I bet the Christians will fake it better. True believers have nothing to prove; they can adopt other positions without cost to their ego.

Ah, now needing your opponents to be strawmen isn’t a sign of one comfortable with their beliefs. It’s worth noting that Christians have been following false idols since the Disciples – Jesus himself noticed that. But as far as I can tell atheists aren’t arguing against God so much as the Christian story. Looks like a 0-0 draw, points missed all round.

@keith: “But as far as I can tell atheists aren’t arguing against God so much as the Christian story.”

I’m confused – are you trying to be funny by introducing a strawman immediately after criticizing such thing? If not, then… clearly you haven’t read anything that, e.g., Sean has written about religion. Or Dawkins, or Dennett, or Taner Edis, or…

I find it hard to believe that she could find “actual” atheists. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

This sounds a lot like “Poe’s Law” in action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlehkm94ato

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law

@keith I don’t think most atheists are arguing against Christian beliefs as much as they are arguing that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Early philosophical texts had conjectures about the solar system being a series of crystalline spheres that rotated around the Earth, and that was based on “real” personal experience and observation. Subsequent experiments proved that it was not the case. It’s possible that *now* we don’t have instruments or an experimental design to detect god’s influence and we will in the future, just like the ancients did not have the tools that we have at our disposal now. However to say that knowing god is contrary to science and god can never be detected is to make an untestable hypothesis. If someone was arguing that Chris does not exist, then it would be fairly easy to set up an experiment to observe him.

People who believe in a god that actively intervenes in this world are making an extraordinary claim that this undetectable being exists, created the universe, and sits in a place of judgment. If you choose to believe it, that’s fine, but there is no evidence to reject the default hypothesis that this creature does not exist.

Atheists should also have no problem adopting a position without “cost to their ego” because science says follow the evidence. If there was empirical evidence in favor of the existence of god, and atheists did not change their views, then they would become the group making the extraordinary claim that is irrational.

Creutzfeldt, you’re mixing gods. When talking of a god who strokes his beard in judgement it’s Atheists versus Christians, and I’m sure there are book deals in it but it’s not intrinsically interesting. Actual atheists can be introduced to God, like Chris, one at a time or en masse, but if the introduction is necessarily personal then when you write it up the next guy reading it doesn’t meet God, he just sees a story – heck, it never gets past peer review! That isn’t the fault of the people who know God.

Actual atheists can be introduced to God, like Chris, one at a time or en masse, but if the introduction is necessarily personal then when you write it up the next guy reading it doesn’t meet God, he just sees a story – heck, it never gets past peer review! That isn’t the fault of the people who know God.
—————————————–
No, in that case, it would be the fault of god who decided to grant people the gift of critical thinking and then demand that they suspend it, but only for him.

I think Keith’s approach makes a lot of sense. It amounts to a strategy of “I won’t play this game,” which is sensible since this particular game of figuring things out cogently cannot be won by his side and, in any case, it isn’t the game that Keith cares about.. I think that atheists should make the corresponding move. Arguing about the existence of God is rather pointless since what the opponents are up to is not something amenable to arguments. If you come up with an intellectualized version of religious ideas, i.e. a theology, that treats religions like Christianity as a theory about the universe, so that you have something that can be argued about, the proposed “theory of everything” doesn’t make the cut of hypotheses worth considering.

It is especially obtuse to act as if were objectionable that believers will not identify the object of their belief even in the most general way (animal, vegetable, mineral, Being, a particular being, etc.). It’s no wonder that nobody does dimensional analysis on the Trinity since, to use an old and somewhat philistine locution of the pragmatists, the cash value of belief in god is loyalty to one’s in group and loyalty is not a thing. Which is the same reason atheism upsets people so much. It is perceived as treason, albeit the believers use mythology to represent the disloyalty as an affront to a god. And when Keith claims that he finds God in his heart, one can hardly be surprised since we know how God got there. The Easter egg the kid finds is not the cosmic egg. Mommy and Daddy hid it there for him to find.

