Question for Atheists/Naturalist

[For_The_Kingdom]

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

Now, if I saw cars outside the dentist and the people gathered inside for such...I would probably think they are crazy, or at least, childish in their thinking. Why? Because I don't think a rational adult with common sense can believe in such a thing.

BUT, is that the same way that someone with an atheist perspective will look at us (Church members) who are gathered inside a Church to talk about/worship a geninue belief in God?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

I don't want to fuss or fight...I just want to see your thoughts.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 137 by For_The_Kingdom]

It is like asking "Is the light in the room on or off?" and the answer is "off"...but you claim it is "on"...well, technically, you are wrong. But compare that to you claiming that there is no light in the ROOM AT ALL.

Your analogy doesn't wash at all, because there are any number of tests we can do to verify if there is light in the room or not. We can check to see if there are any objects capable of emitting light, such as light-bulbs, etc.

Whereas with your God? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've said in the past that you've got a series of arguments that validate his existence. Logical arguments are not the same thing as data, evidence one can collect from the real world.

by claiming there is no light in the room, there is no truth value whatsoever in that claim.

This atheist is saying that when someone says there is a light in the room, but all that person can provide are logical arguments and not actual data, then this atheist doesn't believe there is a light in the room.
This atheist doesn't say there is no god or no light. Just that the person claiming there is...his reasons and justifications are error-ridden.

And that is the difference between being mistaken about which God exists, and being completely/utterly wrong about whether a God exists at all.

The theology that you follow, Christianity, has in its holy book stories about what happens to people who worship the 'wrong' god. What happened to the people who worshipped Baal, for instance? What happened to Hebrews who started worshipping the 'wrong' god?

But all things equal, I think a theist (in general) is closer to the "real" God than someone who refuses to acknowledge the existence of a God whatsoever.

Just my opinion.

Curious. So how is a Hindu who worships Shiva closer to the idea of a 'real' God than myself for instance, who to date, finds no merit in ANY of the proposed gods I've heard about?
To be absolutely clear, this isn't me ruling out the idea of Gods at all. Just the ones I've heard about and possibly investigated.
The Hindu who worships Shiva doesn't believe your god or your theology is correct. They're closed off to the idea. They don't worship Jesus or think his death accomplished anything.

[marco]

Worse? Ultimately, no. But all things equal, I think a theist (in general) is closer to the "real" God than someone who refuses to acknowledge the existence of a God whatsoever.

Just my opinion.

And it is an opinion trapped in semantics. "All things being equal" cannot possibly be a fair starting premise. They are not.

In a situation where one side claims there is no God, the term "the real God" cannot have a meaning for that side; it introduces an immediate advantage to the believing side, and illustrates the lie in "all things being equal."

And if God does not exist, then whatever the atheist believes, he is closer to the truth than the theist. Comparative adverbs and adjectives are falsehoods here.

[Blastcat]

[center]The light bulb argument for the existence of God
Part One[/center]

Care to divulge to us what the difference is? I'm thinking of this, pretending I'm a Christian (believer in the Christian God) and I don't see how one can say "That Hindu who worships Shiva is just mistaken, but that atheist over there who doesn't worship any gods at all...why he's not mistaken, he's WRONG!"

This is pretty much semantics. I was just making the distinction between being wrong, and being "even more wrong".

It is like asking "Is the light in the room on or off?" and the answer is "off"...but you claim it is "on"...well, technically, you are wrong. But compare that to you claiming that there is no light in the ROOM AT ALL.

To me, that is more "wrong" than saying the light in the room is off...because at least there is a chance in you giving the correct answer...by claiming there is no light in the room, there is no truth value whatsoever in that claim.

Most modern rooms these days come equipped with a working light. But what if we were looking at a cabin in the woods, with no visible electrical wires outside? What if the room is fed through a breaker that we haven't checked? Could the breaker be on or off?... That's a 1:1 probability too.

Maybe there be electricity going to the room, and maybe not. So, we have to guess if the light is on or off, AND also guess if the electricity is on or off.

