10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[Figleaf]

Call me a traditionalist, but I have a problem with trying to use words as if they mean their very opposite.

Electrons and positrons are opposites in terms of electric charge but the are still atomic particles. Theism and atheism are opposites when it comes to a deity but they are both religions.

It really insulting when you reiterate arguments that have already been answered as if I had not written at all. (See post #272.)

Is it a deliberate tactic, in hopes that we have all forgotten your ass got beat on that point already?

A while ago I asked you a question, twice. If we were to accept your all-encompassingly broad definition for 'religion', what should we call it when we refer to what the rest of us mean by religion?

What you want to call religion is actually theism. That is why the word for people who believe that god does not exist is 'a'-theist and not 'a'-religion.

Were you not arguing a few moments ago that theism and atheism are essentially the same?

Your problem is you see 'religion' as a perjorative term ...

No, I see 'religion' as a term with an meaning that includes some things and excludes others.

... which means you absolutely reject idea that it could apply to your own belief system.

It doesn't matter WHO you try to apply it to, we are discussing WHAT you are trying to apply it to.

I see no difference between justifying murder or theft in the name of a deity or justifying in the name of a 'greater good' or a 'hierarchy of human rights'.

The difference would be that theistic justifications are based on religious dictat and atheistic justifications are not. In theistic thinking the doctrines can overrule reasoned, useful justifications at any moment. This is also true of extremist thought-control philosophies like fascism whether or not they are religious. But basic skeptical atheism doesn't have that.

In that regard, your position seems inordinately reductionist. You are ignoring many known, describable differences in various theologies and in the particulars of life styles they prescribe.

Why are these differences significant?

No, you still owe me a whole stack of answers first. And add this one: Why would you dispute their significance when the people who hold them obviously feel strongly about them?

You can't seem to accept that developing a moral code on the premise that no god exists is effectively the same as developing a moral code based on the premise that a deity does exist ...

No, I can't accept that because it's folly. Athiests DON'T develop their moral code 'based on' that premise. An atheist can assemble their moral code and never once make reference to the status of their belief in God(s). Whether God exists or not is not the basis on which an atheist concludes that murder is most usually wrong. They simply do not think "Hm. Is murder wrong? Well first, God does not exist, so ..."

....because the outcomes are basically the same.

That doesn't ring true. Why the ongoing conflict over laws and policies between theists and secular people?

[Figleaf]

I think you [gc1765] are misrepresenting the views many theists. Many people are sloppy when they use the word 'proof' and use it in situations where they only have a hypothesis or a theory. This sloppiness is something that non-theists are equally guilty of.

Non-theists certainly are often sloppy. But sloppiness is not the main problem afflicting theists, rather, theists suffer from an inherent rejection of reason from the get go (at least in regard to matters that are subject to doctrinal interpretations).

Most theists I have talked to recognize that they do not have proof of god and that they only believe the available evidence is sufficient to justify their faith.

Most theists when, examined closely, reject reason in favor of their doctrines. This produces thinking which prevent them from, for example, discussing something like same sex marriage in the terms of public policy.

Non-theists frequently place their 100% faith in things that cannot be explained with repeatable experiments (many of the people demanding extreme action in the face of global warming are non-theists).

You are inappropriately inserting the criteria of repeatable experiments. Reason is not infirm in the face of difficult analyses ... you can certainly base reasoned choices on the best available data, even if it is incomplete.

[Figleaf]

I am as close to 100% certain as possible that they sky is blue

You are 100% certain the sky is blue because the english word 'blue' has been defined to include wavelengths of light reflected by air.

And guess what ... I'm certain that atheism is the opposite of theism on a similar basis.

[gc1765]

You probably are 100% certain that a rock will fall straight down when dropped because you are 100% certain that the theory of gravity is correct. You can point to a wealth of repeatable scientific experiments that demonstrate the theory of gravity as evidence. However, you don't know why gravity works the way it does so you cannot say for certain that the way gravity works won't change in future. So there is a tiny element of faith required before you drop that rock.

Exactly. So, I think it's safe to say that I am about 99.9999% sure that the rock will fall straight down.

You are much less certain about the effects of global warming, however, all of us are being asked to make personal sacrifices to reduce these possible effects. All of the people advocating that we make these sacrifices believe that the evidence is sufficient to justify making a leap of faith and acting as if global warming is a 100% certainty. You will have to decide if you are willing to make the same leap of faith.

One can believe that we should act, even if we are not 100% certain. Put it this way, if I feel a pain in my left arm, I am not 100% certain whether I am having a heart attack, but that doesn't mean I am not going to act, and visit the hospital (even if it means making a sacrifice such as missing work, or paying medical bills, etc.).

