking for?"
I would also ask him, "What is your theory of knowledge?"
Once you have answers to that, you can see if he has a theory that is consistent and rational once you probe with their theory for a bit.

My friend doesn't like philosophy, so he adheres only to his common sense in a sort of popular science and the scientific method as far as he understands it.

Well, the first problem with your friend is that he (declares?) that he does not like philosophy, yet science is a philosophy. I would tell him "I also subscribe to the philosophy of science, but philosophy of science as your only source of ALL knowledge does not give you rational answers and is circular reasoning."

He brings lots of "what ifs" to our arguments and the notion that we can only based our understanding in things known and not in things we don't know does not seem to impress him!

Thats fine. I would have a field day with your friend is he likes "what ifs" arguments. Maybe you can PM me, and I'll give you some pointers.

What would make him re-consider his position, any ideas?

This is pretty common, and often successful in getting people to wise up

Do you believe in the existence of "stuff" that cannot be sensed?
No (This is often the answer)
Do me a favor and explain this (do a hop)
Can you tell me why it is that I hopped and then I am not standing on the ground again?
Because of gravity (This is often the answer)
I thought you said you don't believe in the existence of "stuff" that cannot be sensed?
I don't or I can sense gravity (or something like this)
No, you don't. You sense what gravity does. How is it that you can believe in the existence of gravity by what it does? If a theist says they believe in the existence of God by what he does, would you accept that?

This often gets the atheists to wise up to their intellectual dishonestly really quickly. Their defense for believing in gravity is often going to then spiral down to defending some sort of existence of math, but again math is "stuff" that cannot be sensed, too. Asking someone who believes in science to prove math exists is the ultimate collapse of the science they believe that they can do. They won't get there. I've heard it all.

[Lunalle]

Hi Kurieuo,

I've spent about 2 hours replying to your comments below. I hope you read and understand my points.

There is one thing that it is critically important you understand: Atheism is a label for a person who does not believe god(s) exist. That is all atheism is, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, the term itself is absurd, and mildly insulting.... after all, we don't have aalienists, or aevolutionists. Atheism is not a belief (like Christianity is), and it makes no claims. Similar to how cold is really nothing more than a lack of heat, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief of the existence of god(s).By asking an atheist to bring something to the table, you are asking us to commit the fallacy of the argument of silence.

Cheers!


CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

I'm all for questioning, digging, probing and trying to understand things as best as we reasonably can.

Great, so am I!

Christians are said to be ignorant by a growing secular majority. And yet, a stumbling block for me with Atheism--besides its pretense that it actually inspires enquiry--is that it wants to accept ignorance as a valid response to the underpinnings of reality. Oh, the irony. Atheists don't want to explore questions about the nature of reality at all, but just accept the world around us without questions. As someone who likes philosophising I find this extremely boring. And it literally sets up a worldview of reality that is based upon thin air. Just like "magic".

Atheism does not attempt to set up a world view of reality, or inspire inquiry. It is merely a label placed on people who do not believe god(s) exist. I'm sorry to hear you have not found an atheist to philosophize with. I enjoy philosophy; perhaps we could discuss some things?

• Q: What caused the "big bang" that brought our universe (time, space, energy, matter) into existence?
  A: "The universe just is" or retort "who made God?"
  
  Q: How do you know what you experience is true?
  A: Because its obvious.
  
  Q: How do the physical laws hold together?
  A: Huh?
  
  Q: How is it possible for someone to come back from the dead?
  A: Dead people don't come back to life.

1) Great question, I wish I had an answer with evidence to back it up, however, I do not.
2) I think it is necessary to discuss the term "true" before coming to this question. For argument's sake, I do not make the claim "I know what I experience is true." In fact, I believe I have had experiences that are untrue.
3) Please rephrase the question, I do not understand what you are asking.
4) There are many variables which may change the answer, but in short, they do not. Do you have any evidence of the contrary you would like to make available?