That's why people deciding if a certain god exists or not also have to decide if the "power" (the power of existence, to stretch this metaphor ) is on for the possibility of any god to exist at all in the first place.

Our truth table will look entirely different than if we just assume that there IS electricity going to to the room, and that the room would have a working light fixture that is on or off.

In other words, the atheist doesn't have a reason to think that the power is ON. So, that drops the possibility of a light in the room a bit. The probability isn't 1:1 that the light is on anymore but 2:1 against.

The theist is taking more of a gamble.

And that is the difference between being mistaken about which God exists, and being completely/utterly wrong about whether a God exists at all.

That's like saying that there might be a light fixture in the room but we don't know if the room has any electricity to make it WORK.. if there isn't electricity ( if no gods exist at all, gods standing in for the "energy" here ) then light bulb or not, fixtures or not, there will NOT be any light, even if the "switch" is set to on, and even if it's set to "off".

Doesn't matter.
We need to establish, if we are guessing first, if there is a POSSIBILITY that the light can work, or if there is a POSSIBILITY that there is a god. The color of the light, shall we say, is the KIND of god. Red bulb, yellow bulb, blue bulb. None of these bulbs are going to work without electricity or some other kind of condition that can make them work.

Of course, if we can go IN the room, like most NORMAL rooms, we can see if there is light or no. But barring that, outside of the locked room... we DO HAVE TO GUESS.

And when it comes to gods, we are all standing outside the room.

Guessing that not only are there sufficient conditions for there to be light within the room but that the light is on the "ON" position, is less correct than guessing that there is no light because there are at least TWO reasons here that the light can be "OFF". It could be the switch being off, or NO CURRENT, or BROKEN BULB or something like that.

So, it might be true that the light is on, or that the light is off, but it's equally true that there might or might not be conditions that would make light in the room.

Your math depends on whether you think that it's possible that the be a functioning light fixture in the room at all. If we know in advance that there IS a working light bulb in the room with all the necessary conditions for light to happen, then the possibility that there can NOT be light is false.

We have two conditions.

1. Light set to "ON" or "OFF" is one conditional.
2. The possibility of light at all in the room is another condition.

In possibility 2, let's say that there is a breaker switch outside of the room. It has to be "ON" in order for the light to work. Because maybe, before they went out, they shut the power. And then, there is just no light possible UNTIL that circuit is closed.

If we don't know what the possibility of light in the room is the probability of light in the room goes down.

Now, if you don't care about such a breakdown with the attitude of "dude, who cares, wrong is wrong"...I can understand...nevertheless, I am just giving you an explanation of why I made the distinction.

Light is off = Light is off.

So, if you are making the claim that the light is on.. from the outside only, that's a weaker claim that saying no. Saying no has 2:1 odds compared to yes.
The better bet is .... "OFF".

In your theology, both the Hindu who worships Shiva and the atheist who doesn't worship any gods are incorrect in their belief/non-belief. Both of them don't worship the 'correct' god.
Is one being an atheist/agnostic/naturalist worse than worshipping a god who is not 'in fact' real?

Worse? Ultimately, no. But all things equal, I think a theist (in general) is closer to the "real" God than someone who refuses to acknowledge the existence of a God whatsoever.

Just my opinion.

You forget the other side of the equation. That's never good in math.

It's just as true to say that:


But all things equal, I think an atheist (in general) is closer to possibility of there not being a God than someone who acknowledges the existence of a God whatsoever.


Your light bulb argument for the existence of god fails to do it's job.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 140 by Blastcat]

That's like saying that there might be a light fixture in the room but we don't know if the room has any electricity to make it WORK.. if there isn't electricity ( if no gods exist at all, gods standing in for the "energy" here ) then light bulb or not, fixtures or not, there will NOT be any light, even if the "switch" is set to on, and even if it's set to "off".