This is something that people do all of the time and it is incorrect to claim that people who believe in a deity are not basing their beliefs on evidence but people who make similar leaps of faith based on inconclusive evidence are basing their beliefs on evidence.

Only if people are claiming to be 100% certain about global warming does it require a leap of faith. If I say that I am, let's say, 90% sure that global warming is real based on the evidence, I wouldn't call that a leap of faith. To say I am 100% certain would require a leap of faith.

[Riverwind]

One can believe that we should act, even if we are not 100% certain. Put it this way, if I feel a pain in my left arm, I am not 100% certain whether I am having a heart attack, but that doesn't mean I am not going to act, and visit the hospital (even if it means making a sacrifice such as missing work, or paying medical bills, etc.)

Theists also go through the same calculations. Most are not 100% certain that a deity exists but are convinced that the potential benefits of believing outweigh the potential costs.

I can't remember which philosopher made a case for theism by pointing out that the 'cost' of believing in a deity while living is essentially nothing, however, the potential costs of not believing are huge. In other words, a rational person should choose to believe in a deity.

[Figleaf]

Theists also go through the same calculations. Most are not 100% certain that a deity exists but are convinced that the potential benefits of believing outweigh the potential costs.

You are accussing 'most theists' of having a mere faith of convenience.

I can't remember which philosopher made a case for theism by pointing out that the 'cost' of believing in a deity while living is essentially nothing, however, the potential costs of not believing are huge. In other words, a rational person should choose to believe in a deity.

A rational person CANNOT choose to believe in a deity. To believe something, a rational person requires being convinced, not simply suspending disbelief. They can choose to profess belief, but it would be false (as in the above situation).

[gc1765]

Only because going to the hospital is free. If it cost you $1000 to see a doctor you might choose to wait until the evidence is a lot more compelling.

Even if you are only 50% or 75% sure you are having a heart attack, you would be stupid not to go to the doctor even if it costs you $1000. Whether you agree with them or not, that's how many of the people who believe in doing something about global warming feel.

Most are not 100% certain that a deity exists but are convinced that the potential benefits of believing outweigh the potential costs.

I'm confused because earlier you were arguing about people who are 100% certain. Quote: "The people I am talking about are still 100% certain that a god exists"

I can't remember which philosopher made a case for theism by pointing out that the 'cost' of believing in a deity while living is essentially nothing, however, the potential costs of not believing are huge. In other words, a rational person should choose to believe in a deity.

You are probably thinking of Pascal

There are a few problems with his argument: a) it depends on the probability of God existing. If a person is 99.99% certain that God does not exist, it would not be rational to believe in God (think of it this way, even though I have everything to gain by playing the lottery (millions of dollars), and almost nothing to gain from not playing (one dollar), it's still not a wise investment to play the lottery because the chances of winning are very low). He is assuming that believing in God will give a person infinite happiness and that not believing in God will give a person infinite pain. I believe he was talking about the "Christian" God here who punishes non-believers. While I am not certain whether some sort of deity exists, I am relatively certain that the Christian God, as described in the bible, is not true.

[Riverwind]

Most are not 100% certain that a deity exists but are convinced that the potential benefits of believing outweigh the potential costs.

I'm confused because earlier you were arguing about people who are 100% certain. Quote: "The people I am talking about are still 100% certain that a god exists"

Sorry. I should have said that, in the beginning, most theists are not 100% certain. Theists will also go through different phases: sometimes they are 100% certain. Sometimes their belief wavers.

I believe he was talking about the "Christian" God here who punishes non-believers. While I am not certain whether some sort of deity exists, I am relatively certain that the Christian God, as described in the bible, is not true.

Those criticisms of Pascal's arguments are reasonable. PAscal also presumes that you can know exactly which flavour of deity to believe in (i.e. what happens if the Muslims are right?).

However, I still think the cost vs. benefit question is a legitimate question. What exactly is the downside of believing that there is some sort of deity or higher order in the universe? The only question that needs to be answered is if there is any potential benefit to belief. For some people belief brings many benefits so choosing to believe is an extremely rational choice.

[Riverwind]

A rational person CANNOT choose to believe in a deity. To believe something, a rational person requires being convinced, not simply suspending disbelief. They can choose to profess belief, but it would be false (as in the above situation).

Belief is a choice. If you make the choice it becomes sincere. If you don't make the choice and simply try to convince others that you made the choice then it is insincere.

[gc1765]

However, I still think the cost vs. benefit question is a legitimate question. What exactly is the downside of believing that there is some sort of deity or higher order in the universe? The only question that needs to be answered is if there is any potential benefit to belief. For some people belief brings many benefits so choosing to believe is an extremely rational choice.

