Atheism = Desperation

[Fidel_Castronaut]

A child not taught the god concept will not come up with the god concept on its own, so long as it has access to science and education.

Really? Is that I scientific fact or just your own speculation?

The cohort effect has been evidenced to show that children who are brought up in irreligious households tend not to affiliate themselves to a religion or a religious belief. The opposite has also been researched whereby children brought up in more religiously conservative households tend also to espouse those religious beliefs (specifically islam and black christian churches in England and wales over a given period of time). Education may play a part on this as the general rule of thumb is that more affluent societies tend to be less religious (although there are exceptions, naturally, like the US).

Also, myself as anecdotal evidence. My parents never spoke or brought up the idea of a god or gods. Indeed I never came into contact with a serious belief In a deity until a fundie Christian teacher at my school began speaking about his belief when I was in my Tweens (maybe 7/8?)And by then I was able to differentiate between claims with evidence and substance to them and those that didn't (a skill garnered from my parents and other teachers at the school).

Wouldnt necessarily say it's scientific but the link is certainly plausible.

[abaris]

Also, myself as anecdotal evidence. My parents never spoke or brought up the idea of a god or gods. Indeed I never came into contact with a serious belief In a deity until a fundie Christian teacher at my school began speaking about his belief when I was in my Tweens (maybe 7/8?).

My parents were Catholics, well sort of. They had me baptized, I went to confirmation, but they never rubbed it into my face. When I was a small child, they gave me the Patmos bible, one actually compiled for kids. I still have it, because I'm a nostalgic bastard.

What I want to say is this. If your parents are mildly religious, it may have the same effect as if they are not at all religious. My contempt for religion also originated in my school experiences. That's where I was exposed to some serious repent or go to hell shit and I decided pretty early on, that I didn't want to believe in that load of mental diarrhea. I probably was an atheist before I reached puberty, but I didn't admit it to myself until much later.

[Esquilax]

You keep bring up the beginning of the universe and I have already pointed out that it is irrelevant.

Not to what I was actually talking about initially.

What does matter is that sensible bodies have dispositional properties, in the here and now, that include certain potentials and exclude others. Their various dispositions contingent on something other than themselves and that contingency is what makes things actualize in the way that they do.

I don't see any support for the idea of a prime mover in there. Just a description of the fact that things are things, and are not other things. What's your justification for the idea that existence itself requires magic?

Then you do not understand that for which I am arguing (no surprise there). In New Church theology, like orthodox branches of Christianity, believes that God is a creator, but also, the sustainer of everything that exists from moment to moment.

Yeah, I know. Obviously I disagree, but what I was pointing out, and you evidently missed (no surprise there) is that there's rather a gap between "prime mover" and "Chad's specific christian god," that you don't seem particularly interested in bridging, and that it's disingenuous to argue for the former when you believe in the latter.

Argue for what you believe, not some watered down version of it that's devoid of actual characteristics beyond "does the thing that resolves the problem I've simply defined into existence by fiat assertion." Are you William Lane Craig now?

[Thumpalumpacus]

...when we speak of the inception of the universe we're talking about an event for which we don't have much of an understanding beyond the fact that it doesn't even necessarily have to behave in ways comprehensible to normal causality...

You keep bring up the beginning of the universe and I have already pointed out that it is irrelevant.

You're trying to eat your cake and have it, too. If the beginning of the Universe is irrelevant, what is the point of positing a prime mover? And if the prime mover is crucial, then the beginning of the Universe is relevant.

... and you haven't explained why a Universe requires a prime mover, but a prime mover doesn't.

[Chas]

Then you do not understand that for which I am arguing (no surprise there). In New Church theology, like orthodox branches of Christianity, believes that God is a creator, but also, the sustainer of everything that exists from moment to moment.

The Greeks believed that the gods were necessary to sustain the arrow in flight.

They were wrong, and so are you. There is no evidence of a sustainer.

[Jenny A]

If you need some help, Feser's "Last Superstition" is a good start for someone just starting to learn about Neo-Scholasticism.