Doesn't matter.
We need to establish, if we are guessing first, if there is a POSSIBILITY that the light can work, or if there is a POSSIBILITY that there is a god. The color of the light, shall we say, is the KIND of god.

As I said in my earlier comment, we know that light sources are an actual thing that exist in the real world. No-one really doubts the existence of light bulbs or candles or anything else that emits light. No-one has endless debates over whether or not light is real, or that we have to have faith in light or anything along those lines.
So if someone actually wants to argue that in this closed room that no-one can enter, there is light...we can start out assuming that it is possible for there to be a light in that room. It's plausible, we have examples of light sources from elsewhere, it's not an outlandish claim. We can start out by listing the many known examples of light sources, such as bulbs, candles, torches, fire, etc and trying to investigate (if possible) if the room contains any of these things.
Whereas with God(s)? FtK made a mistake by using the light-in-a-room analogy. Do I have concrete examples of other gods elsewhere to start out with? No. To me, Gods are implausible at this point in time. It would be crazy for me to deny outright (without entering the room) that there is a light in the room, and the reason it is crazy is because I know examples from elsewhere where there are lights in rooms.
I do not have such a luxury with the concept of God. I don't have examples of actual real extant Gods from elsewhere.

[For_The_Kingdom]

All that matters is whether people are wrong or mistaken in God's eyes, not in the viewpoint of a fallible human.

That seems like more than just a hypothethical...it sounds like you are granting the existence of God...but maybe that's just me.

When I read Bible or Koran I see the heavy fingerprints of ordinary men outlining their ordinary view of an ordinary God. Those who discard such portraits are perhaps moving from a jealous, spiteful, sadistic being towards the possibility of infinite goodness. If so, the wrong, the mistaken and the presumptuous may well enter the Kingdom, whatever it is.

Or it may be an accurate depiction of the Almighty, whether we like it or not.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And it is an opinion trapped in semantics. "All things being equal" cannot possibly be a fair starting premise. They are not.

My point was; if you just take all contentions (in this case), equally at face value then it seems to me as if "there is no light in the room at all" is vastly more wrong than "the light is off" (when it is on).

In a situation where one side claims there is no God, the term "the real God" cannot have a meaning for that side; it introduces an immediate advantage to the believing side, and illustrates the lie in "all things being equal."

Well, it is about perspective, isn't it? From my perspective, the existence of God is as clear as the nose on your face. And when I say "God" I mean blank theism, not any specific God.

But on the flip-side, as you said, someone from the atheist perspective the concept of a "real God" is meaningless. Understood.

And if God does not exist, then whatever the atheist believes, he is closer to the truth than the theist. Comparative adverbs and adjectives are falsehoods here.

That is a big "if".

[For_The_Kingdom]

Your analogy doesn't wash at all, because there are any number of tests we can do to verify if there is light in the room or not. We can check to see if there are any objects capable of emitting light, such as light-bulbs, etc.

We can do the same if we get naturalism/theism in the ring an make them square off with each other. Theism is the quicker, stronger, fighter.

Whereas with your God? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've said in the past that you've got a series of arguments that validate his existence. Logical arguments are not the same thing as data, evidence one can collect from the real world.

Depends on the argument. The MOA and the Moral argument may not use physical data/evidence...but other arguments like the Kalam, Design, and Consciousness...those arguments DOES use physical data/evidence. The premises in those arguments get their truth value from data/evidence.

This atheist is saying that when someone says there is a light in the room, but all that person can provide are logical arguments and not actual data, then this atheist doesn't believe there is a light in the room.

Please articulate why a logical argument is insufficient, when the opposite of a logical argument is an illogical argument...unless you are implying that using logic in an argument is insufficient.

But you ain't saying that, are you?

This atheist doesn't say there is no god or no light. Just that the person claiming there is...his reasons and justifications are error-ridden.

And this Christian theist is saying that the reasons and justifications for atheism/naturalism are error-ridden.