Ok, so I improvised on the responses and likely setup some strawmen. But, my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.

Hopefully I provided you with some better answers, although I don't know everything! Again, it is unfortunate you haven't found an atheist to debate with. Feel free to PM or email me if you would like to do so.

For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!

Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!

Your premise is an interesting one, and it sounds very similar (if not the same), to one being currently researched. The topic of natural laws, and the suspension of them, is a big one. We can get in to that if you'd like. It is the study of natural law, and study of the fields of medical science which allows someone to make the claim "dead people don't come back to life.", not ignoring questions regarding the nature of reality. Really, you're off topic though, atheism is a label for a person who does not believe in god(s), and has nothing to do with the laws of nature.

Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.

You are completely wrong. Atheism is a label for a person who does not believe there is god(s). It does not claim, or presume, to know anything about reality, although people who do not happen to believe in god(s) (atheists!) may have additional knowledge.

An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?

An atheistic reality is merely a reality in which one does not believe in god(s). Atheism has nothing to do with how "reality might be." Atheism is not a world view, it is a label.

Atheists are boring. They're predictable. They don't like to be wrong. And yet, their trust to only accept what can be known beyond a doubt as complete truth via our physical senses which would never lie to us except in someone delusional (nevermind the question that all of the reality we experience might be delusional)

Okay, now you are just being insulting. Furthermore, I completely disagree with your statement about our physical senses, and I don't see how this has anything to do with atheism, as you do not mention god(s).

--- to the Atheist reading --- Come on! At least change and put some ideas on the table that discuss the nature of reality.

Atheism does not put ideas on the table. It is nothing except a label for a person who does not believe in god(s).

I'm all for at least trying, and getting things wrong and then learning and growing.

That's a good quality to have, congratulations!

Metaphysical questions are not pointless. They provide logical possibilities for why things are the way they are and how reality might function.

I agree, but they don't necessarily relate to theism.

At least with Christianity, Christians back a view of reality that is placed on the table to be scrutinised and picked apart. As a Christian I might be wrong, but at least I had the guts to back something.

Yes, christians place their view on the table to be picked apart, and it has been, many times over. Backing something, just for the sake of backing something, is ignorant, and has nothing to do with guts.

An Atheist thinks its absurd to be skeptical of Atheism, and this just shows they don't like putting anything on the table.

There's nothing to be skeptical of, there is no burden of proof, as no claim is made.

They refuse to answer any questions about the underpinnings of reality, and yet love taking the micky out of anyone elses beliefs.

Trying to disprove an argument is an important method of testing the validity of said argument. This is one of many methods we use to find the truth.

No wonder so many Atheists in online discussions seem so arrogant and confident -- they don't place anything on the table and criticise anyone who does whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhism or the like. How easy is that!?

It seems it is a lot harder than you imagine. So many times we run in to people, just like you, who don't even understand the concept of atheism, never mind are able to make a valid argument on a theistic topic. I encourage you to educate yourself and join us in fighting the good fight though!

If you're an Atheist reading this and have been offended, then please, break out of your mould and ponder questions regarding the nature of reality. Put something on the table and stop criticising everyone else.

Again, atheism does not make any claims, as it is merely a label for a person who does not believe in god(s). Please, quit ignorantly bashing atheists, because you do not understand the term. If you would like to talk to someone about the nature of reality, who does not happen to believe in god, I'm willing to talk with you. Is there anything else I must not believe in to meet your qualifications?

[Jac3510]

I won't speak for K, Lunalle, as he is far more than capable of defending himself. I will only say two things until he gets around to responding to you.

