Jim, Ihonestly don't know how to answer you. I think you are reading far more into what was intended to be a totally innoccuous statement. There was no ill will, sarcasm, (or whatever it is you read into that) intended. It was merely an observation, and one presented in what I thought was (and intended to be) a positive light. That, due to the differences I see in agnostics and atheists - the first being entirely rational, the latter entirely irrational.


Well then, maybe I should try to place myself somewhere on the scale of theism-atheism. I think some one asked us to do that a page or two back, so everyone has a clearer picture of where we are coming from. So I'll follow your lead on this, and call myself an "agnostic theist", for lack of a better term. Is that even a term? No matter; it is now.

I believe there is a God, but I have nothing that atheists or agnostics would acknowledge as "evidence". I could be swayed that there is no God, if given sufficient evidence. Now I realize we cannot prove non-existence, but we can prove (or disprove) the "alternatives" to God that answer our eternal questions (mentioned earlier).

Come to think of it, I could also be called "agnostic", or something similar, with regards to the science that our atheist friends lean upon to explain our beginnings, development, and existence. Or maybe "agnostic" is too strong; "sceptic" may be better, because I actually see, and acknowledge, some of the evidence that science presents. I also see the very clear flaws in much of it, and the leaps of faith they use to cover those flaws. Some may call these "gaps", but I will not, in the hopes that we do not devolve into yet another "god of the gaps" argument. It is far, far more than that.

I used the "onion" analogy on the ITAG thread. I see some one mentioned a similar idea on this thread. To summarize, the more layers we peel from that onion, the deeper our modern technologly allows us to look, the more questions are raised. The sheer complexity of our world is beyond comprehension. We see that now more clearly than ever. For generations, science was answering questions, and getting ahead of the curve. It was answering more questions than it was raising, or at least staying pretty even. It is now not even close; any "answer" raises significantly more questions than they did previously. We are only beginning to understand the sheer breadth of what we don't understand.

Anyway, there is a long ways to go on that front to convince me of the veracity of the alternatives to a God. The claim that all that surrounds us, with our ever increasing understanding of its complexity, has happened purely by chance developments strikes me as irrational. I believe there has been a guiding hand directing it.

Which leads me to my theism. I believe there is a God; I just don't believe in the church. Or the Bible, Quaran, or any other book whose followers proclaim it to be the be all and end all "word of God". I think they contain some rather general (and pretty salient) observations on us, our existance, and our relationship to this "God", but I recognize them as the flawed works of men. Lots of wild stories and personal thoughts and feeling interjected. I do see them as guides that are usefull in leading our lives; kind of like "owners' manuals" for the human body and soul. Nothing even close to the definitive "answer", however. I believe a rational man cannot discount them, especially when bouncing one off the other. There are elements that are remarkably similar between them. Ascribing those similarities to common "superstitions", and summarliy discounting them as asuch, is irrational. Again, there is more to it than that. There is something going on there.

So there you have it. I have a very strong suspicion there is a God. While I could be swayed, it would take at least as much evidence to talk me out of it as it would take to talk you into it.

Just to wander down another path for a moment. One can "prove a negative" and demonstrate that something does not exist. For instance, if I called myself a "married bachelor" it could be argued that no such thing exists because the term is not coherent. Same for the existence of a "square circle". By definition, a "square circle" doesn't exist. I shouldn't have to go search the universe or remain agnostic relative to square circles or risk being called irrational or taking leaps of faith.

The problem comes in the fact that many theists define "god" in different ways. Some of these defintions are plainly incoherent when subjected to even a small amount of scrutiny, so in a sense you can "prove the negative". IMHO, it is not a huge task to prove that an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god that watches over us and answers our prayers is an incoherent definition of a being. There is way too much incoherence in that definition. When we step back to a "supernatural being that created the universe and then walked away" kind of god, the definition of this god is much more coherent. Then, of coruse, we're left with the question of whether or not this being requires worship, etc.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent, but I think every discussion of this sort needs to start with a definition of what "god" is...

Not a bad little tangent at all, Mike. A pretty darn good one, actually, and one near and dear to me. I find I am much more comfortable with the term "theist" when describing myself than I am with the term "christian". The latter simply comes with too much baggage. Old guys building really big boats and all of that.

I've endeavored (in other threads) to seperate "God" and "religion" for precisely this reason. I find our discussions devolving into religious ones that have little to do with "god" and everything to do with a particular faith or faiths. That's about where I bail. The support for some of the stories taken on faith just isn't there, and the contorted "logic" used in an effort to prop them up just falls flat. Couple that with the snide, belittling, and downright vicious attacks leveled by some in those threads (we all know who) who have a substantial emotional investment in their atheism/agnosticism, and I just lose interest.

Anyway, you are spot on. "God" means so many different things to different people; theists and atheists alike. Both groups have more or less rational members who will offer more or less ration perspectives. Like I've said before, it's the zealots on either end of the spectrum that are irrational. And, come to think of it, the most likely to use their version of God to attack the other side.

No, Dipso, you again are missing the entire point.

