Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Faith No More]

The reason for becoming an athiest is that no proof of any gods exists. Also, you don't have to worry about god watching you while you masturbate.

[Mister Agenda]

Is it possible you are making an inference from ignorance (not calling you ignorant, of course! it's a term given for an informal fallacy). That is, you are saying you can think of no good reason one has a soul that survives death, so that means there must be no good reason there is a soul that survives death. You have not proved there is no good reason; you've only demonstrated that if there is one, you are currently unaware of it.

It's not impossible for me to do that, as I'm imperfect, but not in this case. I am not claiming there is no soul survival, I'm observing that any conceivable made-up scenario about what happens after you die has just as much evidence going for it as that one. It wasn't always so: souls were a reasonable conclusion to reach when all you had to go on was dreams and NDE's. Now we know what's happening when we're dreaming and that our souls wandering off and having adventures is no longer a plausible explanation for them. We know that people who have NDE's don't have any more information available to them than people who don't and their experiences relate to their culture and expectations, which indicates their subjectivity. Souls no longer plausible as an explanation for these, either. Additional evidence beyond what we had in pre-scientific times has left us without the reasons we supposed souls existed in the first place.

And a reason no one is aware is not a reason at all. It doesn't mean souls don't exist if no one is aware of such a reason, but it does mean it's irrational to believe they do, that is, it is irrational to believe something without a reason to think it is true. If you are aware of a reason, please share with the class.

Now, Jupitor has posted in this discussion thread that he has a good reason for believing the soul survives death, for he has spoken to souls who have so survived. In his case, he is making an inference from experience, rather than from ignorance.

There's a million dollars in it for Jupitor, should he be able to demonstrate he has gained information from such souls that could have been gained in no other way. Do you believe Jupitor is really in touch with dead souls? Do you think it is wise to believe Jupitor? Is there something about his claim that makes it so different from claiming that he is in touch with his cousin who lives across town that it's reasonable to be skeptical about it without additional convincing and significant evidence? Is it reasonable for Jupitor to expect other people to believe him without such evidence? In other words, can you think of any reason, any reason at all, not to take Jupitor at his word?

OK. I used to be Evangelical, have considered becoming Catholic, but am investigating atheism before I make up my mind. Does that help?

Maybe. What I get from that is that you were raised to believe but don't really know why you should continue doing so. In which case, if you don't know why you should continue doing so, it would make sense for you to stop doing so.

How have I not sincerely considered any of your answers?

Still no sign whatsoever that you get that they contain the reasons I don't believe Christianity is true or God is real. You don't have to agree, but some indication that you read them for anything but defensive purposes would be nice.

How have I not worked through what you are saying and figured out how to weed out the truth from the lies of your opinions?

Here's a question for you: why don't I believe in God? You haven't addressed that at all, focusing only on my most minor points about the way you are conducting your investigation.

I thought an agnostic is one who admits she does not know, but an atheist is certain she knows there is no God. The agnostic position seems less dogmatic to me, personally.

I'm aware of what you thought the definitions were. See, I just explained this to you, with examples and everything. it's like water off a duck's back. The definition of atheist is NOT 'someone who is certain she knows there is no God'. Do you think the definition of theist is 'someone who is certain she knows there is a God'? If so, you're already not one. Welcome to atheism, because the definition of atheism IS 'not-a-theist'. (Waits to see if original opinion continues both unmodified and unrefuted)

There are a lot of things I believe with varying degrees of certainty. Please be more specific. Do you want to know why I believe a soul might survive the body that dies? or why some being could exist who is the source of all wisdom? or why the Bible is is possibly divine rather than human in origin? or Christianity is not necessarily illogical? or why love is likely impossible without the freedom to hate? I've expressed my views on all of these, but don't mind doing so, again. Please ask away!

Expressing your views isn't necessarily the same thing as explaining WHY you believe something. I note all your statements are beliefs in possibilities of things (might survive, could exist, possibly divine, not necessarily illogical, likely impossible) rather than the things themselves. I believe in the possibilities of things, too. Some being COULD exist who is the source of all wisdom. We're in agreement. Unless your real position is that such a being DOES exist, in which case THAT'S what I would like to know your reasons for. Winged purple cats could exist in the Andromeda galaxy, but I don't believe they do. I could be wrong, but I don't see any way to determine that I'm mistaken. Similarly, I don't see any way to determine I'm mistaken in not thinking your being who is the source of all wisdom is real. It's my policy not to believe in things that are unfalsifiable, that is, for which there's no way to find out if they're real or not. Life is too short to believe in all the possible things that could conceivably exist for which there's no way to find out. They're potentially infinite and half of them are mutually exclusive (maybe there's a force in the Andromeda galaxy that prevents winged purple cats from existing) so it's very likely the vast majority of them are not real. Why should I believe in any of them in advance of a good reason to believe they're real?