1. You do yourself no favors accusing a person you don't know on a board you have no experience with of being uneducated. If you actually bothered to spend some time reading and getting to know some of the back and forths that have gone on instead of posting a knee-jerk reaction, you would have found that K is a very competent philosopher who has a deep understanding of atheists and a long history of discussing these matters with them. His statements come at the end of many years of this discussion--years that quite a few of us on this board have walked with him--and are conclusions, or insights if you will, on the real nature of atheism. That you agree with that conclusion is neither here nor there. In fact, your disagreement is clearly assumed throughout K's post. In sum, your post just highlights exactly the attitude that K has so correctly explained.

2. In particular, I wanted to comment on this:

1) Great question, I wish I had an answer with evidence to back it up, however, I do not.
2) I think it is necessary to discuss the term "true" before coming to this question. For argument's sake, I do not make the claim "I know what I experience is true." In fact, I believe I have had experiences that are untrue.
3) Please rephrase the question, I do not understand what you are asking.
4) There are many variables which may change the answer, but in short, they do not. Do you have any evidence of the contrary you would like to make available?

So, either K is exactly right or he's overestimated you, which, you will find insulting, but is true all the same, as that would put you an even worse category of intellectually boring.

First, you say you don't know where the universe comes from. That's either the same as just saying, "I don't know: it's just here!" which is just what K says. Or, it's just saying, "I don't know (full stop)," in which you show that either a) you haven't considered the first thing that theistic philosophers have been saying about what must be the case about the First Cause or else b) you are just defending ignorance. But both (a) and (b) are incredibly boring for reasons that ought to be obvious even to someone like you who hasn't taken the first moment to consider any of this. What you need here isn't a debate. What you need is a class.

Second, you ask for the meaning of "true" and suggest that you accept some definition (that you don't bother offering) that allows you to say that some of your experiences are "untrue." And yet you fail to note that even if it is true that you some of your experiences are untrue, then K's point still stands exactly as stated. How do you know it is true that some of your experiences are "untrue" (whatever that would mean)--and whatever you offer, it boils down to, "It's obvious."

Third, he asks a very straightforward question, and his "huh?" is identical to your own response. Once again, K is right. On a personal note, I am a hospital chaplain, which means I spend a lot of time with people of various faiths (and no faith) at times of severe crisis in their lives. One of the best pieces of advice I got in my training was, "Always Be Curious." Check all assumptions at the door. The very fact that you didn't understand this question should have given you great pause before hit "submit" in your reply, for your entire reply assumes that you know something about atheism that K does not. What you will find is that it is this question above all others that gets to the real heart of the matter (at least for me), and the fact that you fail to grasp K's question--which is exactly what he predicted would be the case--strongly suggests that it is you, not him, who fails to understand the matters under discussion. So, again, I encourage you to be curious. Rather than assuming things about people you don't know, adopt the position of learner. Ask questions. Be inquisitive. "Why do you say that?" is a much better than, "If you say that, the you obviously don't understand X." But I digress . . .

Finally, you just repeat K's own words. He says the atheist response is "dead people don't come back to life." Your words are, " they do not [come back to life]." Hey, look at that! He's right again. The only thing you add is a request for evidence. And here, you either already are aware of the (very strong) evidence he has in mind, in which case, you're doing the very thing and adopting the very circular argument K is accusing atheism of, or you don't know it, in which case (again), what you need is not a debate but a class.

So for all your huffing and puffing about K being ignorant of the true nature of atheism, I find it extremely telling that he anticipated all your responses, stated them openly, and then you had the gall to offer those same responses back to him as "better answers."

I will say this: I appreciate your post very much for one reason in particular--as a one who teaches philosophy to undergraduate students, I think your post will make a great illustration for K's original argument. I make it a point to share the passage I quoted in my original response in this thread with that class--really, you illustrate the attitude Gilson was critiquing far better than you even realize! My students will, I think, appreciate reading that. Anyway, I'll leave off this now. You can respond however you like, of course. I'm far less interested in defending the OP as I was in pointing out the irony in your response--your two hour attempt to show where he was wrong served as an excellent illustration for why he was right. Well done, my friend. Well done!

[B. W.]