You are correct in that people back then may have thought the illness was the work of the devil and not due to bacteria. That's not the point.

The point is that if you are going to try and use scientific evidence to answer any question, whether it be if God exists or what substance water is made of, you MUST have the tools to reliably evaluate the available data.

Just as people 1000 years ago did not have microscopes, we currently do not have anywhere near the technology to reliably evaluate even 1% of the universe. Therefore, making a statement that there is no evidence for God and therefore God does not exist lacks any foundation in data. It's like looking at one grain of sand on the beach, noting it is white and saying there are no black grains of sand on that beach. Your ability to evaluate the entire beach is so limited as to make that statement unsupportable and irrational. The only correct answer is "I haven't found a black grain, yet.". You may never find that grain, but until you can at least evaluate a reasonable sample of the beach you can't make any conclusion whatsoever.

Do you understand now?

BTW, you presuppose much in your post. You assume that in 1000 years that man will have evaluated much more of the available data and concluded that there is no God, thus how silly we all are for believing in a God. That's certainly possible. It is also possible that as man continues to explore and examine the data that science will begin to find evidence of something, call it a singularity or whatever; I'm not going to pretend to describe what we might discover in 1,000 years.

You are choosing to look at that one grain of sand and make your scientific stand based on that information....a thin scientific limb indeed.

Rick - to expand on my previous post and somehow try to make it relevant to yours...

Many atheists (myself included) are guilty of attacking the "evidence" or lack of it, associated with god. That happens as a result of how god is defined in the structure of the argument. If one defines god as a being who answers prayers or causes a worldwide flood, then it is easier to claim "lack of evidence" for that being. It easier to formulate arguments based on evidence (or lack of it) to refute those claims.

The real way to proceed on this discussion is for the theist (the one making the claim that they beleive god exists) to define what they mean by god. Only then can the atheist attempt to weigh the evidence for or against your claim.

Your post to Dipso falls short in making a solid point as you imply that we don't have the technology to reliably evaluate the universe, but you don't tell us what we're looking for, either. You have to define what we're suppose to look for before we can agree that we don't have the technology to find it and then to make the "leap of faith" that we might find it one of these days. Find what, exactly?

To expand slightly - I brought up this point in the ITAG thread when it was asked what evidence I would accept to believe in god. That is like asking me what evidence I would accept to believe in gurglions. I have no idea what a gurglion is, so I don't know what evidence I would accept for its existence. If you told me that a gurglion looked sort of like an elephant but had six legs, I would ask for evidence of something that looked like that.

By the same token, theists define what they mean by god and that is all that atheists have to go on. That is why (for better or for worse) arguments against the existence of god are almost always phrased as arguments against the way Christians present their god to act and behave.

Personally, when I still was somewhat of a believer, I had a concept of what god was. I do not believe that my conceptual being exists.

Another tangent, maybe...

You are describing an agnostic, not an atheist. An agnostic has doubt. Atheism is a firm conclusion.

That's kind of an unfair and lofty standard, Mike. Since when do we have to define what we are looking for before we begin the search? "Evidence of God" would be "it" at the highest level, but who could possibly add any detail to that? How can anyone say what that evidence will (assuming we ever find any) look like? If we knew that, wouldn't we also know precisely how and where to look?

Why, I would venture to say some of mankind's greatest discoveries were stumbled upon by folks who were not even looking for them. Such is the nature of discovery and advancement. If we know what we are going to "discover" ahead of time, then it's not so much a discovery, is it?

Our technologies are advancing at such a fantastic rate today that no one can predict where they will lead. Not in our lifetimes; certainly not in the next millenia. Your prerequisette is akin to asking Columbus to outline how we will get to the moon some day. Totally beyond his ability to even visualize, but I think we eventually did it.

I do not think it is unfair at all. Why is it unfair for the one who makes a claim to define the nature of the claim? How can I evaluate the evidence you present to support your claim unless you define what the evidence is supposed to indicate? You stated previously that you felt the complexity of the universe points to a creator (sorry to paraphrase). To support your claim, shouldn't you be expected to produce evidence of supernatural "creation"? If you can't produce any evidence, what should I think of your claim?

If you're arguing that one of these days, we might find something really extraordinary, then I am in complete agreement. But you can't wait until that point in time and say, "See, that's evidence for that being I was talking about." That's like waiting for someone's cancer to go into remission and then claiming, "See, that's evidence that god exists because he cured her!".

One more thing that I invariable mention in these discussions. Objectively, it should be easy to understand theists' excitement. If a man is convinced there is a God, and also convinced that a proper relationship to that God brings eternal peace and happiness, then you've got ot admit he's got something to share. Something that he thinks will be beneficial to listeners.

By contrast, atheism has "nothing" to share. Except intellectual snobbery. When I see a metal fish with the word DARWIN in the middle glued to a trunk lid, I wonder what message this driver is hoping to convey other than intellectual superiority.

If someone confused agnosticism for atheism, I could easily understand how they would view those people as being not pushy and not arrogant. Agnostics are simply doubters. No particular agenda, just questions. Atheists on the other hand, have reached a firm and completely unsupported position, and I have found every last one of them to be quick to try to impress me with their towering intellect. As you might imagine, reaching unsupported conclusions with extreme confidence does not impress me positively.

