I. Background: Is this pushing it too far?

I know this is a touchy topic, but I'd like to begin examining the Bible. I won't be arguing that the Bible is errant on issues, as per soulster's rule #5. Instead, I'll focus on evidence. My argument may offend you, but I hope my honest look at a story of the Bible will show why atheists do not believe. I'm not trying to deconvert anyone. I am only providing an issue that interests me.

During heated debates with Christians, sometimes I would ask God to appear before me, or guess a number I was thinking of, or some other flippant remark intending to put the Christian in a bind. If God can do everything, the logic went, then he could easily guess a number, stop gravity for a moment, strike me with lightning, or something that a skeptic such as myself could see as insurmountable proof of God's existence. You see, to me, if it can't be measured or quantified in some way, than it doesn't really exist. Of course, it could be an idea, or a philosophy, or another construct humanity forms in our boredom, but if I can't test for God's existence, than if I were to be a Christian, I would have to rely on a different faith than what soulster professes. I'd have to believe in something that has no positive evidence.

But what if we could test to see if God exists?

Continue reading Faith and the Bible

While searching for a plugin for this site, I ran into a blog post on Zy.ca about Richard Dawkins [wiki] recent speech at a University in Lynchburg.  In the post, Zyca says:

The whole exchange and his [Dawkin's] bit about atheists being fearful of revealing themselves in the US … disturbs me. It seems inconceivable that americans are so … fanatical, but then again their president is a strong believer in “your with us or against us” ideology so I could see it being true…..Basically his strongest arguement is that being an Atheist should not be a stigma … it shouldn’t prevent you from being elected, etc. It is creepy that it would be an issue … but more so, it is creepy that there would be a cohesive group of atheists imposing their beliefs upon others. I strongly believe in live and let live … but Neocons scare the crap out of me … so maybe there is a point to unity of atheist … mind, I consider myself Agnostic. Still, fervor is fervor and whether it is backed by faith or religion, it is still a very scary thing. 

I appreciate the oberservation and honesty from someone presumably outside to the US.  This impressed upon me the importance of our dialogue here.  It is interesting that this blog was started by two Americans, though our readership is not geographically limited.  I don't think either of us would agree that there should ever be such a society where certain thought systems are afraid of revealing themselves.  That amounts to truth-suppression, or, at the very least, gross insecurity on the part of the oppressors.  To say we believe our thinking is right as atheists, theists, or anything else is, of course, reasonable.  But to believe so deeply that others are wrong that you are willing to force their view into hiding or extinction is arrogance of the worst kind, unhealthy for the truth, and just generally evil.  Humans in general, and Americans in particular, could gain much by learning the art of humility. Since our talk of late has been a lot on ethics and the ethics of dialogue, I thought we might do some ethical work here on this blog and draft a atheist-theist ethical statement on the treatment of humans, specifically with regards to people of different truth-systems and their treatment. Continue reading Afraid to Be Atheist in America?

One cannot play chess if one becomes aware of the pieces as living souls and of the fact that the Whites and the Blacks have more in common with each other than with the players. Suddenly one loses all interest in who will be champion.
(Anatol Rapoport)

The social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport said that to ‘win’ a debate, you must be able to first clearly define your opponent’s position.

1. You must re-express the points made, creating a brief overview of the ‘heart of the matter,’ if you will. The overview must be done fairly, and without use of fallacious arguments. You must do this so exquisitely that your opponent begins to nod his head in agreement.

2. Then, you should point to any points both you and your opponent agree with.

3. Then, you should express anything you have learned from your opponent.

4. Only then are you permitted to rebut, refute or criticize.

I think this should help for both the atheist and the believer.

Christianity is a reform ethic

Several atheists on this blog have pointed out that the origins of morality (and perhaps ethics) is evolutionary at its core [see Can Atheists be Good?].  In other words, people, being social organisms, cannot help but develop morality of some sort, even in such situations where religion may or may not be present.  I, as a Christian, would basically agree with this.  After all, Paul says, “Even when Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong” [Romans 2:14].  Without special revelation – in this case divine law-making – people will develop a natural sense of right and wrong.  Paul views this as a simple fact drawn from observation. Continue reading Soulster’s Christian Ethic

Drunkentune’s post “How to Talk to Atheists” is getting a lot of attention. It’s been a great starting point for conversation. During the dialogue, AV left an interesting website in a comment that was claiming to debunk Atheism by connecting it to the bloody dictatorships of the last century. The author of the article Atheism Kills, Muehlenberg, is using an association fallacy, according to drunkentune. In other words: if atheist A, B, and C committed such and such a crime, there must be something wrong with atheism itself.