That is all atheism is, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, the term itself is absurd, and mildly insulting.... after all, we don't have aalienists, or aevolutionists. Atheism is not a belief (like Christianity is), and it makes no claims. Similar to how cold is really nothing more than a lack of heat, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief of the existence of god(s). By asking an atheist to bring something to the table, you are asking us to commit the fallacy of the argument of silence.

Atheism does not attempt to set up a world view of reality, or inspire inquiry. It is merely a label placed on people who do not believe god(s) exist. I'm sorry to hear you have not found an atheist to philosophize with. I enjoy philosophy; perhaps we could discuss some things?

Lunelle, your words here pose a logical contradiction. First you say Atheism is not a belief and then say the atheist don't believe in god(s) - well that is a belief system isn't it?

Next, you cited Atheism does not attempt to set up a world view of reality, yet, please explain the insistence atheist have of removing Crosses, Nativity scenes, saying the US pledge of allegiance, forcing eradication of all mention of God from the public square... How is that not attempting to set up a world view of reality?

FYI: law of logical contradiction states: two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. Nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth.
-
-
-

[Thadeyus]

*Sits on the side line and watches.*

Kind of ready to 'Tag team' with you Lunelle.

Very much cheers to all.

[Lunalle]

I won't speak for K, Lunalle, as he is far more than capable of defending himself. I will only say two things until he gets around to responding to you.

Great, I look forward to further speaking with K.

1. You do yourself no favors accusing a person you don't know on a board you have no experience with of being uneducated. If you actually bothered to spend some time reading and getting to know some of the back and forths that have gone on instead of posting a knee-jerk reaction, you would have found that K is a very competent philosopher who has a deep understanding of atheists and a long history of discussing these matters with them. His statements come at the end of many years of this discussion--years that quite a few of us on this board have walked with him--and are conclusions, or insights if you will, on the real nature of atheism. That you agree with that conclusion is neither here nor there. In fact, your disagreement is clearly assumed throughout K's post. In sum, your post just highlights exactly the attitude that K has so correctly explained.

Unfortunately, this is a major problem, that atheists face on a regular basis: "...are conclusions, or insights if you will, on the real nature of atheism." You (or K, or anyone else) have absolutely no authority to change the definition of an established term, based on your limited experiences. If you are unwilling to use terms correctly, then it is impossible to have any sort of discussion. My main point was, and still is, that I take offense at the attacks that have been made, and are continuing to be made, on a group of people, based on an incorrect, self-imposed, definition of a label that was forced on them.

...

First, you say you don't know where the universe comes from. That's either the same as just saying, "I don't know: it's just here!" which is just what K says. Or, it's just saying, "I don't know (full stop)," in which you show that either a) you haven't considered the first thing that theistic philosophers have been saying about what must be the case about the First Cause or else b) you are just defending ignorance. But both (a) and (b) are incredibly boring for reasons that ought to be obvious even to someone like you who hasn't taken the first moment to consider any of this. What you need here isn't a debate. What you need is a class.

More insulting illogical dribble... I have spent years learning about, discussing, debating, and considering this topic. However, I have yet to find an explanation supported by evidence. Option a, is false. Option b, is also false. If you have an argument you would like to make about the origins of the universe, go ahead and make it! I will consider your argument. I greatly desire to learn the truth regarding this subject.

Second, you ask for the meaning of "true" and suggest that you accept some definition (that you don't bother offering) that allows you to say that some of your experiences are "untrue." And yet you fail to note that even if it is true that you some of your experiences are untrue, then K's point still stands exactly as stated. How do you know it is true that some of your experiences are "untrue" (whatever that would mean)--and whatever you offer, it boils down to, "It's obvious."

Again, your conclusion is faulty, and I do not appreciate you attempting to answer questions on my behalf. First off, this question is not about god(s), so it really has nothing to do with (a)theism. But, to humour you, I would expect anyone who considers themselves philosophical would be familiar with the "fishbowl" argument. Even if you are not, it is easy to prove that we do not know our experiences are "true". Yes, humans are ignorant, I do not argue this. I'm sorry K doesn't like that fact. But again, it has NOTHING to do with atheism, in this context.

