D&D Religion's "Ask an Atheist/Agnostic" Thread

Bearing in mind that a large number of the threads in the forum have descended into discussion of science and genetics I figured we needed something along these lines to soak up what is, essentially, getting in the way of any proper religious debate.

If you have anything you wish to discuss with any of the forums Atheists or Agnostics here would probably be a good place. (Note, however, that questions about the definitions of Atheism/Agnosticism should go in The Definitional Thread.)

Please keep it civil. :smile:

(edited 13 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

RawJoh1

Here's one:

Every single remotely rational theist would agree that science cannot be used to prove God's existence. Are the forum's atheists happy to agree that science cannot be used to prove that atheism is true, nor can it be used to show that atheism is the "more rational" stance?

If not, why not?

Reply 2

ForeverIsMyName

phawkins1988

Science cannot be used to demonstrate that, no, and I doubt you will find many atheists who do claim that. Are there pointers which suggest theism is at the very, very least unlikely? Yes, but no definite truth. We can only know the truths of the world which cannot be seen and tested upon through rational debate, discussion and thought.

Reply 3

cheesecakebobby

Indeed, and I hope the theists among us similarly agree that the bible cannot prove God's existence either.

Reply 4

RawJoh1

ForeverIsMyName

Are there pointers which suggest theism is at the very, very least unlikely? Yes, but no definite proof

Which scientific evidence points to that?

Reply 5

RawJoh1

cheesecakebobby

Indeed, and I hope the theists among us similarly agree that the bible cannot prove God's existence either.

I don't think that it can, but a valid argument could certainly be made to say that it could.

Par example:
1. The Bible states that Jesus rose from the dead
2. The Bible is a reliable historical record
3. In order for Jesus to rise from the dead, he'd have to be God

P2 is the hard one though.

That said, I don't think that many Christian philosophers rely on scripture for their theism.

EDIT: Lol at negs literally 5+ years after I posted this.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 6

GregoryJL

3) might also be tricky - why not just a very powerful being who can do resurrection?

On question, Science gives an explanation for the way stuff is which doesn't require a God behind the scenes (neatly torpedoing the Cosmological and Teleological arguments.) So, if there is no reason to suspect there is a God, why believe? Of course, there is a rather interesting parallel between this trumped up version of Russells teapot and Plantigas contention that belief in God, like belief in other minds, stand basically on the same epistemistic ground. Off topic, but this sounds pretty much anti-realist due to how one could, concievably substitute god with other entities (magic, polytheism, etc.)

So I suppose science could indirectly show that there is no God, but only if the interluctor is willing to accept that there are no other arguments which cannot be 'scientifically explained away' or that Teapot/Ockham's Razor is valid to execute what is left.

Reply 7

BenThackray

phawkins1988

Yeah I would very much dispute (2)

Reply 8

Ali07

I have a quick question: Do atheists acknowledge the existence of paranormal phenomena?

oooh spooky :p:

Ok, I knew the word paranormal was not the best choice... What I meant was things that cannot be explained be rational reasoning.

Reply 11

mrmr

Ali07

Ok, I knew the word paranormal was not the best choice... What I meant was things that cannot be explained be rational reasoning.

Certainly there are things that cannot as yet be explained by rational reasing, but atheists believe (/ know) that everything can in the end by explained rationally, scientifically and logically. This does not mean we will one day have the answer to every question - we do not have the time, patience or evidence - but we believe that there is (or was) a rational answer out there somewhere, at some time.

Reply 12

GregoryJL

Ali07

I have a quick question: Do atheists acknowledge the existence of paranormal phenomena?

The problem with 'ask an Atheist/agnostic' is that said groups are rather broad, so I suppose you could say 'both.'

Atheism/Agnosticism is only referring to belief in a deity, thus you can have Atheists or agnostic who believe in the paranormal, or not.

It is fair to say often Atheists have a skeptical/positivist/materialistic bent, and so the reason for them rejecting God might also lead them to reject the paranormal.

I for one don't acknowledge the paranormal (although one could of course argue that once sufficient evidence is found for someting paranormal it becomes just normal) and I'm an Atheist. But, y'know, it does depend, I'm afraid.

Reply 13

AlphaNumeric

Ali07

I have a quick question: Do atheists acknowledge the existence of paranormal phenomena?

No, because for anyone to experience a 'paranormal event' they'd be in some way connected to nature so the event or phenomena would be connected to nature too, it would be natural.

Sure, there's plenty of stuff we don't understand, some only slightly, some we don't even know about, but to label something as 'supernatural' instantly says "We can't understand it other than by 'magic' or 'God did it'". If experience has told us anything it's that such claims, particularly for physical processes, end up being shown wrong very soon afterwards.

Reply 14

Kolya

phawkins1988

I would dispute (3) as well. If Jesus were God then he would be able to rise from the dead, but to rise from the dead does not imply he would have to be God.

Reply 15

RawJoh1

Lusus Naturae

I would dispute (3) as well. If Jesus were God then he would be able to rise from the dead, but to rise from the dead does not imply he would have to be God.

It's not watertight, but I think it's a true premise. It can be backed up thus:

1. The Resurrection is a Humean miracle
2. God is the only agent who can do a Humean miracle
3. Therefore, God was involved in the Resurrection.

Now that's sound. Whether or not the Resurrection actually happened, the premises are true.

Reply 16

GregoryJL

phawkins

Possibly a pointless tangent on an aside, but I am not sure I agree that is sound. Why can't one dispute 2)? It must be something supernatural that caused this Humean miracle (if I understand what that means correctly), but why must it be God, as opposed to some metaphysics or what have you?

Reply 17

RawJoh1

GregoryJL

Hume defines a miracle as when God does something outside the laws of physics (or something like that, I haven't got the text to hand) so it's kinda circular. But, I don't really know what other sorts of metaphysics could cause Humean miracles to happen. I'd say that things happen either out of causal relations, or due to the actions of agents (though these might overlap). This is Swinburne's idea. If miracles happen due to causal relations, then they are not miracles since they would not break the laws of nature, and if they are instances of agency, the agent would fit what we commonly call God.

Reply 18

Sophistress

mrmr

Isn't an atheist just somebody who doesn't have any belief in a god? I know plenty of professed atheists who believe in ghosts and astrology and things.