The theology that you follow, Christianity, has in its holy book stories about what happens to people who worship the 'wrong' god. What happened to the people who worshipped Baal, for instance? What happened to Hebrews who started worshipping the 'wrong' god?

There is a difference between worshipping the wrong God because you never heard of Christianity...and hearing about Christianity, not accepting the message, and continuously worshipping the "wrong" God.

Big difference.

Curious. So how is a Hindu who worships Shiva closer to the idea of a 'real' God than myself for instance, who to date, finds no merit in ANY of the proposed gods I've heard about?

Well, at least for me personally...I am a Christian theist. But even if there was evidence that Christianity was false and my entire worldview was shattered...I would not become an atheist...I would still believe in theism, just not Christian theism.

So I would still be under the umbrella of theism, which is still (in my opinion), in the ball park of a Supernatural Creator that I believe is out there. Unlike an atheist, who isn't under the umbrella at all.

That is all I am saying.

To be absolutely clear, this isn't me ruling out the idea of Gods at all. Just the ones I've heard about and possibly investigated.
The Hindu who worships Shiva doesn't believe your god or your theology is correct. They're closed off to the idea. They don't worship Jesus or think his death accomplished anything.

Right, but if their Hindu belief is shattered, I think they are more likely than not to remain a theist as opposed to becoming an atheist.

Emphasis; more likely than not.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 141 by rikuoamero]




[center]The Light Bulb Argument for God: Real close to infinity : 1... [/center]

As I said in my earlier comment, we know that light sources are an actual thing that exist in the real world. No-one really doubts the existence of light bulbs or candles or anything else that emits light. No-one has endless debates over whether or not light is real, or that we have to have faith in light or anything along those lines.

I might have missed that post.

You now just made the light bulb argument fantastically more improbable. Using your reasoning ( and I've use that myself, so.. I give it the Blastcat mark of approval ) it's not something as prosaic as a light bulb we are talking about .. it's if a space ship from another dimension is in the room or not.. or Santa's little helper.. yeah, I forgot about that.


So, it's not 2:1 odds against a god, but a bizzilion bizzilion darn close to infinity to one.

Yikes!
Good thing I'm not a theist !!!

Whereas with God(s)? FtK made a mistake by using the light-in-a-room analogy. Do I have concrete examples of other gods elsewhere to start out with? No. To me, Gods are implausible at this point in time. It would be crazy for me to deny outright (without entering the room) that there is a light in the room, and the reason it is crazy is because I know examples from elsewhere where there are lights in rooms.
I do not have such a luxury with the concept of God. I don't have examples of actual real extant Gods from elsewhere.

That's where Bayesian logic comes into the picture.. what are the prior probabilities of a light bulb?... it's 1:1 there are real, actual light bulbs to be found in many many rooms that are locked. That's a good bet.

How many gods have been discovered in locked rooms before?

Maybe hovering about the big goose egg. Zero.
At least that I know of, it's zero.

So the odds of a god in THIS particular room are about as close to INFINITY to one as it is possible to be. Bad odds.

:1 are just about the worst odds imaginable.

Imagining a god in a locked room is the worst kind of bet imaginable.

So, I stand corrected.
I might have said the odds were 2:1 against the theist... it's a bit worse than that.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 143 by For_The_Kingdom]




[center]
The Light Bulb argument for the existence of God:
It's a matter of perspective[/center]

Well, it is about perspective, isn't it? From my perspective, the existence of God is as clear as the nose on your face. And when I say "God" I mean blank theism, not any specific God.

But on the flip-side, as you said, someone from the atheist perspective the concept of a "real God" is meaningless. Understood.

Mutual understanding is a good thing.
You are right in saying that it's all a matter of "perspective".
You believe in a god, atheists do not.

How did we improve our decision as to the existence of a god with your argument?
I say, it can only confuse us more.

It might convince the unwary that God is more probably true. IF the unwary was your target audience, then, maybe this is a good argument to use.

You must now understand how the light bulb argument for the existence of god is a bust. It just doesn't do the job you want it to do. I think you might have wanted to prove that God is more probably true. The "light bulb" argument doesn't even come close to doing that.