He could be selling an illusion to those who need an illusion to be happy.

Don't hate. It's not "christian."

Superguy, you sound bitter. Most atheists I know wouldn't even mention they are atheists in public. Scorn from the religious has a long history on this planet.

I hope you can recognize the circular, "catch 22" nature of your request, Mike. If I point towards the unfathomable complexity of the natural world as evidence to me that there is a god, your retort is more or less "prove to me there is a god before I will believe this complexity points to a god". Sorry if I missunderstand, but I think that is what you are saying. If so, that's rather irrational.

Well, actually, yes I can wait for that day and then say exactly that. Your example does not fit your argument in the least.

A far better example of what I'm getting at would be to guess there is, say, a tenth planet. When we first make that guess, we haven't found it yet, but we observe the affects of its gravitational pull on the orbit of the ninth planet. So we postulize "hmmm... might be another one out there...", but our current technology keeps us from "finding" it. Then, one day (with much improved technology) we do "find" it. We have every right to say "aha! Just as we suspected, there is a tenth planet". We were, at one time, wholly unable to point it out to others, although we could observe its affects on bodies around it. That in no way meant it was not there.

My roomate and fellow philosophy student in college was an atheist. And a much better chess player than I. I very much enjoyed getting my ass kicked at chess, and discussing philosophy with him, including atheism. I love him like a brother. There is nobody I hate, though I am DEEPLY disturbed by the monumental damage done to America by George W. Bush. I digress.

I don't hate anybody. And I find agnostics to be quite reasonable. But I have never, ever met any true atheist who was not eager to display their towering intellect to me by criticizing people who believe in a Creator. And the reason I report this here is to alert any and all atheists that if you attempt to impress me with your intelligence, you had better be the very first person who has ever presented me with any evidence, deductive or inductive, that points to the conclusion there is no Creator. That has never been done and unless you can do that, you will disappoint me by announcing a conclusion that there is no Creator. People who understand logic will rarely attempt to defend a conclusion that "X" does not exist.

Again, doubters make sense. Agnosticism is reasonable. Doubting the existence of a Creator can be done rationally. This is not atheism.

The unfathomable complexity of the natural world is subjective. It may be unfathomable in your estimation. That doesn't necessarily point to a deity. The deity claim is the easy answer to those that don't want to look closely. Rejecting the deity claim as insufficiently exploring the natural world is rational. Just because something is complicated, it does not imply a god. It just implies that it might take a lot of effort to fully understand/explain.

You're right, my request falls short on your "complexity of the natural world" claim, but that is to be expected as your claim is really nothing specific and is routinely dismissed as an argument from personal incredulity. In other words, you're welcome to believe that the complexity points to a creator, but not many other people are going to buy it. My point was more "prove to me that this complexity you see could only have come from your supernatural creator". So far, that has not happened. If you find evidence along those lines, PM me. :)

But in this case, you started off with a claim that we can sink our teeth into!! You claimed that there was a tenth planet! Whole different story. If you make a claim that the only rational explanation for the aberrations in the orbit of the ninth planet is due to this "undetectable" tenth planet (even if this claim flies in the face of logic) and then you find the tenth planet and it perfectly validates your claim, then I would be forced to agree with you.

Just like I'll be forced to agree with you when you produce evidence that the complexity of the natural world is due to your creator. I promise.

I realize we're going back and forth, here. You don't have to agree with me, but would hope you see my point of view.

Yes, you did. :)

Superman, how many people that you know are atheists? How many people that you know have identified themselves to you as atheists? The second answer is a number less than or equal to the first answer. Is the answer to my second question a statistically significant number, given the total population of atheists? Is your disdain for atheists based on a small number of people that have left a negative impression on you in the context of this subject matter?

Jim, your implication that once one makes "the deity claim" one quits looking is a false stereotype at best, and horribly biased and judgemental at worst. That may very well be true of the irrational Sunday morning splinter collectors, but we are trying to get away from the irrational positions on both sides. Abandoning the search at some point because one believes in a deity would be irrational. Making a blanket statement such as yours is equally irrational.

Really? It's the argument from increduality that Mike just pointed out, too. It is used quite often by the faithful and your claim that it is irrational to refute it is, in itself, irrational. Are we shouting past each other?

Agreed, and I do.

I think we are finally doing just that.

I think, in conclusion, we can all agree that the premise of this thread (that atheism is a component of rationality) is false. Pure atheism makes irrational claims. Agnosticism is rational, I think we can all agree. I don't think we will ever agree on whether theism is rational or not. I happen to think there are entirely rational levels of theism, but most folks only consider the irrational versions they see. That's the sort that leaves an impression. Sort of like being passed by one lone, inconsiderate truck driver leading one to believe "all truck drivers are jerks".

This, with the reasonable posts of many others, contains much rational. It also happens to be my opinion, so, I got that going for me, which is nice:cool:

Jeff, IROC, Jim et al, well done.