I'm not an atheist but I've always wondered that if God ( all individual definitions apply) created the universe, what created God? You could also say that the universe is the sum of certain unknown ingredients, but what are those ingredients the sum of? I personally believe in God, but I'm happy to not be so full of myself to think I even know what God is or means. I'd rather just learn what I can from the religions I have the opportunity to learn from.
I wasn't saying I agreed with the results, just that those are the ones that many people will turn to. I don't really think there is much of a difference, if at all, when other factors are taken into account.
"In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that Atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions."
And for what it's worth, your point 3 is entirely irrelevant. Your IQ, EQ and whatever else has absolutely nothing to do with a demographic group as a whole.
In the end you have to end up with infinity and infinity is the prerequisite for a supernatural being and its a strong pull towards a creator.
Assuming everything else you said was correct (which I won't get into for the sake of this point), how is that in any way a strong pull towards a creator? That sentence just drips with a presupposition and confirmation bias.
I don't believe I have purported anything of this kind.
No, you haven't, and I've seen you state the basis of your faith (im pretty sure it was you) was personal experience and while enough to convince you, is not something that is evidence that someone else must accept and believe.
If that was you, I have no problems at all with your belief, though as you certainly did say, you are probably odd and a bit of an exception.
The reason it still is and always will be an argument is the special pleading made towards that creator. The universe can't be infinite in time nor have come from nothing (as a common argument goes) but God is/did. There is an argument for God as a 'First Mover' but this really needs to show why the first cause (or the infinite thing) is supernatural/sentient.
I think we agree on all counts. My earlier posts pointed to the exact difference, but got a repeated "I will not respect theology" response that did not acknowledge that difference. I am a Christian, but probably a bit odd.
This always hits me as a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. I have read/watched many things from Christian sources (as possibly previously mentioned, GF is ex-christian and her parents like trying to convert us, which doesn't really bother me) and a common trend of an argument goes like so:
1) SCIENTIFICALLY -> random stuff about need for a God (gravitational pull, constants, mathematical 'fine-tuning' (a word I dislike as it implies sentience before any evidence is given). I don't buy it and there are flaws, but someone getting a deistic start of the Universe belief from it wouldn't overly surprise me.
Then the part that bugs me.
2) "And now that we've proven a need for a God here's some completely unscientific, anedotal, personal experiences for why it MUST be the Christian God." And it almost always has the undertones that it's either the Christian God or no God, because those silly other religions (/satire) are too weird to take seriously.
It feels like a case of tell a great story with lots of evidence (albeit flawed) and then use this artificial credibility to monger their personal doctrines.
When theoretical physics attempts to explain phenomena prior to the big bang, we don't have the luxury of having testable results. We can't observe the big bang or anything prior. All we can observe is the current state of the universe. Any explanation that attempts to describe how matter came into existence can only be an educated guess. That's why there's no scientific reason not to believe in god, it's just another possible explanation of many that could be true..
The problem arises when you equate the possibility of the existence of a God with what you refer to as an educated guess. If God existing was just another possible/probable explanation for the forming of the universe, there would be a lot more Deists out there. I won't agree, but using some arguments with the final conclusion of a sentient force created the universe isn't reprehensible. However, extrapolating that to what theology is today is what I, and probably many, have problems with.
Many ugly histories began with lengthy rationalizations of why one group deserved respect and another did not. "How could this have happened?" One groups simply asserted its superiority over another. And these groups always believe they rightfully do so.
I state this because I have repeatedly suggested we can respect their fellow human without equating the validity of beliefs. Each time this call for tolerance has been met with "I will not respect theology". I think it useful to be aware of this and remember it in the coming years.
Understand that we theologians assume full responsiblity for our decisions. If we have not assessed our own wishful thinking from reality, it is our fault. But can anyone know how a person questions themselves? Has your fellow human not wondered the same things as you? Do you know we are rendered incapable by dogma? Is it possible that perhaps someone else has experienced things that surpass wishful thinking? Can we assume that someone is a fool because they believe differently?