[catfish]

And the number one reason is....


To bring about the true "New Covenent™".
According to the Bible, we're not under the new covenent yet...

[MountOlympus]

Ah, see that is where it makes sense! Socrates has always annoyed me with his "do nothing but think" attitude. You are very much the same, minus the annoyance.

I'm glad that you are not just a troll, Spock.

[spockrates]

The reason for becoming an athiest is that no proof of any gods exists. Also, you don't have to worry about god watching you while you masturbate.

Private pastimes aside, it seems to me the no proof debate is a wash. Christians say atheists have no proof there is no God; atheists say Christians have no proof there is a God. I think there might be reasonable reasons to believe there is a God, just as there are reasonable reasons to believer there is not. But it's possible neither side meets the other side's burden of proof, I think. What do you think?

[LastPoet]

Private pastimes aside, it seems to me the no proof debate is a wash. Christians say atheists have no proof there is no God; atheists say Christians have no proof there is a God. I think there might be reasonable reasons to believe there is a God, just as there are reasonable reasons to believer there is not. But it's possible neither side meets the other side's burden of proof, I think. What do you think?

Is it? Do you have the same care regarding leprechauns, fairies, goblins and all other conceptual beings that the human imagination has come up with?

And what the hell is a reasonable reason? (redundancy much?)

And here is a re-post as you seemed to have not read it: The null hipothesis

[Faith No More]

The burden of proof does not lie on both sides. The claim of god's existence is a positive one with no proof, therefore the logical conclusion is to dismiss it. It is not up to the atheist to prove god does not exist just as it is not up to one accused of a crime to prove their innocence in a court of law. They must only defend themselves against the positive evidence put forward by the ones making the claim, the prosecution. If the prosectuion cannot put forth compelling evidence, the accusations are dismissed. Saying there is no evidence that disproves a claim is a reason to believe a claim will leave you oblivious to the truth you seek.

For instance, I claim right now that I am talking to the ghost of Albert Eintstien as I type this. You cannot prove that I am not, so does that mean that you must believe it is true?

[spockrates]

Is it possible you are making an inference from ignorance (not calling you ignorant, of course! it's a term given for an informal fallacy). That is, you are saying you can think of no good reason one has a soul that survives death, so that means there must be no good reason there is a soul that survives death. You have not proved there is no good reason; you've only demonstrated that if there is one, you are currently unaware of it.

It's not impossible for me to do that, as I'm imperfect, but not in this case. I am not claiming there is no soul survival, I'm observing that any conceivable made-up scenario about what happens after you die has just as much evidence going for it as that one. It wasn't always so: souls were a reasonable conclusion to reach when all you had to go on was dreams and NDE's. Now we know what's happening when we're dreaming and that our souls wandering off and having adventures is no longer a plausible explanation for them. We know that people who have NDE's don't have any more information available to them than people who don't and their experiences relate to their culture and expectations, which indicates their subjectivity. Souls no longer plausible as an explanation for these, either. Additional evidence beyond what we had in pre-scientific times has left us without the reasons we supposed souls existed in the first place.

And a reason no one is aware is not a reason at all. It doesn't mean souls don't exist if no one is aware of such a reason, but it does mean it's irrational to believe they do, that is, it is irrational to believe something without a reason to think it is true. If you are aware of a reason, please share with the class.

Yes, but is it not also irrational to believe they don't, since there is also no evidence to support the idea that souls don't exist? I mean, if a soul does exist, there is no way to measure it; no way to experience it with the senses. It cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelt, nor touched (though some believers in ghosts might say otherwise). We cannot look at a dead body and say, "I see no soul rising, nor descending from it, so there must not be any." There is no scientific instrument to measure the presence, or absence of a soul, as there is to measure the presence, or absence of air. I'm thinking both beliefs are without reason, and so unreasonable. Perhaps the most reasonable position to take is to say that one does not know?

[Anomalocaris]

The reason for becoming an athiest is that no proof of any gods exists. Also, you don't have to worry about god watching you while you masturbate.

Private pastimes aside, it seems to me the no proof debate is a wash. Christians say atheists have no proof there is no God; atheists say Christians have no proof there is a God. I think there might be reasonable reasons to believe there is a God, just as there are reasonable reasons to believer there is not. But it's possible neither side meets the other side's burden of proof, I think. What do you think?

I say there is a god, he hates the very act of worship above all else and will send all christians to a specially created level hell worse than all other levels for this reason. Prove me wrong.

[MountOlympus]

Spock, what you are talking about is highly metaphysical in nature, and as such, delves into uncertain uncertainties. Science just does not have the answer yet, but we're working on it. (Or, at least I am.)