Jim, if you need ‘something to be argued about’ maybe it’s a hint you’re on the wrong track intellectualising God.

I think that atheists should make the corresponding move. Arguing about the existence of God is rather pointless since what the opponents are up to is not something amenable to arguments.
——————–
To some extent I agree. It’s inconsistent for an atheist to complain about people pushing beliefs on them and then turn around and try to change someone else’s beliefs. I don’t care what Keith believes in, so long as it isn’t hurting anyone else. My mother is religious and it is probably a good thing for her. So long as it is not harmful to others and the government does not make decisions based off of religion, atheists should leave religious people alone. In fact, there is a pretty good chance that attacking the beliefs of religious people will just force them to double down.

Bryan Caplan is no conservative. He’s also a libertarian.

Post#1 was trolling; I have no doubt that Christians are as deluded as Atheists. I’m not arguing any position, just pointing out that genuinely religious people have gained knowledge in a way that can’t be transmitted in words, simply by experiencing something for themselves, and as soon as you concoct a theology and make them a target you’re back racing in the Special Olympics. I love this blog for the accessible particle physics, the atheism crap is an embarrassment.

“I’m not arguing any position, just pointing out that genuinely religious people have gained knowledge in a way that can’t be transmitted in words”

How convenient for you that it cannot be transmitted in words, so that you don’t have to rationally defend it. But how do you know it’s “knowledge”?

keith: Yes, some people have experiences that convince them of the existence of God, correctness of a religion, etc. Personal experience isn’t strong evidence, though; people often have experiences which lead them to believe things that are not correct. The existence of God is an objective claim like any other, and legitimate belief in that claim requires real evidence. Personal experiences alone do not require postulating a new entity (God) to explain them. Brain malfunction (which can be induced with similar effects by pharmaceuticals, magnetic stimulation, or even simple sensory deprivation) explains the phenomenon much better, since there is no evidence in other areas lending independent support to God as a hypothesis, and many of these experiences are contradictory when taken together.

Kudos to Jim Harrison and Slideguy. The inablity of cosmologists to explain creation neither includes, excludes, nor precludes the notion that “God” exists. Occam’s Razor could lend credence to either side of the debate but the idea of divine personal revelation is contrary to scientific thinking. This is an argument that has persisted for several thousand years and will doubtless continue for a while.

What I find interesting is how many more responses this blog entry has generated than the one about the E. coli outbreak in Europe (or other more definitively scientific discussions of late).

Shall we move on to more concrete matters?

To claim that information received into the auditory or visual areas of the brain and then rationalised is somehow more valid that information received in other areas of the brain and then rationalised is just informational fascism. It *isn’t* convenient that knowledge of God cannot be transmitted in words. It is, however, true. Why do you need something to fight?

Yes – I agree with contemplationist and Razib Khan – Bryan Caplan is no conservative.

The major difference between liberals and conservatives that probably explains this – is that liberals have higher openness (see results at http://www.yourmorals.org). Libertarians, however, also have very high openness. Bryan Caplan, in particular, has views so outside the mainstream (he’s even *very* unusual for a libertarian) that he has to be an extremely independent thinker who doesn’t have the echo chamber that many people have when they split into liberal/conservative factions

Regardless of the empirical truth of that statement, the idea is an important one: when there is a respectable disagreement (as opposed to one where the other side are just obvious crackpots), and important skill is to be able to put yourself in the mind of those with whom you disagree. Conservative economist Bryan Caplan formalized the notion by invoking the idea of a Turing Test: could a liberal/conservative do such a good job at stating conservative/liberal beliefs that an outsider couldn’t tell they were the real thing?

The ancient technique that in India was called “purva paksha”. E.g., R.Malhotra (“We have an ancient Indian tradition of engaging the ‘other’ using a technique called purva-paksha. This means you must first study the other’s viewpoint very seriously and become an expert in it. Only then can you debate against it. “).

