The Case for Atheism

[Whateverist]

Simply asserting your claim to be true without providing any evidence makes it pretty difficult to have a discussion. I can't understand the logic of you wanting me to present evidence for my claim whilst not being willing to do that for your claim.

What's our claim, again?

I think our claim as seen by frasierc must be something like:

(a) That believing in atheism is on par with believing in god?

(b) That believing there is no reason to believe in god is on par with believing there is a reason to believe in god?

© That one requires just as good evidence to decline belief as to adopt it?

(d) That god is the default position regarding god-belief?


I certainly don't recognize any claim I care to make in there. I'd be surprised though if frasierc -or any one else- would actually endorse ©.

[Mister Agenda]

You're right we don't have any 2,000 year old men or women eyewitnesses of Jesus resurrection!

Nor do we have their names, nor did they write anything down at the time, nor did the event make it into the history books of the day.

The writer who made this claim wasn't annonymous it was the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15). He's writing between 10-20 years after Jesus death and saying to the Corinthian church if you have doubts about the resurrection ask them as most are still alive.

I think someone making a claim of 500 eyewitnesses to an event happening in say 2003 or 1993 - would be a pretty strong claim particularly if they offered for me to talk to these eyewitnesses (so they're hardly unknown to Paul or the Corinthians). If you also factored in that many of the eyewitnesses (such as Peter, James etc) who saw Jesus after the resurrection died on the basis of their testimony about the resurrection.

What makes a claim strong is evidence. Anyone can claim to have 500 witnesses to anything. And you have no way of knowing that it was their testimony of the resurrection of Jesus that they died for, you just know they died for whatever their testimony about Christianity was at the time, which we're not in a position to know.
If being willing to die for your beliefs made them true, we'd have to take the Heaven's Gate cult seriously.

I don't think its quite analogous to your 500 unknown witness to monkeys flying up your butt .

It's no more believable than claims of the resurrection of Apollonius, Caesar, or Elvis, except for your commitment to believe the dictates of your religion.

The analogy's a good one because the whole point of a courtroom is that you share the same understanding of reality (the codified law of that particular land). But where two people have different understandings of reality we at least need to understand one another and our assumptions in order to be able to communicate. This happens in cross-cultural communication all the time - and can lead to many amusing misunderstandings if not which I can testify to with experience.[/quote[

Barring the religious and the mentally impaired, the rest of us don't have much trouble coming to a common understanding of reality.

[quote='frasierc' pid='723843' dateline='1407187875']
I can accept the argument that atheism isn't making a case (just lack of belief in theist claims). But naturalism is making a case that the world is explained exclusively by natural phenomenon.

Methodological naturalism is not making that case, and if you probe a bit, you'll find that's the kind of naturalist most of us are.

If you're going to make a claim - I would think you would want to provide evidence for that claim rather than just presume it and expect others to disprove you.

Hey, we were just minding our own business when you walked in, told us what we're claiming, and started griping we hadn't met our burden of proof with it.

---

This guy is hopeless.

We've had much worse.

[Simon Moon]

I think someone making a claim of 500 eyewitnesses to an event happening in say 2003 or 1993 - would be a pretty strong claim particularly if they offered for me to talk to these eyewitnesses (so they're hardly unknown to Paul or the Corinthians). If you also factored in that many of the eyewitnesses (such as Peter, James etc) who saw Jesus after the resurrection died on the basis of their testimony about the resurrection.

You can go interview 1000's of people from all over the world that claim they were abducted by UFO's. You don't have to rely on second hand testimony from ancient texts.

There are claims of multiple abductions, several people being abducted at the same time. Some with multiple witnesses.

Are these cases credible?

Why or why not?








s.

[Mister Agenda]

Sorry I didn’t intend to arrogantly tell you what you believe. Apologies for any misunderstanding on that account.

Though it's not directed at me, personally, I appreciate the courtesy.