I agree that Pascal's question is a good one. Then again, is there any downside to believing in Santa Claus? For some people (i.e. kids), believing in Santa Claus brings them joy as well. Does that mean it's rational to believe in Santa Claus?

[Riverwind]

I agree that Pascal's question is a good one. Then again, is there any downside to believing in Santa Claus? For some people (i.e. kids), believing in Santa Claus brings them joy as well. Does that mean it's rational to believe in Santa Claus?

Santa Claus is more a short term 'suspension of disbelief' question. Watching movies is enjoyable because we chose to believe that they are real for the duration of the movie. Christmas eve is a live action play where the parents are the actors. For that reason, I felt it was perfectly rational to tell my kids to believe in Santa Claus.

[gc1765]

For that reason, I felt it was perfectly rational to tell my kids to believe in Santa Claus.

But I take it you don't believe in Santa Claus? Why not? Understanding why you don't believe in Santa Claus is probably the best way I can explain to you why some people don't believe in God. (It should be noted that it's not possible to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist).

[Riverwind]

But I take it you don't believe in Santa Claus? Why not? Understanding why you don't believe in Santa Claus is probably the best way I can explain to you why some people don't believe in God. (It should be noted that it's not possible to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist).

I have never said that not believing in a deity is a wrong or irrational choice. I am simply arguing that it is no more right or rational than choosing to believe in one.

The Santa Claus example brings up a good point. I only taught my kids about Santa Claus because it is part of the society which I live in. If I lived elsewhere the topic may would have never come up. Theism is a part of every human society. This means every human must make make a choice between theism, agnosticism and atheism. This is a choice that is forced on them by society and cannot be avoided. That is why I say all moral frameworks are based on person's metaphysical beliefs - no person can develop a moral framework until they have answered the deity question.

I will concede that a person who grew up in a society where there was no discussion of god or metaphysical beliefs could, in theory, develop a moral framework without first making a decision on god. However, no such society exists nor is it ever likely to exist.

[gc1765]

I have never said that not believing in a deity is a wrong or irrational choice. I am simply arguing that it is no more right or rational than choosing to believe in one.

No, but you did say that it is extremely rational to believe in God considering the benefits that belief provides (re: Pascal's argument). Since believing in Santa Claus can also provide benefits (with little negative consequences for believing) does that make it rational, in your opinion, to believe in Santa Claus? Or as rational as choosing not to believe?

[Electric Monk]

I have never said that not believing in a deity is a wrong or irrational choice. I am simply arguing that it is no more right or rational than choosing to believe in one.

Please define faith, then explain the above statement, I'm confused.

[Riverwind]

Since believing in Santa Claus can also provide benefits (with little negative consequences for believing) does that make it rational, in your opinion, to believe in Santa Claus? Or as rational as choosing not to believe?

Only children benefit from believing in Santa Claus so it is rational for them to believe. I don't see any benefit for an adult to have such a belief unless they turned Santa Claus into a more traditional deity figure.

[gc1765]

Only children benefit from believing in Santa Claus so it is rational for them to believe. I don't see any benefit for an adult to have such a belief unless they turned Santa Claus into a more traditional deity figure.

Why should only children benefit? I see no reason why a genuine belief in Santa Claus wouldn't bring the same joy to an adult as it does to a child.

(if you don't like that example, then take believing in magic, which certainly does bring joy to people, otherwise magicians wouldn't make very much money).

[Riverwind]

Why should only children benefit? I see no reason why a genuine belief in Santa Claus wouldn't bring the same joy to an adult as it does to a child.

The Santa Claus only brings joy to kids because parents provide the gifts. One would assume that an adult would not receive the gifts and would not experience the joy. The benefits of believing in a deity are always non-material and only affect the state of mind of the individual. The using prayer to deal with an anger management program is an example of the kind of benefits that I am talking about. Someone who expected a diety to provide tangible gifts would become quickly disillusioned.

[gc1765]

The Santa Claus only brings joy to kids because parents provide the gifts. One would assume that an adult would not receive the gifts and would not experience the joy. The benefits of believing in a deity are always non-material and only affect the state of mind of the individual. The using prayer to deal with an anger management program is an example of the kind of benefits that I am talking about.

I would argue that it's not only the gifts that provide joy, but also the underlying idea of fantasy/magic (which I would also argue is part of the reason why religion brings joy to people).

I'm sure there are many more better examples I can think of.