Third, he asks a very straightforward question, and his "huh?" is identical to your own response. Once again, K is right. On a personal note, I am a hospital chaplain, which means I spend a lot of time with people of various faiths (and no faith) at times of severe crisis in their lives. One of the best pieces of advice I got in my training was, "Always Be Curious." Check all assumptions at the door. The very fact that you didn't understand this question should have given you great pause before hit "submit" in your reply, for your entire reply assumes that you know something about atheism that K does not. What you will find is that it is this question above all others that gets to the real heart of the matter (at least for me), and the fact that you fail to grasp K's question--which is exactly what he predicted would be the case--strongly suggests that it is you, not him, who fails to understand the matters under discussion. So, again, I encourage you to be curious. Rather than assuming things about people you don't know, adopt the position of learner. Ask questions. Be inquisitive. "Why do you say that?" is a much better than, "If you say that, the you obviously don't understand X." But I digress . . .

I did, and do, fail to understand this question. It would be wrong of me to ask "Why do you say that?" in reply to a question. Please note, that I did ask for clarification, with an open mind. The question is vague and non-nonsensical to me. Is K asking how the physical laws are connected? I.e. How does gravity interact with acceleration? Is he asking for evidence of physical laws? Is he asking why the physical laws are, what they are? Please elaborate, or at least rephrase the question more clearly. I believe the ultimate matter under discussion here is that K is uncomfortable with the fact that when one does not believe in god(s), it opens a great range of questions, all of which do not have proven answers. That and people he has talked to in the past have upset and bored him. Like so many religious people, K is having a hard time saying "I don't know." It's okay, K, just keep looking for the truth, and accept nothing less!

Finally, you just repeat K's own words. He says the atheist response is "dead people don't come back to life." Your words are, " they do not [come back to life]." Hey, look at that! He's right again. The only thing you add is a request for evidence. And here, you either already are aware of the (very strong) evidence he has in mind, in which case, you're doing the very thing and adopting the very circular argument K is accusing atheism of, or you don't know it, in which case (again), what you need is not a debate but a class.

So, let me try to understand this one. K is making a claim that people come back to life, but he is not offering any evidence to prove such a thing, and he is upset someone would disagree with him, asking for the evidence to support his claim? It sounds to me like K is just being a bully. A good discussion is not a matter of guessing games. I do not make you guess at what I argue, and I expect you (and K) to do the same. If you propose an argument with no evidence, then it is just your opinion. Which you (and K) are free to have.

So for all your huffing and puffing about K being ignorant of the true nature of atheism, I find it extremely telling that he anticipated all your responses, stated them openly, and then you had the gall to offer those same responses back to him as "better answers."

K has demonstrated that he does not know, or does not correctly used the term. He has criticized and attacked a group of people who do not share his beliefs. He has guessed some of my answers right, and some of them wrong. It is a very simple matter to bring some pre-selected questions to the table, and guess, with some accuracy, how someone else will answer them. I could do it back to K, but I don't see the point.

I will say this: I appreciate your post very much for one reason in particular--as a one who teaches philosophy to undergraduate students, I think your post will make a great illustration for K's original argument. I make it a point to share the passage I quoted in my original response in this thread with that class--really, you illustrate the attitude Gilson was critiquing far better than you even realize! My students will, I think, appreciate reading that. Anyway, I'll leave off this now. You can respond however you like, of course. I'm far less interested in defending the OP as I was in pointing out the irony in your response--your two hour attempt to show where he was wrong served as an excellent illustration for why he was right. Well done, my friend. Well done!

