The Atheist Approach

[Hydra009]

The OP is illustrating (brilliantly, IMO) how atheists must avoid or pretend certain things don't exist.

I'd wager it's only "brilliant" because it fits your worldview.  If there were an identical charge about the folly of people who don't believe in ghosts or faeries, you'd sing a different tune.

And once again, we're back at familiar old talking point where God is assumed to be true, therefore atheists are wrong.

[Randy Carson]

I'm not playing the victim. You're telling me I, as an atheist, only believe in what science has proven and disregard the rest.

No one is avoiding anything. That's why there are so many atheists and agnostics in the sciences. We know that we don't know everything, and we're trying to find out. We make more gains every day. So to say that I pretend certain things don't exist, well, that's not correct. That would be limiting my worldview to only what I can understand or what has been proven, and that's ridiculous. That's like the sailors of old who thought you could sail over the side of the world because the "world" as they knew it only consisted of the Old World and no one had ever been recorded as sailing West into the abyss and returning to tell the tale. Eventually, explorers found the New World, and suddenly the idea of sailing over the side of the world sounded really dumb.

You, and the author whom you think is "brilliant," are generalizing things about a whole group of people who don't actually think that way.

Is there anything that science can tell us about the supernatural, Tom?

Can you test for God?

[TomFoolery]

Can you test for God?

No, but I don't have to. That's called shifting the burden of proof. You're making the claim that God exists, so you prove it. Now, I know it's just as easy to try and claim that the burden still falls on me, because I'm making the claim that God doesn't exist, but my claim only exists because someone came up with the idea of God first, so the burden is still very much on you.

By the way, if I ever found evidence of God that was a solid as germ theory or gravity, I'd gladly accept God as the creator of the universe. But the Bible and a few people's personal stories about miracles just don't do it for me.

So in summary, is this an accurate account of the minutes of our debate?
Randy: Atheists ignore what they can't explain.
Tom: No, they don't.
Randy: This is my topic, so I get to say what is and what isn't.
Tom: Stop telling me what I believe
Randy: Stop acting like a victim
Tom: Get your facts straight
Randy: I don't need facts; I have faith

[Randy Carson]

So to say that I pretend certain things don't exist, well, that's not correct. That would be limiting my worldview to only what I can understand or what has been proven, and that's ridiculous.

Do object moral values exist, Tom?

How about free will?

Can miracles occur EVER? Have they in the past? Do they occur today?

[TomFoolery]

Do object moral values exist, Tom?

As they relate to social fitness, yes.

How about free will?

Um, sure, which is kind of ironic considering Christians think that God gave them free will but then turned around and murdered all of them for not doing what he wanted.

Can miracles occur EVER? Have they in the past? Do they occur today?

That's a loaded question and contingent upon your interpretation of the word. If your definition is "an extraordinary occurrence that can not be explained by scientific laws" then sure, I believe in miracles. If your definition however tacks on "and therefore comes from divine origin" to the end of the previous definition, then hell no I don't.

We couldn't explain how scratching people's arms with cowpox pus prevented smallpox when Jenner first discovered vaccines. That might have been considered a miracle, and then we learned what viruses were and all of a sudden vaccines were no longer miracles but instead had earthly origins.

[Randy Carson]

No, but I don't have to. That's called shifting the burden of proof. You're making the claim that God exists, so you prove it. Now, I know it's just as easy to try and claim that the burden still falls on me, because I'm making the claim that God doesn't exist, but my claim only exists because someone came up with the idea of God first, so the burden is still very much on you.

No, I'm not attempting to shift the burden of proof. The purpose for the question was simply to get you to acknowledge that there are some subjects that science must remain silent about. God is one of them. Thus, your adherence to science cannot help you here.

And, yes, I will continue to bear the burden of my positive position.

By the way, if I ever found evidence of God that was a solid as germ theory or gravity, I'd gladly accept God as the creator of the universe. But the Bible and a few people's personal stories about miracles just don't do it for me.