Some atheists think it is possible that an non-sentient initial existence errupted from nothing. Some theologians believe that an sentient initial existence has always existed. Evidence does not prove one way or the other, and both are difficult to grasp given our tiny human experience.
And you seem to be equating "I don't respect theology" with "theists are dumb and deserve no respect.... etc." Before I assume anything, you are a Christian and not a Deist, right?
Many speculate that our country wouldn't be what it is today without the enslavement of african american's in our earliest years. There's no doubt it was wrong but when you think about it without slaves to harvest our cotton and tobacco we may not be the country we are today.
Since when does that justify anything? The US probably wouldn't be how it is now, no, but stating that things would be different and, what... therefore worse?... No, it doesn't work like that.
This thread is going in circles. So I'm going to bid you all farewell.
One thought in closing, remember to judge each person on a personal level. Atheists aren't bad, religionists aren't bad, and inflammatory comments or signatures avail nothing.
See you round the forum.
Maybe only because you are putting forth arguments that haven't been valid, well... ever. And at the same time every claim thus far has been refuted just with scripture. Bow out because you're wrong, not from a phony claim. And at least you got to go out feeling morally superior to boot!
I can't imagine how it is possible to claim slavery wasn't endorsed, while following that up with the idea that the slavery was all right because they treated their slaves better than they used to be.
I think at all points of attack on the problem of suffering, the current theistic argument is weakened by stepping back a level. Why was this earth created with tectonic plates that need to move (and cause earthquakes/tsunami's). Why was it created so that the ocean's currents and atmospheric conditions create devastating hurricanes. He apparently created this universe, but seems to have done so in a pretty flawed manner.
Seems pretty straightforward to find:
"...The right not to be enslaved, tortured, or killed is subjectively granted by many human societies"
The governing/enforcing arm of a society creates what is allowed and what isn't and if their society finds a rule reprehensible, they use protest, violence or voting power to remove this rule. If they find something reprehensible enough, societies are occasionally willing to force that rule/right on other societies. The metric used is a cohesive effort of the members of that society.
So what metric are you using that has the ability to objectively state what is or isn't a right?
I think you misread me, I said that Atheism is a tenant of Marxism, not that Atheism has tenants.
Yes, but there was no rallying under this atheism. It was necessary to turn the state itself into a religion. It seems a common theme in harsh dictatorships (ex. stalinist Russia, North Korea) to deify your ruler and turn that ruler into a God and rally behind that.
You are making the assumption that atheists are making a claim at all. We are not (outside of "for the sake of argument"). That's why I gave the autism example. The scientific community doesn't REALLY know if vaccinations affect the rate of autism.
But the same response to any claim like the one in the example I gave (vaccination increases the rate of autism) will be:
The statistical evidence happens to be to the contrary. It was researched with the intent was to prove or disprove the hypothesis. But we don't really know (yet). Should a pediatrician tell a parent to forgo vaccinations because there is no evidence that it doesn't cause autism? Indeed they don't. They instead look at what they do know, which is that life expectancy is increased by over 30 years with vaccinations.
No learned atheist is going to say "God doesn't exist". The religious sect would say:
The situation is actually the other way around. We can use logic and rational arguments to make the claims that the common theistic view has many inconsistencies. But in reality, those arguments are only reaffirm our stance of ignoring the metaphysical claims of religion.
The fact of the matter is the physical world works just fine without religion or the belief in a deity. When that is no longer the case atheists will surely reevaluate our claims about the existence of a divine power...
We simply have no incentive or rational reason to say "maybe". Would the existence of God make the theory of relativity more accurate? Would it cure cancer or prevent autism? Would it do anything?
Oh...oh yes, it would do something for certain. I can only guess the complete chaos that would ensure from the those looking to get on the side of the proven God. I have a firm belief it would bring about the destruction of just about everything (in regards to humans, not the universe as a whole).