You’re arguing you ‘don't have to assume anything in order to come to conclusions about the world. You just have to critically examine all the claims that come in…’

From a Bayesian perspective there’s always a prior belief – no one comes to the data without prior knowledge. These prior beliefs are then tested and updated in the light of the data we observe.

Yes, we use the same method, but without conflating belief and knowledge.

But I agree a lot of people take the position you’ve suggested as they don’t like to assume anything. To convey this position in a Bayesian analysis is to set a flat prior – which assumes you have no prior knowledge and therefore will let the data have 100% of weight in the analysis so that your conclusions are only impacted by the evidence.

That's not correct at all. Our prior knowledge isn't an assumption. We'd have to go back to infancy to be in a state where we have no prior knowledge. Prior knowledge is PART of the data.

It’s easy to show empirically that if you use a flat prior you get findings equivalent to an analysis which claims not to make any prior assumptions (e.g. frequentist analysis).

I suppose, but since you're completely off the reservation in terms of how most of us actually reason, it's not really relevant. Is it so much harder to ask us intelligently how we reason than take your best guess and see if it sticks?

What is a flat prior (all weight in the analysis of evidence given to the data and no or minimal prior assumptions) in the context of our discussion?

Beats me, you've built your edifice on the air of your own speculation that we don't consider prior knowledge. Since we do, everything after that is kind of a waste.

If you want to make no prior assumptions then mathematically you express this by parametising metaphysical naturalism and theism as equally probably explanations of the world. Whether you hold that assumption to be true or not, if you want your interpretation of the evidence to be determined by the data mathematically you have to make that assumption.

However, if I’m fairly stating your position that the burden of proof is on theism then by definition you don’t have a flat prior (I think you are saying they’re not equally probably explanations of the world).

That is correct, although you seem to have driven around Asia to get there.

If I’m being true to your position, this is in Bayesian terms technically called an informed prior – which means you have a view about what explanation is more likely. It would be for you to tell me how much more likely you think metaphysical naturalism is compared with theism.

As a rule, we are not metaphysical naturalists.

But obviously the more likely you think it is- the greater weight is given to this prior belief and less weight to the data when evaluating the evidence.

Prior knowledge, not prior belief.

All I’m saying is try submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal of a Bayesian analysis which included an informed prior but at the same time stated your interpretation had no prior assumptions and was 100% driven by the data – it wouldn’t get past the peer reviewers.

Yet, you suppose that's how we think, anyway.

What I’m saying is there are at least two opposing informed priors about which explanation is a better understanding of the world.

One informed prior is based on knowledge. That's what makes it informed. The other is based on belief. That makes it less informed.

This is quite a common situation – so how do Bayesian analyses take this into account when examining the data? Generally, they analyse the data comparing conclusions using different priors. At a minimum they look at the impact of using each of the opposing priors as well as flat priors. Which is to say the burden of proof argument for me is simplistic and in many senses misleading way of interpreting the evidence.

Well, it's the most inconvenient for you, isn't it? You don't have to shoulder the burden of proof. You could be an agnostic theist and admit you don't know but you believe anyway. We're not coming to your house and demanding you prove Christitanity correct, else we're justified in believing the other thing (as if there were only one other thing). Because that would be an argument from ignorance, for starters.

If we can’t really agree about what prior beliefs we’re factoring in and what weight they have in our interpretation of the analysis – then in my view there’s not much common ground to discuss the issues. We end up talking past each other.

Maybe we'd talk past each other a little less if you spent less time guessing what we thing and more time asking.

I provided very brief responses as I’m sure you’re aware to discuss even one of these issues in any detail takes time. If we can’t really agree on a starting point why would we take the time to argue these points in detail?

A better question is why would we take the time if that's your idea of brevity?

Maybe you missed my previous comment, I was saying Paul was referring to 500 witnesses – I wasn’t including Paul in that list.

No one said you did.

If you claimed 500 witnesses had seen an event and that most of them were still alive and that I could contact them – I think that’s a strong claim.

Then you're very gullible. I can easily make that claim about Elvis, and back it up with plenty of witnesses.