No surprise there. MY point is that there is a lot of indirect evidence which can lead to the reasonable conclusion that it is more likely than not that Jesus actually rose from the dead and thus, that God exists. Now, if YOU begin with the idea that miracles CANNOT and DO NOT under any circumstances EVER occur, then you are in the position of having to come up with an alternative theory about Jesus. (Well, you could simply ignore him, but that's not prudent given what's at stake, is it?)

So in summary, is this an accurate account of the minutes of our debate?
Randy: Atheists ignore what they can't explain.

Good.

Tom: No, they don't.
Randy: This is my topic, so I get to say what is and what isn't.

Did I say that?

Tom: Stop telling me what I believe
Randy: Stop acting like a victim

Good.

Tom: Get your facts straight
Randy: I don't need facts; I have faith

The last line was simply another cheap shot below the belt. Why do otherwise intelligent atheists discredit themselves like this?

[Randy Carson]

As they relate to social fitness, yes.

So, some things are objectively wrong in all places and for all time regardless of what the people of that particular culture think?

Example: If the Germans had won the war, would the extermination of Jews be okay because the Nazis declared them non-human?

And if objective moral values do exist, where do they come from?

Um, sure, which is kind of ironic considering Christians think that God gave them free will but then turned around and murdered all of them for not doing what he wanted.

This is a clear misunderstanding of God's interaction with us. But it's also the subject of another thread.

That's a loaded question and contingent upon your interpretation of the word. If your definition is "an extraordinary occurrence that can not be explained by scientific laws" then sure, I believe in miracles. If your definition however tacks on "and therefore comes from divine origin" to the end of the previous definition, then hell no I don't.

A miracle is a suspension of the natural laws commonly attributed to God. But let me ask you this: IF (note that) God exists, then is it possible for him to intervene in the material universe by suspending the laws of nature?

We couldn't explain how scratching people's arms with cowpox pus prevented smallpox when Jenner first discovered vaccines. That might have been considered a miracle, and then we learned what viruses were and all of a sudden vaccines were no longer miracles but instead had earthly origins.

And thus, that was not a genuine miracle regardless of what people thought of it at the time.

[gentle_dissident]

Randy Carson:

Everything in the babble not historically accurate is being misinterpreted.
Everything in the babble not scientifically accurate is metaphorical.
Everything in the babble not proven is allegorical.
Everything else is completely accurate.
Accurate is defined by me.
I win….stupid atheists….

quoted by someone else…….LOLOLOL

Religious leaders will completely agree with you, but only if confronted. They can't tell the flock this. They will tell you that the only thing they guarantee in the bible is the divinity of Christ.

[Simon Moon]

That's fair. God of the Gaps is/was a real thing.

It's also a real thing that atheists simply snip out those things that don't fit their presuppositions.

Nope.

They go into the category of things for which the answers are currently unknown. Which is the only honest answer when the answer is truly unknown.

Just because theists claim to have the answers, does not make it so. Nor does it even make your explanation one bit more credible.

No atheist I have ever met, claims to have the answers to everything. And to take it one step further, no atheist I have ever met claims that humanity will ever have the answers to everything.

[sdelsolray]

If I am presenting a strawman, please demonstrate how.

If I am shifting the burden of proof, please demonstrate how.

I have quoted an article which explains how atheists simply cut away the things that don't fit into their preconceived view of the material universe. And things that they can't explain. I think its pretty insightful, actually.

Do you disagree with the author?

Stated for the second time (because it didn't register with your before):  You are not worth the time.

[Simon Moon]

If I am presenting a strawman, please demonstrate how.

This quote from the article is a straw man:

"The consistent atheist is like this man. He insists he can explain everything in terms of his naturalist-materialist worldview. He insists that everything can be accounted for, that everything “fits.” And, lo and behold, it turns out everything does fit. Because whatever doesn’t fit he simply trims away. If it doesn’t fit into his philosophical suitcase, it doesn’t exist. It’s illusion."