Take an idea that is unverifiable and unfalsifiable in combination with the ability to do great harm... No, sir, I do not feel compelled to say "maybe".
I would love to just ignore religious claims and ideologies. Live and let live right? It would be great if bigotry and oppression were not derived from religious belief or rampant among religious people (statically, not my opinion). But we can't ignore it so we have to fight the fight to reduce the religious footprint on basic human rights.
First and foremost, I am personally a very atheist person and in regards to many specific gods, I AM a hard atheist (as those Gods have been given positive claims about our world (6000 years old, causing X action that never happened, etc.) that have met the burden of being disproved). So let's drop god out of the equation because you seem to be vehemently for the default position to be the negative of a claim (which really is bad science).
"The scientific community doesn't REALLY know if vaccinations affect the rate of autism."
Perfect example Oldaughd, and a great example of what I'm trying to say. They don't really know. But that doesn't mean that they can very reasonably say "I have little/minimal/no reason to believe there is a link here, and I feel the benefits highly outweigh the minimal risks, so we'll vaccinate." In no way do they have to give credibility to the claim, but if someone asks, the correct response is exactly what you said, "We don't REALLY know, but have little reason to believe it and would highly recommend vaccination."
Now, back to the topic at hand. You are making the mistake of equating the 'default' position with the current position that has 2000+ years of evidence gathered for it (that being, no evidence for a God). Default position refers to a hypothesis test where you have yet to have evidence one way or the other. Such as X = Y => H0 = X!=Y, H1= X=Y
While the null hypothesis is generally the negative of the positive claim(X=Y), but in any sort of legitimate science even if you reject H1, you still need to test on H0, as neither may be within a good enough confidence interval. If that's the case, or before you start running these tests, the default position is "I don't know".
First as I've said before, I'm talking about what is reasonable to believe, not whether or not 'god exists' is subjectively true or false.
I think you've mischaracterized what I'm saying here, because I'm not saying 'with no reason to believe, it is false' - I'm saying 'with no reason to believe, I believe it is false'.
Then you aren't really saying anything of substance at all. Saying what is 'reasonable' means completely different things to every single person and saying that it is reasonable to you to reject the claim it should be reasonable to everyone to reject the claim. None of this changes the fact that if you reject a positive claim, you are saying 'I don't know' while if you are accepting the negative claim, you take on the burden. The problem here is that you seem to be completely against the phrase 'I don't know' and argue that the default position should be rejecting the positive claim, WHICH IS YOU SAYING "I DON'T KNOW" (otherwise, if you did know, you'd be accepting the negative claim).
with no reason to believe, I believe it is false =/= It is false? That's a very strange thought.
Then what are you even believing then?
I'm under the impression that he was referring to this, though if not, I disagree with his point. IQ is generally something thought of as static:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
with relevant quote:
"In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that Atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions."
And for what it's worth, your point 3 is entirely irrelevant. Your IQ, EQ and whatever else has absolutely nothing to do with a demographic group as a whole.
Assuming everything else you said was correct (which I won't get into for the sake of this point), how is that in any way a strong pull towards a creator? That sentence just drips with a presupposition and confirmation bias.
No, you haven't, and I've seen you state the basis of your faith (im pretty sure it was you) was personal experience and while enough to convince you, is not something that is evidence that someone else must accept and believe.
If that was you, I have no problems at all with your belief, though as you certainly did say, you are probably odd and a bit of an exception.
This always hits me as a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. I have read/watched many things from Christian sources (as possibly previously mentioned, GF is ex-christian and her parents like trying to convert us, which doesn't really bother me) and a common trend of an argument goes like so:
1) SCIENTIFICALLY -> random stuff about need for a God (gravitational pull, constants, mathematical 'fine-tuning' (a word I dislike as it implies sentience before any evidence is given). I don't buy it and there are flaws, but someone getting a deistic start of the Universe belief from it wouldn't overly surprise me.
Then the part that bugs me.