You know what’s hilarious? I have almost an equal amount of Liberal and Conservative friends and they both claim, with equal fervor, that the other side can’t engage in a logical debate.

I see both sides as overpopulated with hypocritical idiots. Liberals want to socially engineer the perfect world (whatever that is) but they could give a damn if the rest of us don’t want to participate. Conservatives cling to the notion that the US Constitution guarantees each citizen’s individual freedoms… as long as you’re a Christian.

In reality, we should all have a healthy distrust of any group of people who believe so deeply that they have all the answers. Liberals/Conservatives are all brain dead morons who buy into the “group thought” and do and believe whatever they are told by the hive mind.

How about we put our trust in “free thinkers” for a while?

I’m a small-a atheist. I don’t have much time to devote to the the capital-A version.

If a god wants me to be a capital-A, it’d damn well have to materialize before me and give me a real reason.

Although I find that every religion is filled with misconceptions, half-truths, lies, and errors, I believe in God…….My personal definition of God is everything eternally evolving…..It meets the qualifications that man cannot know God. We only know that which is within our limited perceptions…….But this evolving energy, matter, and stuff of stars, has evolved into us…..so we too are extensions of God with limited quantum powers of God because we are such a tiny part of everything. Our powers are limited to showing love, and helping each other, etc. Free will leads to errors and evil. I don’t pretend to understand how that is resolved. That which led to me is my Creator.

I waited 16 billion years to get here and they put me in the wrong body….I was supposed to be Bill Gates.

Give thanks to God, or thank your lucky stars………..

And so when you worship the volcano….that is God. When you worship your idles …..they are God……When you worship the sun…. that is God……..You just might all be right……..even about Jesus being God…….Your guess is as good as mine……

Heavy metal groups and associated genres do the very same thing.

“We exist because the non-existent might possibly, but shouldn’t, can’t, never could, impossibly exist; it’d better not, or we’re screwed.

Must. Not. Exist. If. We. Are. To. Exist. Free. of. Those. Who. Say. It. Does. Or. Something.

Charles J. Slavis, Jr

I have no problem with you believing what you want. I have no problem with a society who believes that what you think is the same as your right to own personal property.

I’ve a problem with certain of my fellows who think they have a right to decide in what you should have a personal ownership interest.

In that way, they are no different then earlier generations of folks who believe like you.

I don’t hold that history against you. You weren’t extant at those times.

I don’t believe what you do, but I believe in your right to believe it.

Hell, smart folks around here still struggle with wanting to see the both of us in stocks and pillories to fit their own prejudices.

“String up the theist and the atheist. They both suck!”

@keith:
“I’m not arguing any position, just pointing out that genuinely religious people have gained knowledge in a way that can’t be transmitted in words, simply by experiencing something for themselves.”… “I love this blog for the accessible particle physics, the atheism crap is an embarrassment.”

Since you want to learn about particle physics, I’ll show you a brand new way: learn it by experiencing something for yourself, in a way that can’t be transmitted into words. That’s how I learnt it! What do I care if it has no correspondence with the version of reality that those stupid physicists come up with? I know from personal discovery that I have seen the truth. As you might have guessed, I can’t tell you about it myself; I can only hint at how you can get it too.

That way, the weirdos on this blog wont think of you as a troll wasting their time, and you won’t have to read all this embarrassing atheism crap.

I was too slow editing. I checked and it is just 28 minutes (not 40). And the link, to save trouble doing the search, is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

I think the main premise of Kalam cosmological argument for God is that an infinite regress of human explanations is impossible. They sometimes use the word “causes” but it seems to have a more general meaning of “explanations” because the causal framework within which causes operate is of course part of the explanation—and all explanations are human constructs.

Here’s a Wikipedia giving historical background on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

William Lane Craig has modernized the argument and made it appear compatible with modern cosmology (his interpretation) and with science more generally. He quotes noted cosmologists cogently but selectively. So the makers of that 28 minute YouTube can have fun with contradictory clips.