Feel free to show your classes the posts. However, I ask that you do not take them out of concept, and supply a reference to your students, where they made read the full exchange. Unfortunately, you missed the whole point of my post. Let me try to lay it out as simply as I can for you. You, and K, have redefined an established term in order to attack a group of people who do not agree with your beliefs. This shows that you practice the worst sort of prejudism. We could have a discussion about the morality of prejudism, but I expect we both agree that it is immoral. Yes, I am being an ******* about semantics, but I am extremely against prejudism, and again, it is impossible to have any sort of relevant discussion, if one side redefines terms at will.

I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but I have participated in many discussions on the topic of god(s) and religion, and in my experience, this thread is still in the pre-discussion phase, where we are trying to clarify terms. Your charge that atheists are boring people who do not attempt to find the reality of things, is as absurd as saying adog owners are boring people who do not attempt to find the reality of things. If anything, the reverse is true. Atheists do not attribute things to god(s)! and most of us continue to search for truth; where as (in my limited experience, of course) most, if not all, religious people are happy with such an answer, and stop looking.

I have never seen a proper "challenge to atheists", and this is no exception. If you (or K, or anyone) would like to submit a proper challenge to atheists, please give us some evidence that god(s) exist.

Jac3510, you say you teach philosophy, yet is the study of philosophy not heretical to your god(s)? Furthermore, how is it possible for you to study without bias, given your belief in god(s)?

*****

Lunelle, your words here pose a logical contradiction. First you say Atheism is not a belief and then say the atheist don't believe in god(s) - well that is a belief system isn't it?

Next, you cited Atheism does not attempt to set up a world view of reality, yet, please explain the insistence atheist have of removing Crosses, Nativity scenes, saying the US pledge of allegiance, forcing eradication of all mention of God from the public square... How is that not attempting to set up a world view of reality?

FYI: law of logical contradiction states: two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. Nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth.

B. W. no, a lack of belief is not a belief system, it is a LACK of belief, again, as cold is a LACK of heat. I'm sorry if you don't understand that we have words to describe a lack of something. -1 = -1, not 1.

Atheists do not have an insistence of removing crosses, etc. Anti-religious individuals and groups do. Unfortunately, they are commonly referred to as "new atheists", which tends to make things even more confusing. It just happens that most of them do not believe in god(s), there are also plenty of people who do believe in god(s) who do not want christian influences in our schools and government. If someone commits an anti-religious act "in the name of atheism", they are wrong... similarly to how many people have used the "name of god" to convince people to follow them, but do not truly follow "god's commands".


****

Thanks for the support Thadeyus! It is an open thread, feel free to jump in whenever you want. As I said, I'm still trying to get the terms straight. I will update the thread I started later with some debate topics.

[Jac3510]

Wait, wait, wait wait . . . so first, you say:

I have spent years learning about, discussing, debating, and considering this topic

But then you turn around and offer THIS . . .

I did, and do, fail to understand this question.

And then this:

So, let me try to understand this one. K is making a claim that people come back to life, but he is not offering any evidence to prove such a thing, and he is upset someone would disagree with him, asking for the evidence to support his claim?

And then this:

K has demonstrated that he does not know, or does not correctly used the term.

And then this:

You, and K, have redefined an established term in order to attack a group of people who do not agree with your beliefs.

And then this:

I have never seen a proper "challenge to atheists", and this is no exception. If you (or K, or anyone) would like to submit a proper challenge to atheists, please give us some evidence that god(s) exist.

And if all that weren't enough, you offer THIS gem:

Jac3510, you say you teach philosophy, yet is the study of philosophy not heretical to your god(s)? Furthermore, how is it possible for you to study without bias, given your belief in god(s)?

.
.
.

.
.
.
You're like the Christian who says, "I've spent YEARS debating evilushunists! No one has EVER answered the most obvious questions. I mean REALLY -- if evilushun was real, DEN Y R DAR STILL MUNKEES HUH?!?!? HAHAHAHAAH U R RONG IDJUT!!!11!1!11"

I'm not asking you not to be offended, Lunalle. You're a neophyte (to put it charitably). And worse, you think you know what you are talking about. Like I said, you don't need a debate. You aren't worth it. You need a class, but you're so convinced that you understand the subject matter you wouldn't condescend to actually learning something. And THAT is what makes you boring.