Beepbeepitsme summarized this problem of how others see atheists:

I think that the basic premise, based in fallacy, is that atheists as they do not believe in god (but specifically, my god, or the god condoned by our country), must be, by default, obviously more capable of horrendous acts than any other group.

In other words, theists believe that there is NO morality without god, so therefore those who do not believe in god, must be immoral evidenced by their stated lack of belief.

Continue reading Can Atheists be Good?

I. Introduction: Again, Here I Go…

Now, I want to make this clear from the beginning that this is merely an attempt at an overview of the general argument for non-cognitivism or ignosticsm. I haven’t created the formal proof, however I independently formed a much more informal (I would say embarrassing) argument several years ago. A good deal of the proof will be ripped from George Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God and Michael Martin’s The Impossibility of God, so I suggest you check their books out and see their larger arguments. Man, are these guys smart!

There are generally two forms of strong belief I expressed earlier [as opposed to pantheism, etc.]: deism and theism. These beliefs are most commonly encountered by atheists today. Well, as a skeptic, it gets difficult to argue against all the dozens of beliefs out there. This is designed to help those that seek to argue against deism. Now, many atheists see theism as easy to refute, but deism seems like a challenge. You want to know one way to combat deism? It’s actually very easy: Become an ignostic!
Continue reading The Argument for Non-Cognitivism: Mu

In the comments to the post “How to Talk to Atheists,” Matthew explains what he terms the “Spectrum of Belief”:

I think this is a fairly standard way to arrange the spectrum of belief: atheist-agnostic-theist.

This serves as a good spectrum for starters, with many more possible subcategories fitting into each of these and occasionally some overlap.

Drunkentune responded with some helpful information about the variety of terms and options out there:

Traditionally, there have been three categories. However, I think that belief has a more diverse spectrum, ranging from 1. apatheism [wiki], 2. ignosticism [wiki] (I happen to consider myself an ignostic or non-cognitivist [wiki]), 3. strong (positive) atheism [wiki], 4. weak (negative) atheism [wiki], 5. agnostic atheism (doesn’t know, but doesn’t believe), 6. apathetic agnosticism (doesn’t care either way), 7. agnostic theism (doesn’t know, but believes) [wiki: all forms agnosticism], 8. pantheism [wiki] (the universe is God), 9. deism [wiki], and finally, 10. theism [wiki]. Some theists from ~7 to 9 consider God to be “love” or something utterly different than many other theists. I’m sure there’s a lot more I missed, but that’s what I could recall in approximate order [wiki links added by me].

Continue reading The “Spectrum of Belief”

I. Introduction: Evolution, you say?

As the first real issue I examine, I think it fair to analyze the two most popular theories for the evolution of religion. You, the believer, must understand: to an atheist [specifically, a naturalist such as I], religion can be explained without resorting to God or the supernatural. In fact, it is necessary for the atheist to do so, since if I were to use Occam’s razor in atheism’s favor, it would be in the atheist’s interest to definitively show that religion is not a construct separate from the natural world. If all the evidence pointed in the direction of religion being a construct separate from the natural world, one would beg the question: Did something unnatural create it? Atheism would be on shaky ground, and I recognize this possibility.
Continue reading The Evolution of Religion: Is Religion Natural?

First, I would like to say that drunkentune did a great job with his list, and much of what he said could be applied to conversations with theists [wiki], especially Christians [wiki], as well.  I have been a part of several conversations with atheists [wiki], which were rarely if ever heated.  Most of my conversation is with nominal believers and agnostics [wiki] who have either lost their faith or never adopted one.  Because I’ve been conversing with people who essentially don’t know, but lack a strong conviction for or against, I have had less opportunity for conflict.  When conflict has occured, it is most often with other believers who differ in some area of orthodoxy [wiki] or praxis [wiki] (which should raise some believer’s eyebrows if they really think about that).  Continue reading How to Talk to Believers

Let’s make this blunt: I am an atheist; you, the reader, presumably, are a believer. To be quaint, I’m making an educated guess, since there’s a ~84% chance that you believe in God. That, my friend, is an excellent guess to make, and I’ve made it in confidence. So, to the 84% of you out there that are believers, listen up: I’ve got a confession to make…

Continue reading How to Talk to Atheists