For example, some people such as PolyNewbie get pleasure out of believing that 9/11 was an inside job. Does that make it rational for PolyNewbie to believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

[Riverwind]

I have never said that not believing in a deity is a wrong or irrational choice. I am simply arguing that it is no more right or rational than choosing to believe in one.

Please define faith, then explain the above statement, I'm confused.

Faith is believing in something that has not been proved.

The article that started this thread called for Christians and Atheists to acknowledge their common ground and show each other some respect. Some atheists objected to the idea that there was any common ground to be had.

I have been trying to make the point that atheism and theism are simply two different types of metaphysical beliefs and it is wrong to presume that one is inherently superior to the other. (aside: I probably should not have tried to call all metaphysical beliefs religions because the resulting arguments over terminology distracted from the real point I was trying to make).

The counter argument from atheists was that atheism is rational but theism is not. I responded by using examples to illustrate that making decisions based on rational science can require leaps of faith and that the choice to believe in a deity can be a rational choice based on evidence.

I am not advocating theism - I am simply saying that choice to believe in a diety is a reasonable choice and that atheists cannot claim that their metaphysical belief system is inherently more rational.

[Electric Monk]

Thanks for the quick reply, you folks have been busy this evening.

For example, if I believe that everyone else is a figment of my imagination, and this belief helps me in my daily life,and makes me feel better about myself, then it is a rational belief?

(This equates to belief in a deity helping me with anger management.)

I think that rational beliefs are not always beneficial, and non-rational beliefs are not always detrimental.

[Riverwind]

For example, some people such as PolyNewbie get pleasure out of believing that 9/11 was an inside job. Does that make it rational for PolyNewbie to believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

PolyNewbie clearly derives a lot of personal benefit from believing in conspiracy theories and that his decision to believe in them seems to have started from some rational analysis. If you only read the material provided by truthies it does appear to be quite rational and compelling. The trouble with PolyNewbie is he rejected the mountains of counter evidence that were placed in front of him. At that point his belief system became irrational. The same can be said of Christians who insist that the earth was created 6000 years ago.

In other words I am agreeing that some belief systems become irrational when people hold onto them even after they have been explicitly disproved. However, most theists do not do this and will adapt their beliefs if specific elements of that belief system are shown to be wrong. For example, the majority of Christians today do accept evolution and simply treat the story in Genesis as a metaphor rather than fact (the Pope has issued a formal statement on this point).

There is some evidence that the Jesus story is largely fiction. This evidence is not conclusive but lets assume that someone did produce conclusive evidence that Jesus never existed. You would probably find that many Christians would not abandon their beliefs at all. They would simply treat Jesus as a metaphor as they already do with the Genesis story and continue believing. I know you will likely think that is absurd but that is because you don't recognize the rational component of all theist belief systems.

[Electric Monk]

I have little trouble with deists who believe that there was an initial prime mover, for our universe, but those who claim increasingly complex and personal interactions between their deity and the universe need to offer me convincing evidence. So far none has been forthcoming.

[gc1765]

PolyNewbie clearly derives a lot of personal benefit from believing in conspiracy theories and that his decision to believe in them seems to have started from some rational analysis. If you only read the material provided by truthies it does appear to be quite rational and compelling. The trouble with PolyNewbie is he rejected the mountains of counter evidence that were placed in front of him. At that point his belief system became irrational. The same can be said of Christians who insist that the earth was created 6000 years ago.

In other words I am agreeing that some belief systems become irrational when people hold onto them even after they have been explicitly disproved. However, most theists do not do this and will adapt their beliefs if specific elements of that belief system are shown to be wrong. For example, the majority of Christians today do accept evolution and simply treat the story in Genesis as a metaphor rather than fact (the Pope has issued a formal statement on this point).

There is some evidence that the Jesus story is largely fiction. This evidence is not conclusive but lets assume that someone did produce conclusive evidence that Jesus never existed. You would probably find that many Christians would not abandon their beliefs at all. They would simply treat Jesus as a metaphor as they already do with the Genesis story and continue believing. I know you will likely think that is absurd but that is because you don't recognize the rational component of all theist belief systems.

Fair enough. I assume we can agree that believing in a literal interpretation of the bible is irrational (but believing in some sort of deity is not necessarily irrational).

Still, according to Pascal, PolyNewbie should continue to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

[gc1765]

I have little trouble with deists who believe that there was an initial prime mover, for our universe, but those who claim increasingly complex and personal interactions between their deity and the universe need to offer me convincing evidence. So far none has been forthcoming.

I hope this isn't too off-topic (then again, threads tend to evolve), but I have trouble believing in the argument of a "prime mover" to get things started. If the "prime mover" got things started, then where did this prime mover come from?