So have at it, and yes, believe you me, my students will get to read the thread in its entirety. You don't have to worry about being misrepresented since they'll be reading all of your words.

All the best to you.

[Lunalle]

Wait, wait, wait wait . . . so first, you say:

I have spent years learning about, discussing, debating, and considering this topic

But then you turn around and offer THIS . . .

I did, and do, fail to understand this question.

And then this:

So, let me try to understand this one. K is making a claim that people come back to life, but he is not offering any evidence to prove such a thing, and he is upset someone would disagree with him, asking for the evidence to support his claim?

And then this:

K has demonstrated that he does not know, or does not correctly used the term.

And then this:

You, and K, have redefined an established term in order to attack a group of people who do not agree with your beliefs.

And then this:

I have never seen a proper "challenge to atheists", and this is no exception. If you (or K, or anyone) would like to submit a proper challenge to atheists, please give us some evidence that god(s) exist.

And if all that weren't enough, you offer THIS gem:

Jac3510, you say you teach philosophy, yet is the study of philosophy not heretical to your god(s)? Furthermore, how is it possible for you to study without bias, given your belief in god(s)?

.
.
.

.
.
.
You're like the Christian who says, "I've spent YEARS debating evilushunists! No one has EVER answered the most obvious questions. I mean REALLY -- if evilushun was real, DEN Y R DAR STILL MUNKEES HUH?!?!? HAHAHAHAAH U R RONG IDJUT!!!11!1!11"

I'm not asking you not to be offended, Lunalle. You're a neophyte (to put it charitably). And worse, you think you know what you are talking about. Like I said, you don't need a debate. You aren't worth it. You need a class, but you're so convinced that you understand the subject matter you wouldn't condescend to actually learning something. And THAT is what makes you boring.

So have at it, and yes, believe you me, my students will get to read the thread in its entirety. You don't have to worry about being misrepresented since they'll be reading all of your words.

All the best to you.

Dear students of Jac3510s, and all reading this thread. Please observe the ad hominem fallacy, of which the entire previous post is compromised of. An ad hominem fallacy is when you evade the topic by directly attacking your opponent. It really seems you want to offend me Jac3510, but you have failed to do so thus far. Is there anyone here who has anything of value to add? Hopefully, K will.

You could also argue Jac3510 has committed the fallacy of appealing to the crowd, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance, the fallacy of appeal to false authority (e.x. I teach a class somewhere, so you "need a class".) etc. I could go on, but there's really no need.

Jac3510, I would very much like to see you bring this thread up to a class of philosophy students, and the reactions. Based on the way you present yourself, I highly doubt you teach a class at a recognized public institution, but if you do, could you provide some video and/or audio footage?

What a truly terrible post.... NEXT IN LINE PLEASE!?

[Jac3510]

Prov 26:4

[Lunalle]

You're killing yourself here! The VERY NEXT verse says:

Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.

[1over137]

Ok, guys, I will intervene.

This is as was said by Lunalle still a start. We do not know each other yet. We all have experiences from dealing with people and based on this estimate who we are dealing with now. Our estimate can come true, or wrong. But this is not the point now. Let's talk in more respectful way. Let's ask questions like "so if I understand you correctly then you think ... but I do not see it this way because ..." People may not see things the same way, and if I am interested how the other side sees it I indeed must be respectful in asking my questions.

Make a line, and please start again.

[Lunalle]

Ok, guys, I will intervene.