As far as I can tell, Neo-Scholasticism is just Scholasticism with new proponents and more words. Feser's, Last Superstition, spends a book on Aquinas's five proofs. I spent a fair amount of time on those 30 years ago in college. If you want to argue one of them, pick the most compelling and give it your best shot. But I'm not going to waste my time reading them as re-spun by Feser. I don't see why anyone else should either.

If you can't adequately state and defend them, why should we bother to read about them?

[robvalue]

Ironically I detect a huge amount of desperation from believers to want to convince atheists that there "is a god", using the most ludicrous arguments, twisted logic, semantics and trickery.

If there is a god which is of any consequence whatsoever, no one would have to work that hard just to try to get you to admit that it is a real thing.

They could say, "well its so complex then you don't know what differences it is making or what it is doing", but if that's the case, neither do you.

If you need to define a god as something which is completely removed from any sense of reality that we have, and make it untestable, it's a desperate attempt to keep the idea "safe" from being proved wrong somehow. And if it's that "invisible", how the fuck can you possibly say that you know it is there or know anything about it?

How can you tell the difference between someone who is acting on the voice of god that they hear in their head, and a crazy person?

I'm perfectly happy to admit that there could have been some intelligent entity which started the universe off. But if there is, so what? It makes no practical difference whatsoever. You will have a hell of a job to convince me that this creator just happens to be exactly as described in a stupid story book written 2000 years ago by a load of superstitious people who just happen to have incorporated many of the mythologies floating around at the time.

These books are not magic, they are just books. Like other books. Any extra properties you think they have are the result of brainwashing. Take a step back. Put a Harry Potter book next to it. Now tell me exactly how you know which one is the magic book and which one is made up.

[Esquilax]

You keep bring up the beginning of the universe and I have already pointed out that it is irrelevant.

You're trying to eat your cake and have it, too. If the beginning of the Universe is irrelevant, what is the point of positing a prime mover? And if the prime mover is crucial, then the beginning of the Universe is relevant.

Chad's prime mover- which I just don't understand because I don't agree with it!- doesn't just start the universe in cases where the universe is finite, but sustains it, seemingly by magic, in cases where it is eternal. It's still having his cake and eating it too, since he doesn't seem particularly interested in demonstrating either of those things and, tellingly, has accepted this claim despite at least half of it being completely, unavoidably fictional depending on the eventual status of the universe and its origins, but at least its as consistent as a random, baseless magic claim can be.

... and you haven't explained why a Universe requires a prime mover, but a prime mover doesn't.

Because magic, that's why. It's not meant to be considered that deeply, at heart it's just a cheap rhetorical trick; it's the thing that does the thing that confirms Chad's beliefs via solving a problem we have no indication exists beyond the fact that he really wants it to.

[The Valkyrie]

A child not taught the god concept will not come up with the god concept on its own, so long as it has access to science and education.

Really? Is that I scientific fact or just your own speculation?

I don't know if there has been scientific studies on it but it has been observed numerous times that I've been made aware of.

Yes, much is anecdotal, but many religionists want us to accept their beliefs on anecdotal claims.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Chad's prime mover- which I just don't understand because I don't agree with it!- doesn't just start the universe in cases where the universe is finite, but sustains it, seemingly by magic, in cases where it is eternal. It's still having his cake and eating it too, since he doesn't seem particularly interested in demonstrating either of those things and, tellingly, has accepted this claim despite at least half of it being completely, unavoidably fictional depending on the eventual status of the universe and its origins, but at least its as consistent as a random, baseless magic claim can be.

Well, there's one more reason to distrust philosophy.

Because magic, that's why. It's not meant to be considered that deeply, at heart it's just a cheap rhetorical trick; it's the thing that does the thing that confirms Chad's beliefs via solving a problem we have no indication exists beyond the fact that he really wants it to.

I do think that much of the "reasoning" cited by the more educated faithful -- the ontological argument is a prime example -- is sad insofar as it is an attempt to define a god into existence ... as if reality bows to words.