As an atheist, I don't insist that everything must explained within a naturalist-materialist worldview. I am just of the opinion that there is no rational reasons to believe there is a supernatural realm or actions. As soon as I am presented with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the supernatural, I will accept it.

"And, lo and behold, it turns out everything does fit. Because whatever doesn’t fit he simply trims away. If it doesn’t fit into his philosophical suitcase, it doesn’t exist. It’s illusion."

Another straw man.

Again, anything that would fit the above description, does not get trimmed away. They get classified as things for which the answers are currently unknown.

If I am shifting the burden of proof, please demonstrate how.

The article you are quoting shifts the burden of proof, because it assumes it is up to the atheist to prove, that the things that don't fit in the suitcase, are up to him prove are natural, when in reality, it is up to the theist (the one making the claim they are supernatural) to prove that they are supernatural.

There is difference between claiming something is NOT supernatural, and not being convinced that it is supernatural.

I have quoted an article which explains how atheists simply cut away the things that don't fit into their preconceived view of the material universe. And things that they can't explain. I think its pretty insightful, actually.

Again, they are not cut away. Not currently having an explanation, is not cutting them away.

If humanity thought the way the author does, we'd still be treating epilepsy with exorcism.

Lucky there have been enough people throughout history that did not believe the stuff that did not fit in the suitcase were supernatural, and asked themselves, "I wonder what is causing that? LET"S FIND OUT".

Do you disagree with the author?

Yes.

He is not describing the vast majority of atheists I know, personally or publicly. Even Dawkins has stated several times, that he is open to being convinced that a god exist by demonstrable evidence.

[stromboli]

As a former theist I can assure you my worldview encompasses a great deal more than yours. I can accept that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, as is transexuality. we are not the people going into Target bathrooms for the purposes of harassing transgenders. We are not the people burning witches in Africa because we are fearful of demons. We are not the people, a la Ted Cruz, seeking to turn the US into a Dominionist theocracy bound by his strict interpretation of Christianity. We aren't beheading free thinkers in other countries, blowing up Planned Parenthood buildings or assassinating health care workers, or the Catholic run hospitals denying needed health care to women because religion.

We have the capacity to learn and accept new ideas. You do not accept anything that contradicts your own narrow focus. Get over yourself. Everything you've posted on here amounts to jerking off in front of a mirror.

[kilodelta]

@Randy Carson

Please provide examples of "shirt sleeves" that are being cut off that should be stuffed into our "suitcases."

[TomFoolery]

@Randy Carson

Please provide examples of "shirt sleeves" that are being cut off that should be stuffed into our "suitcases."

I know right? Most of the people I know who cut off their shirt sleeves are Bible-thumping rednecks.

[Nonsensei]

Imagine a man who arrives at the airport for his flight. His suitcase is stuffed full, closed and firmly latched, and yet there are all sorts of items hanging out from the sides: a shirt sleeve here, a pant leg there, a few socks, a tie, part of a sweater.

The lady at the check-in counter says, “Sir, you need to make sure everything is in your bag before we can check it.” 

The man takes a pair of scissors from his pocket and proceeds to cut around the outside of his suitcase, trimming away everything he wasn’t able to fit inside. He looks at the attendant and says, ‘‘Okay, now everything is in my suitcase.’’

The consistent atheist is like this man. He insists he can explain everything in terms of his naturalist-materialist worldview. He insists that everything can be accounted for, that everything “fits.” And, lo and behold, it turns out everything does fit. Because whatever doesn’t fit he simply trims away. If it doesn’t fit into his philosophical suitcase, it doesn’t exist. It’s illusion.

Taken from:

Human Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots: Atheism and Free Will
by Kenneth Hensley
http://www.catholic.com/blog/kenneth-hensley/human-rock-%E2%80%98em-sock-%E2%80%98em-robots-atheism-and-free-will-0

+++

Examples: Free will, objective moral values and anything supernatural. Snip, snip, snip.

A correct analogy would be if the stewardess kept insisting that there was all kinds of stuff hanging out the sides of his suitcase, even though there was no evidence of it and the man is left wondering what the fuck she is smoking.