If you don’t think that’s strong evidence – that’s entirely your choice its up to us as individuals to assess the evidence and come to our own conclusions.

Why would I believe that claim written down thousands of years ago when I wouldn't believe the same claim today unless it was verified? And I find it hard to believe you'd take someone's word for a fantastic event on so little evidence today, too.

Paul makes a claim about Jesus resurrection based on a large number of eye witnesses – most of whom were still alive who people could check with.

How do you know most of them were still alive? Most people didn't make it much past 40 in that time and place. Check with how, Paul didn't give their names? Check with where, Paul didn't give their current whereabouts? Check with why, when average people back then were so credulous they bought into pretty much any miracle story they heard?

Why would he make such a claim if he was lying?

It's not lying if you think it's true. I saw this all the time in the UPC: if they heard it from another Pentecostal, it was the Gospel truth: resurrections in Africa, legs growing back in South America, it's a miracle Lord, and thousands of people saw it! If I repeat the story, believing it to be true, does that make me a liar?

It would be very easy to refute – particularly as many who made claims for Jesus resurrection were killed - yet I don’t see any evidence that his claim was refuted.

Can you give an example of any miracle by anyone being refuted before the 15th century, for any religion? People didn't do much refuting back then.

Do you consider all other eyewitness testimony of historical events beyond a 100 or so years ago invalid?

It's suspect, which is why real historians weigh the probability of an account being accurate on corroborating contemporary sources. For example, someone reporting the same thing from a different point of view, like the Romans complaining about all the dead people walking around in Jerusalem after the resurrection.

[Tonus]

© That one requires just as good evidence to decline belief as to adopt it?

Shit, man... you're copyrighting that???

[Jackalope]

Thanks for the response. I would happily respond to your questions and requests for further clarification but it just seems to me we're arguing past each other.

So I'm not sure whether we'll gain any further clarity if we can't really agree on a pretty foundational assumption. You've argued I have the burden of proof - I disagree. Its difficult to proceed from there.

Simply asserting your claim to be true without providing any evidence makes it pretty difficult to have a discussion. I can't understand the logic of you wanting me to present evidence for my claim whilst not being willing to do that for your claim.

Its been great fun discussing these issues but I think we've ended up just arguing in circles. l

What's our claim, again?

Well let's see... I did claim that monkeys flew out of my butt, but I'm pretty sure he understands I was satirizing Paul's "500 witnesses" claim.

So, beats me, I guess.

[Whateverist]

© That one requires just as good evidence to decline belief as to adopt it?

Shit, man... you're copyrighting that???

I defy you to make (.c.) without the periods print without defaulting to the copyright symbol.

But seriously, with total shit like that I only wish I could copyright it. Might be worth something.

[frasierc]

Just a quick post to say thanks for the responses, sorry I've only been able to a reply to a few of you. I don't have much spare time at the moment, so unable to give the time your responses deserve.

Much appreciate the discussion - good to learn a little bit more about some of your views. I'm impressed by the many fair minded and thoughtful responses. I'll try to keep reading as long as the thread carries on - I may occasionally make a brief response but probably unlikely due to upcoming deadlines.

[Welsh cake]

Just a quick post to say thanks for the responses, sorry I've only been able to a reply to a few of you. I don't have much spare time at the moment, so unable to give the time your responses deserve.

A Christian who has priorities over defending the faith he has, his god belief and saving as many lost souls to the cause as possible.

Oh well, instead of gold in heaven, you'll have to settle for pyrite instead.

[frasierc]

A Christian who has priorities over defending the faith he has, his god belief and saving as many lost souls to the cause as possible.

Oh well, instead of gold in heaven, you'll have to settle for pyrite instead.

I don't really hold to the sacred/secular divide - under your argument every Christian should be a full time evangelist/apologist if they're serious about their faith.

I agree with most of the reformers that doing 'secular' work and taking care of my family, etc is honouring God as any 'full time' Christian work. Where I have spare time I'm happy to spend it defending the faith best I can but there are other aspects to being a Christian that simply that.