2) "And now that we've proven a need for a God here's some completely unscientific, anedotal, personal experiences for why it MUST be the Christian God." And it almost always has the undertones that it's either the Christian God or no God, because those silly other religions (/satire) are too weird to take seriously.
It feels like a case of tell a great story with lots of evidence (albeit flawed) and then use this artificial credibility to monger their personal doctrines.
The problem arises when you equate the possibility of the existence of a God with what you refer to as an educated guess. If God existing was just another possible/probable explanation for the forming of the universe, there would be a lot more Deists out there. I won't agree, but using some arguments with the final conclusion of a sentient force created the universe isn't reprehensible. However, extrapolating that to what theology is today is what I, and probably many, have problems with.
And you seem to be equating "I don't respect theology" with "theists are dumb and deserve no respect.... etc." Before I assume anything, you are a Christian and not a Deist, right?
Since when does that justify anything? The US probably wouldn't be how it is now, no, but stating that things would be different and, what... therefore worse?... No, it doesn't work like that.
Maybe only because you are putting forth arguments that haven't been valid, well... ever. And at the same time every claim thus far has been refuted just with scripture. Bow out because you're wrong, not from a phony claim. And at least you got to go out feeling morally superior to boot!
I can't imagine how it is possible to claim slavery wasn't endorsed, while following that up with the idea that the slavery was all right because they treated their slaves better than they used to be.
"...The right not to be enslaved, tortured, or killed is subjectively granted by many human societies"
The governing/enforcing arm of a society creates what is allowed and what isn't and if their society finds a rule reprehensible, they use protest, violence or voting power to remove this rule. If they find something reprehensible enough, societies are occasionally willing to force that rule/right on other societies. The metric used is a cohesive effort of the members of that society.
So what metric are you using that has the ability to objectively state what is or isn't a right?
And what, might I ask, are you using as your metric of what to follow?
Yes, but there was no rallying under this atheism. It was necessary to turn the state itself into a religion. It seems a common theme in harsh dictatorships (ex. stalinist Russia, North Korea) to deify your ruler and turn that ruler into a God and rally behind that.
First and foremost, I am personally a very atheist person and in regards to many specific gods, I AM a hard atheist (as those Gods have been given positive claims about our world (6000 years old, causing X action that never happened, etc.) that have met the burden of being disproved). So let's drop god out of the equation because you seem to be vehemently for the default position to be the negative of a claim (which really is bad science).
"The scientific community doesn't REALLY know if vaccinations affect the rate of autism."
Perfect example Oldaughd, and a great example of what I'm trying to say. They don't really know. But that doesn't mean that they can very reasonably say "I have little/minimal/no reason to believe there is a link here, and I feel the benefits highly outweigh the minimal risks, so we'll vaccinate." In no way do they have to give credibility to the claim, but if someone asks, the correct response is exactly what you said, "We don't REALLY know, but have little reason to believe it and would highly recommend vaccination."
Now, back to the topic at hand. You are making the mistake of equating the 'default' position with the current position that has 2000+ years of evidence gathered for it (that being, no evidence for a God). Default position refers to a hypothesis test where you have yet to have evidence one way or the other. Such as X = Y => H0 = X!=Y, H1= X=Y
While the null hypothesis is generally the negative of the positive claim(X=Y), but in any sort of legitimate science even if you reject H1, you still need to test on H0, as neither may be within a good enough confidence interval. If that's the case, or before you start running these tests, the default position is "I don't know".
Then you aren't really saying anything of substance at all. Saying what is 'reasonable' means completely different things to every single person and saying that it is reasonable to you to reject the claim it should be reasonable to everyone to reject the claim. None of this changes the fact that if you reject a positive claim, you are saying 'I don't know' while if you are accepting the negative claim, you take on the burden. The problem here is that you seem to be completely against the phrase 'I don't know' and argue that the default position should be rejecting the positive claim, WHICH IS YOU SAYING "I DON'T KNOW" (otherwise, if you did know, you'd be accepting the negative claim).
with no reason to believe, I believe it is false =/= It is false? That's a very strange thought.