The only thing that it can establish is if someone is a theist or not.
We don't need a logical argument to know that.. we can just ask one another.

I think it's safe to say that theists believe that God exists.. working light bulbs or not.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 144 by For_The_Kingdom]



[center]
The structure of logical arguments
Part One[/center]

Theism is the quicker, stronger, fighter.

You should place your bet on theism, then.

The MOA and the Moral argument may not use physical data/evidence...but other arguments like the Kalam, Design, and Consciousness...those arguments DOES use physical data/evidence. The premises in those arguments get their truth value from data/evidence.

The truth of the premises in those arguments are HIGHLY debatable.
Pretending otherwise isn't very convincing.

Please articulate why a logical argument is insufficient, when the opposite of a logical argument is an illogical argument...unless you are implying that using logic in an argument is insufficient.

But you ain't saying that, are you?

You seem confused at to how logical arguments are formed.
You might want to read on what constitutes a valid compared to a sound logical argument.

There ARE criteria.
Logicians DO study them.

And this Christian theist is saying that the reasons and justifications for atheism/naturalism are error-ridden.

You will have to do more, eventually, than merely make claims in here. You will eventually have to demonstrate that your claims are logically valid and are based on true facts, instead of mere conjecture and opinion. So, it may be the case that atheistic and naturalistic arguments are error-ridden. But I don't yet think that you have convinced us atheists or any of us naturalists.

And for that, your reasoning and data really matter.
This is what these debates are for.

We put our reasoning and our data to the test and find out which arguments are more likely true.

Good luck.

There is a difference between worshipping the wrong God because you never heard of Christianity...and hearing about Christianity, not accepting the message, and continuously worshipping the "wrong" God.

Big difference.

If we take into consideration that the Christian god is extremely jealous of other gods... I suppose that worshiping one of THOSE.. is more of a sin than not worshiping any kind of god at all.

But if we don't believe in the sin of worshiping another god, say, as in a polytheist religion like Hinduism, you either believe in this or that god, or you don't. Hinduism is way more tolerant of other gods than Christianity.

Let's say that I grew up in rural India... the only gods I ever heard of were Hindu gods.. I might end up believing in one of them.

Now, after a while, I get educated and learn about Christ. ... Don't accept the "truth" of that nonsense.. I still believe in Vishnu or whatever, and reject the Christian god.

How is that different than what most Christians do?

I'm pretty sure that most Christians have at least heard of other gods.. they reject all of them ... To the Hindu, you might be worshiping the wrong god.. and rejecting theirs. If I worship another kind of god OF COURSE I reject all the others. If I don't worship any gods at all... I reject them all ... Not worshiping means just about the same as "rejecting"...

This is the kind of reasoning that we get when we firmly believe that: "It's either you are with me or against me" that the Christian god exhibits.

But even if there was evidence that Christianity was false and my entire worldview was shattered...I would not become an atheist...I would still believe in theism, just not Christian theism.

So I would still be under the umbrella of theism, which is still (in my opinion), in the ball park of a Supernatural Creator that I believe is out there. Unlike an atheist, who isn't under the umbrella at all.

That is all I am saying.

You seem to be telling us that even if you weren't a Christian, you would want to believe in some other supernatural creator. When it comes to supernatural creators, however, at this time, you prefer a certain brand.

I wonder, however, if you came to believe so much in a generic idea of a supernatural creator god by way of reasoning or by way of faith?

Generally, people don't come to believe in Christ by way of logic, but perhaps the other way around is true... People want their beliefs to make sense..

I'm asking, in other words, did you believe in a Christian kind of creator god before you found the idea of a supernatural being convincing?

Right, but if their Hindu belief is shattered, I think they are more likely than not to remain a theist as opposed to becoming an atheist.

Emphasis; more likely than not.

Assuming that your guess is true, why would that be?
Could it be that in India, Christianity doesn't permeate the culture?