This is as was said by Lunalle still a start. We do not know each other yet. We all have experiences from dealing with people and based on this estimate who we are dealing with now. Our estimate can come true, or wrong. But this is not the point now. Let's talk in more respectful way. Let's ask questions like "so if I understand you correctly then you think ... but I do not see it this way because ..." People may not see things the same way, and if I am interested how the other side sees it I indeed must be respectful in asking my questions.

Make a line, and please start again.

Thank you very much for intervening. That is awesome of you, you make a solid point.

...If I may take the floor?

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Steve, I am an IT Engineer (both computer programming, and storage administrator), and I live in Canada. I was raised as a non-denominational christian, and my father is a minister. In my teens I became an atheist, and I feel that the topics of morals and religion are indescribably important. I enjoy learning about, discussing, and debating these topics. Over the years, I've found myself feeling more hostile towards the theist position, but I believe that truth is of the utmost importance, and I will look for it, wherever it may be hiding.

Forgive my harshness, but this thread seems to me, to be little more than a flame against those of us who do not believe in god(s). Given that this website has an open poll on whether atheism is a belief, or a position, let us say the term is undecided, and refrain from using it further. I propose we change 'atheist' to 'most people I've met who don't believe in god(s)'. Hopefully this is acceptable, and I will re-write my responses assuming that you are merely asking me, as a person who does not believe in god(s), to address the points you have brought up. Hopefully this will let us have a good discussion, and minimize the needless insults thrown in either direction.

With all due respect, there are certain rules to proper debating. In order to have a meaningful discussion, I believe it is important to follow them.

Q: What caused the "big bang" that brought our universe (time, space, energy, matter) into existence?

I do not know the answer to this question. It is widely accepted that there is insufficient evidence to answer it correctly. We have no means of traveling through time, and there are no historical records available from prior to the big bang. Also, this is dangerously close to the fishbowl.

God did.

What makes you think that?

How do you know what you experience is true?

This is the "fishbowl" problem. Are you familiar with it?

How do the physical laws hold together?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If I had to guess, I assume you mean "What makes the physical laws work the way they do?" If that's the case, I cannot tell you the intricate details of every physical law, as I am not a physicist! In scientific terms, this question doesn't make sense. Laws do not explain why or how, theories (don't confuse theories with hypotheses!) do. Take gravity for example. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate all sorts of data about objects "pulling" on each other.

We could use, say the theory of general relativity to explain why. However, that would be getting in to some pretty deep physics, and I'd rather not right now! The beautiful thing of it is, that theories are always being improved, as we develop new tools to measure things about our universe, and challenge our existing theories.

How is it possible for someone to come back from the dead?

Usually, this is *THE* big question. You are right about the short answer. The long answer is that it depends on what you consider death. Normally, death is considered to be when the heart stops pumping blood, as this results in no more oxygen being moved throughout your body, which eventually leads to brain death; usually considered final death. The period between heart death and brain death is usually about 6 minutes, although it has been known to vary. It is possible for the heart to restart (so, you could say come back from the dead), before the brain dies. The longer the heart was stopped, the more likely there will be brain damage. There are also many reported cases of people seeming to be heart dead, however their heart beat was just so feint, it was undetectable. The heart beat then strengthens some time later, and it looks just like they came back from the dead! Although this is uncommon, it does happen. I have personally witnessed this.

I think God and Jesus can and have made it happen.

Huh, what do you base that on?

The Matrix is a great movie, with a ton of philosophy! I love it! I think that belongs in a different thread though!

And yet, the ******* confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!

Personally, the word "impossible" is not in my vocabulary. I would say that it is extremely unlikely, because to my knowledge there has never been anyone who has been brain dead (no brain activity), and "came back to life". However, just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't happen, but I'm not holding my breath! I'm going to ignore that part about you saying I ignore questions to do with the nature of reality.

--- to the ******* reading --- Come on! At least change and put some ideas on the table that discuss the nature of reality.

As someone who happens to not believe in god(s), I am all for discussing the nature of reality, and I have started a separate thread. I can start some more, if you'd like!

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss!