Harmonia Philosophica

, , , , ,

How to easily beat an atheist in a debate…

HOW TO DEBATE AN ATHEIST

quote-both-religion-and-science-require-a-belief-in-god-for-believers-god-is-in-the-beginning-and-for-max-planck-259521

> CONSTANTLY UPDATED!
> WANT TO HAVE A NICE DEBATE? Join COOD!
> GREEK EDITION of this article can be found HERE

How to win a debate with an atheist…

Is that difficult?

Actually no. And I will show exactly how this can be done.

WANT TO GET A QUICK SUMMARY? WATCH THE VIDEO INSTEAD!

Debating atheists – Part 1

Or you can always download the relative presentation (available in English and in Greek) in which one can read a summary of the major arguments to use, plus some additional practical advice on how to handle science-religion debates.

PRESENTATION (EN) – Debating atheists v0.003Download
PRESENTATION (GR) – Συζητώντας με άθεους v0.003Download

Before the discussion

First of all set a structure to the discussion! The atheist will most probably start the debate with an all-out attack mentioning various things and touching on multiple subjects at the same time. Explain calmly that there must be a specific logical sequence in a civilized discussion. Atheists tend to mix different things when discussing Christianity, but this happens only because the things in their head are indeed mixed and confused when it comes to religion. (Important Note: Religious people are also many times confused on various subjects as well – it just happens that this article deals with the atheists and their common misconceptions) Help them get them straight. Christianity – which is usually their greatest “enemy” – has many facets: Philosophical, theological, ethical, political, societal. Discuss about these sectors separately and in order. He will try to convince you that this is not the case. Try to explain to him that not distinguishing the purely theological or philosophical part of Christianity from its political and/ or social part is an over-simplistic – almost childish – way of seeing things. Ask him if he sees things in the same “holistic” way in the case of science which some time ago supported eugenics…

RELATED ARTICLE: Summary of arguments in favor of Christianity (and against atheism/ agnosticism)

0. Read the basic articles of Harmonia Philosophica!

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no easy path to knowledge. In order to be able to answer the arguments of anti-Christians (most atheists are in this category, let’s not fool ourselves) you need to read. A lot! Start from the main articles of Harmonia Philosophica where the main arguments in favor of religion are documented and keep on reading until you feel ready to support the arguments presented. The devil is usually hidden in the details, so you need to master all of them if you are to debate in favor of religion (Christianity) with success.

HOW TO DEBATE AN ATHEIST SERIES

QUICK GUIDE TO DEBATE ATHEISTS v0.1

Quick Guide

1. Regarding evidence and logic: Try to explain to him that many atheistic beliefs (yes, “beliefs” – see Religion and Science Unification) are illogical and not based on evidence. Ask him how does he think the universe was created. Randomly? Does he accept “random” as a valid reason for anything? Ask him how does he believe matter can develop (immaterial) consciousness. Ask him why does he think the parallel universe theory is valid, even though he will never see them. Ask him why does he believe in infinity even though he will never experience it.

Related article: Peer Review. As in “censorship”

Explain to him the difference between “blind faith” and “faith based on logic and evidence”. And explain to him  that science needs faith as well. Add that believing in a scientific axiom (which is by definition unproved) requires more faith than to believe in love like Christ taught. Tell him that it is more irrational and unscientific to believe that everything exist out of pure luck than to believe that everything has a cause. And that Aristotle (the founder of Logic) and Gödel (the second greatest logicologist after… Aristotle) believed – based on their logic – in the First Cause. Logic is not a privilege of atheists. And that the great so called atheist (so called? could it be that…?!? Yes!… Check out here) Nietzsche was an irrationalist.

10177257_640915902683428_2857215986395864952_n

For advanced Harmonia Philosophica readers: Life is inherently irrational. So why all this love of rationality? Read the Main Thesis.

ONE LINE ARGUMENTS: In some cases you have to deal with a hardline atheist who actually does not want to discuss but to “fight”. There is no need to get into an argument with such a person. The only thing you can say to such a person so as to easily and quickly pinpoint the irrationality of his beliefs is to remind him that he believes (not a random choice of word here) in a universe which was created by accident, randomly and with no purpose. Or in a universe which existed for…. ever for no reason at all! And that opinion needs more justification that the opinion requiring a Creator for the creation of the cosmos! And if they speak to you about the greatness of ancient Greek logical thought, remind them that even ancient Greeks had RELIGION. And in fact this religion was not even something distinct from science – these were no even considered as different fields! And remind him of Aristotle speaking of the First Mover. If finally they speak about science and religion incompatibility, remind them of all those great scientists who believed in God. (see the reference to Nobel prize winners and the images with quotes in this page). A reference to the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is even more easily dealt with: The ToE is simply a scientific theory. It does not answer philosophical or metaphysical problems. It just presents a possible mechanism (and is full of dogmas while doing so – see here). And no, it does not answer to the question how life came to be. “God allows children to die!” fake-argument is easily refuted: See below.

10408676_802019353178537_5938299214707521575_n

2. Regarding the teachings of Christianity: Usually atheists tend to use the things written in the Old Testament. Older books tend to have harder meanings and more symbolisms. They can be explained of course, but not in a harsh debate with a rude atheist who does not want to listen. So focus on the teachings about love and forgiveness. These are the cornerstones of Christianity. Are there people who killed in the name of Christ? Sure. But they were not Christians!

For advanced readers: Read the Old Testament: Not for the faint-hearted. (An easy interpretation) article. Check out here or here for some explanations of phenomenally “wrong” Old Testament texts.

3. Regarding the effects of Christianity: Christianity was the foundation of the free thinking Europe. Knowledge flourished in what is called “The dark ages”. Modern science was born in Christian Europe even though this is something atheists would like to forget. Humanism and Renaissance were first developed in the christian Byzantine Empire during those “dark” ages. Arts flourished in the “dark ages”. The first universities were the monasteries in these “dark” medieval ages (Dawkins teaches in one of those “dark” places). If it wasn’t for Christianity’s support of the “Help the helpless” way of thinking, we would now have the prevalence of the powerful over the powerless as some (scientific) theories support. Remind him that everything he knows about ancient Greek philosophers he so much admires, he knows because a monk somewhere saved their works. And that even the ancient “free thinking” Greeks had religion. And the logical Greeks were the first to adopt Christianity.

RELATED ARTICLE: Middle Ages – An era of light!

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Christianity against knowledge? (Yes and No!)

If he tells you that Christianity killed a lot of people ask him if Christ taught murder. If he tells you that Christianity oppressed people tell him to read how Jesus behaved to people who were outcasts in His time. If he tries to refer to various Byzantine christian emperors who led war campaigns, remind him that Christianity – besides its philosophical and theological aspect – also has a secular one. And remind him also that if it weren’t for this he would be speaking Arabic now. Ask him if he really knows and understands the difference between religion’s secular (practical) and religion’s philosophical/ theological aspect. And if he can detect such a difference for every bad thing happens in the name of science. And if he believes Mengele represented science (even though he did in his time – see here).

For a great summary of all the positive effects of Christianity in society and the negative effects of our modern (scientific) way of living, read “Religion: Its contribution to society (and other subjects)“.

11159531_10204030839791567_4775760306034514735_n

4. About the relation of Science and Religion: Science analyzes the How. Religion the Why. Science analyzes mechanics. Religion analyzes ethics and the way of living. And the latter is more important. As the Interacademy Panel announced: “Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political – contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations. While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges” [one can see that statement’s full text here or here]. Most great scientists who won a Nobel prize were theists. (see here and here) And most importantly: Religion seems to be the sole foundation of science itself! Read “Religion as the single foundation of Science” for more on that.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Christianity against knowledge? (Yes and No!)

5. Accept the rudeness of your interlocutor. This is how many atheists who debate are most of the times: Rude and aggressive. Show them how the Christian guy can discuss with politeness no matter what. This will really make the atheists explode with anger. Show in practice what it means to be a Christian. Love your enemy. (tip: That is when their rage explosion will reach unprecedented levels) However note that there are many Christians being rude like many atheists who are polite and correct when debating. With such people discussion is easy and this advice is not needed. The point of this chapter is not to generalize about atheists but to show how to deal with rude people.

THE “I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD” SOPHISTRY…

Some atheists will try to say “Hey, I just do not believe in God” in order to avoid getting into details. Well, as being a “Christian” does not simply mean “Believing in Christian God”, being an “Atheist” does not simply mean “Not believing in any god”. This is a generalization and a highly suspicious generalization if you ask me. The word “God” has so many meanings in so many religions and philosophies that stating that “Atheists do not believe in god” is simply an utterly (intentionally?) wrong statement. They do not believe God in what sense? God as a creator? God as the source of soul/ spirit in humans? God as a source of Love? God as a Designer? God as the One to which we all return after death?

READ ALSO:  Flat Earth. Problematic science. Troubling scientism. Atheists and their psychological problems.

But again…

I would like to meet atheists who believe in First Cause. I would like to meet atheists who believe in a Designer. I would like to meet atheists who believe in human soul. I would like to meet atheists who do NOT believe in materialism.

Atheism is a System of Beliefs. And as such it should be treated.

11114020_10204030839751566_2982788866650364112_n

6. Understand the motives of your interlocutor: Atheists want to gain control of their lives with science. Explain to them that by accepting God you will have even more control in your life. Explain that nothing is really under control. Tell them to relax. Always politely. Atheists want to become gods in the place of God. That is why they are so eager to make him go away. Because without God ethics is replaced by “personal ethics”. By “opinions”. Discuss about abortions. No, it is not easy to argue in favor of killing a human being because… well because! Atheists often feel angry because they look only the surface of the problems they face.

Related article: Consciousness. Science based on FAITH. Religion based on EXPERIENCE! (huh?)

Discuss about the “Problem of Evil”, a problem which atheists believe is on the hands of the theists but it is the other way around (see here)! What defines evil if there is no God? Is it a personal matter? A matter of opinion? Where do atheists base their own notion of “evil”? “God allows children to die!” he will say to you in anger. Explain to him that the belief that our body is everything is childish. The problem of existence is much more deep than the simplistic “death” event, which for every serious philosophical system in the course of human history was simply a stage in a transformation path.

THE “I DO NOT KNOW” ANSWER: Some atheists will try to play the “I do not know” card. Don’t misunderstand me. There are some people who are genuinely agnostics. I respect anyone who truly says “I do not know”. But most of these cases are cases where atheists hide their anti-Christian feelings behind this. And in any case, if one “does not know” then surely it is quite alright for accept the christian opinion. Right? Unless the “agnostic” has some good arguments against the theistic view of the cosmos. Because he “knows” something… Last but not least, one should note that we almost never “know” anything with certainty. But we all have opinions. (this is how science progresses) Stating “I do not know” in important philosophical matters is not a genuine scientific answer. It is just like avoiding to move so that you are not checkmated. (related article: Why you can’t be an agnostic)

7. Do not accept statements as arguments. Simply saying “This is like this” does not make it “like this”. Ask for explanations. If someone tells you “You have not read things” tell him to explain to you these things. Usually most of the things atheists take for granted are impossible to explain (e.g. how consciousness stems from lifeless matter). It is very common for atheists (or agnostics alike) to accept assumptions of dogmas as ‘true’ in order for them to support their beliefs. Do not allow them to do so. Always ask for evidence and logical arguments. For example modern atheists take the philosophical DOGMA of materialism as the basis of every truth – always remind them that materialism is a DOGMA and a pretty much old one. Surely if we ACCEPT that all there is is matter, we cannot believe in anything spiritual in any way. But why believe that only matter exists in the cosmos when there are so many evidence pointing towards another direction? (e.g. NDE cases)

ONE LINE ARGUMENT: If everything is matter as atheists claim, then nothing matters. Why care for anything – from ethics to death and life – if we are just a lifeless and soulless set of particles?

b7be2ef98aa60b79f05085094d3e0d93

8. Hit them when they believe they are the strongest. Ask them why they believe Sun is at the center of the solar system (a very important story of philosophical dogmatism lies behind that phenomenally stupid question – see here) Ask them what is a particle. Are particles against materialism? (see here) Explain them why medicine is NOT a pro-science argument! (see here) Explain them why astrology is more valuable than astronomy (read here before you judge this sentence as stupid)

Related article: Technology works! Science works! Well, NOT QUITE… (Technology and Science do NOT work!)

Refer to transubstantiation and to resurrection. If they ask you how can you think one cannot die, ask them how can they believe that one can. (search for “What does it take to believe in death” in Harmonia Philosophica) Remember that it is the simple questions which hold the key to our greatest dogmas. Refer to the Old Testament. Refer to miracles. If turning water to wine or resurrecting people seem so funny, then what about modern science? What about quantum mechanics which has proven that the mind can actually affect the very existence of matter? What about NDE cases being officially recorded? Start a discussion about Galileo or Ypatia. (see the end of the Religion and Science Unification article) Explain to them that Giordano Bruno to whom they refer to with such love, would be an object of mockery by today’s scientists due to the things he said. Argue about consciousness and remind him of the TV analogy. Explain that reductionism is as much “proven” as the 5th axiom of Euclid is. Adding a recommendation for some more in depth reading regarding the brain and the mind. (see “Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism” and here) No, we have not found where memory is stored! (see here) Discuss about why God allows evil in the world etc (see the Problem of Evil in the Point no. 6).

Materialism is ridiculous. Arguing in favor of religion is truly easy for someone who knows the basics. Science is the new religion nowadays. But one must have free thinking is he wishes to be true to himself. Atheism is trendy nowadays. But one must resist the trends if he wants to be called human. Christ taught love, compassion, forgiveness (Gr. Συγ-χώρεση). If all agree with all these, why so hatred against Him?

9. Leave the discussion in peace. There is no point in debating for ever. Explain your arguments and leave them be angry about it. Atheists are fed with rage and anger. Give them love. No point in being part of the imaginary “war” some people believe there is between science and religion. Remember atheists need guidance through love and understanding.

1383444_10204030839831568_7281713146647749071_n

Relative post: Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why! [Unless you insist…]

All the above generate a serious question: Why do atheists still exist?

Forgive me asking, but if you think about it this is a very valid question in today’s science era.

In the old days one could have many excuses to be an atheist. Science had not progressed much, archaeology had not made many discoveries, quantum mechanics did not even exist, Near Death Experiences were more something like an urban myth, scientists believed that consciousness was a by-product of the brain such as bile was produced by the liver, we read the holy texts and tried to interpret them all literally or believed they were just fairy tales, there were no nutritionists and people believed that all the church advice on fasting was mere compulsion of some mad men etc etc…

29468906_1684432364968741_8765011516412919808_n

I would really understand someone being an atheist at that time back then, even though some reading and philosophical research can help you see the light somehow.

Related article: Why does life exist? A very scientific (and theological) response… (science still believes)

But now we know that man can affect matter with his conscious immaterial mind (quantum mechanics – see the wavefunction collapse after a conscious observer observes the experiment, how random number generators are affected by the sheer will of humans), that dead people can back to life (officially documented NDE cases by doctors), that many of the Biblical locations are real, that a text like the Bible can have hidden meanings or symbolisms, that human consciousness can exist beyond the limits of our brain (see Princeton experiments), that modern nutritionists suggest the same fasting the church suggests and so on…

With so many arguments in favor of religion and in favor of the idea of an immaterial consciousness/ soul, how can really someone be an atheist? What is the excuse?

At the end, one understands that there is no excuse at all. It is just that atheism is the  easiest path and, thus, the most intriguing for people to follow. Loving actively even your enemies is hard. Forgiving is hard. Controlling your passions is hard. Not caring about anything and believing in nothingness is easy…

Quality Articles Selection

Relative discussions (indicative list)

Continue your reading!

  • Go to Navigate Harmonia page to see some of the most interesting posts!
  • Browse the Articles List to see a list of the main articles.
  • Go here to see the Facebook community of Harmonia Philosophica!

Leave a Reply to Brotherdave0000Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comments (

)

  1. How to easily beat an atheist in a debate… – Religion Arguments

    […] [Originally posted in Harmonia Philosophica here] […]

    Reply
  2. Raymund

    How to defeat an Atheist??? Two ways, 1. provide a verifiable evidence. 2. Stop believing ridiculous claims and your atheist problem will simply disappear from planet earth.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Everything seems to have a cause. Thus, the universe itself has a Cause. Your view?

      Reply
  3. alphachamber

    Sir,

    PLEASE, let us use genuine arguments, rather than working with insinuations and distraction by willful misunderstandings, or by laying bogus tracks.

    If we join your own train of thought, that would make any criminal genius incapable of logic because of his ethic failure – which is of course rubbish.

    “…And regarding the difference between logic and reason, this is exactly what I am pinpointing: that there is none….”

    The difference betwee logic and reason can be explained qite simply:
    If a mathematic professor is lending his car-keys for his Porsche to his 16 year-old daughter to have a night out in town. (A not too uncommon scenario!)

    Logic does not produce ethical standards, only reason can do that. For the reasons we already mentioned earlier and on which you failed to reflect. Every man has been given the ability to use reason. If he applies it is up to everyone.
    There is the realm of reason and then there ist the realm of emotions. If their environment and conditions allows them, most man would rather live by emotions. In fact they do. Including all those believing in mystical powers.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Once again: Are you aware that logic is based on axioms? Are you aware of what axioms are? Do you understand how axioms can change? Three simply and, seemingly, difficult questions for those who believe in “Logic”…

      Reply
      1. alphachamber

        You are like a bar of soap, lol. Once again, you play hide-and-seek.
        We don’t follow your dance in circles. Ither you seek, or you lecture. For a lecturer you are obviously not convincing and too evasive, for a seeker, you don’t seek, or only in your corner, anyway.

        We herewith end our interest in this dialog and thank you for your hospitality.

      2. skakos

        I have asked you the same question over and over again but with no reply from your side. I will gladly here any reply, even now. Have a nice day.

  4. alphachamber

    skakos said: 2018/01/23 at 5:22 pm

    “The notion of free will is something which stems out of the christian philosophy. (…) the fact that any moral code not founded on solid foundations cannot exist – since it will be definition constantly change….”

    Sir,
    from where DO you get those ideas?

    1.) The notion of free will is as old as philosophical thought.

    2.) The principles of arriving at a moral code are the same, but societies
    make their own moral rules. Ethics is a part of reason and – as Josef Dietzgen
    put it – reason is in the north “northern” and in the south “southern”
    Or: “sensual needs are the material from which reason makes moral truths.”

    Reply
    1. skakos

      So it was logical for the Nazis to kill Jews? Because this WAS their moral code.

      PS. And regarding free will, surely this notion was there from the beginning of philosophy as almost any other notion. Ancient Greeks really said and analyzed almost anything. However it was Christianity which brought Free Will to the stage as the main aspect of humans, who can choose on their own between right and wrong. I am not claiming copyright rights. But this is more of a philosophy history issue.

      Reply
      1. alphachamber

        Sir,

        (personally I am tired of Nazi comparisons. Why not Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao for a change, instead of Hitler??)

        1. We cannot think that you do not know the difference beween logic and reason. If you do, why the “cheap” deflection.
        We wrote that ethics is a product of reason.

        2. It WAS logical for AH to persecute Jews (as it was for the Arabs and for the Stalinist). To understand you need to know history and the events before WW I., Versailles and the Weimarer Republic, and you needed to read AH’s “Mein Kampf” (My Struggle”).
        The first step of reason is self-preservation and respect for your fellow man’s iife and his means of survival from that you derive a basic ethical code. The more interference from government force, the less the individual is left with his own choices.
        The tragedy of history is precisely that man looked for his moral code to either church or state. Few understand the true meaning of reason. Even giants like Kant and Hegel got lost in it.

      2. skakos

        I am sorry, but I do not detect any justification of the logic of Hitler other than “That was logical for him”. And this is exactly what I am saying as well: Defining morality based on “logic” is another way of saying “Morality is something subjective and I will decide about morality on my own based on my own axioms and beliefs” (aka on my own logic). So we are talking about a totally subjective system which can change at will and which – most importantly – cannot be questioned by others. (since it is LOGICAL for those applying it) And regarding the difference between logic and reason, this is exactly what I am pinpointing: that there is none. Believing in the objectivity of Logic (vs the subjectivity or reason) is just that: a belief. What kind of proof do you have that a specific set of axioms in your logic is more valid that the set of axioms I use? Or do you believe that there is only one such set?

  5. Bill Clay

    It’s difficult to take this seriously when an image of Einstein is displayed with the text ‘science without religion is lame…’

    A nice ‘cherry picked’ quote from a much longer statement. Consider his letter that included

    “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Debunked. https://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/einsteins-god-letter-a-translation-a-fool-the-truth/

      Reply
  6. The Source of Ethics | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] How to easily beat an atheist in a debate… […]

    Reply
  7. The limits of science | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] How to easily beat an atheist in a debate… […]

    Reply
  8. Allies trading with Hitler – Economic games during World War II | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] How to easily beat an atheist in a debate… […]

    Reply
  9. How to win a Religion vs. Science debate! (for both…) | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] How to easily beat an atheist in a debate… […]

    Reply
  10. alphachamber

    Sir,

    “…ou will soon realize than our interpretation of the cosmos is based on principles and these principles are always unproven…”

    Your view of god, the beginning of the universe and many other phenomena of the cosmos can of course not be proven. That does not mean nothing can be proven. Man lives in the world he understands and is able to grasp. We can’t talk about more!

    You seem to be steeped too much in the classical philosophy and its metaphysics, such as the problem of universals etc. Since Hegel, Kant and especially Ayn Rand, most can be engaged – and, yes, solved – by reason and logic, including ethics.

    The other problem with your line of positioning is your regular fall-back into semantics.

    “…In Dialethism a proposition can be both true and false at the same time….”

    With respect, I have no interest at all to engage in this “voodoo”-phylosophy (sorry!)
    This is nothing but “smart ass-semantics” (again sorry! 🙂 )

    “…So essentially the questions you pose can be rephrased and redirected back: How do we know that what we see is objective?”

    Sir, I can only keep coming back to the above and again refer to Wittgensteins position of certainty. If we doubt about anything we have no discussion. I have my own concept of “base-line” reality. We can speculate over black holes and time travel, but not about that our exchange is real, that gravity is real or, that the needle of the ampere-meter proves there is “juice” on my circuit – further proven by a nasty shock if I touch the wires.

    B Russell proposed the thought that there might be actually nothing left in the room, after we leave it. All very curious and if I would get paid to think about it or write a piece for college-students I could be doing it.

    “…My irrationality is not any less rational than your rationality.”

    In the same sense, I will not reply any longer to those circular propositions!

    “…The quest for non-thinking is not a silly way of saying “Everything goes”…”

    NO! You cannot stop thinking, as it would require you to stop yout brain from working – you would be dead!

    I can accept your last 10 lines as I can respect your faith in god, but I can merely acknowledge it. This cannot be rationally discussed – and I do not “debate”.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      So you can claim that you can “solve” things logically, but when someone claims that this logic of yours is based on arbitrary chosen axioms you choose not to answer? This is not a good debate logic. And I am sorry to destroy the illusion, but it seems that you are the one trapped in semantics (“I can solve” things) while at the same time you are not willing to discuss what these words you use truly mean. What does it mean that ethics can be “solved by reason and logic” for example? Can you define the “logic” you will use to find what is ethical and what is not?

      Reply
      1. alphachamber

        Sir,

        What we wrote was this:

        “…most can be engaged – and, yes, solved – by reason and logic, including ethics…”

        Shall we refrain from sophistic rhetorics? We give you the benefit of doubt for a fair discussion, we hope you may follow.

        “…but when someone claims that this logic of yours is based on arbitrary chosen axioms you choose not to answer?”

        We don’t think in dialog on this level simply to “claim” will cut it!

        “…And I am sorry to destroy the illusion, but it seems that you are the one trapped in semantics (“I can solve” things) while at the same time you are not willing to discuss what these words you use truly mean.

        1. You are not destroying anything 🙂

        2. “(“I can solve” things)”
        Here is again another incorrect quote – do you need this
        method? You are not a postman and I am a taxidriver, so we both should know what is meant by logic, reason, truth, reality and so on, if not, why bother. The problem is, your belief is corrupting your syllogism. (The age-old method since Moses, to mess with the brains of man for better control and manipulation.)

        3. “…What does it mean that ethics can be “solved by reason and logic” for example?”

        NO – YOU figure out the meaning of logic and reason. If I translate it in Khmer, I can communicate with my Cambodian friends. After you grasp the meaning we also can continue with you.
        WE wrote, that ethics is a product of reason (at least that is what we meant) See more in our comment below. Or check out:

        http://aynrandlexicon.com/

        She does it a lot better than us.

      2. skakos

        Please see the comment below. Let’s continue this discussion in one thread.

  11. alphachamber

    Sir,

    thank you for your reply. You argue on an intelligent and dignified level and have nothing to apologize for.

    Where we seem to agree on is: god is the term for the “unknown entity which powers the universe and causes phenomena and life”. That man is part of this (with all other matter and organisms) is easily acceptable.

    Those problems still persist:

    1.) Do you put a god behind everything you believe or do not understand (if you apply reason)? Then where you put a line between “god-belief” and “research-belief”?
    (i.e. god = religion, search for a formula = science)

    2.) Why do you need religion if you do believe in a god on your rational grounds?
    Do you accept, that everything you seem to “know” about god is derived from leaders who craved power over their people, men with hallucinations, tricksters and handed down bed-time stories? That all “holy scripture” are written by and interpreted (and wrongly translated several times over) by man?

    3.) Do you accept, that everything you have on god is our cultural heritage – which is different in other societies? That would make this issue as mundane or banal as to discuss the degree of blackness in a black hole.

    “I sit in an irrational cosmos trying to find rationality. “…

    I have great problems with your personal interpretation of reason and logic. In that respect I really would like to have your clear answer to Wittgenstein.

    “Logic is very much mystical too. Its origins are clouded with a cloak of mystery ..”

    Well, then EVERYTHING is “mystical” and reality would not exist.

    Of course, you can be in an irrational environment and still apply reason – reason is a human attribute. But it is up to us if we wish to apply it. The point you seem to miss is this:
    The same thing (and in the same respect, of course), cannot be true and untrue at the same time – reason follows the law of identity.

    For people like yourself there is no objectively recognizable reality and therefore not something like “truth”. But, if reality has nothing to do with logic, then by what process did you discover this? Probably by an illogical conclusion! 🙂

    If you reject reason as a basis for your judgements you are only left with emotions as alternative. Either reason is an absolut in your mind, or not. If not, where can you draw the line? If you undermine the omnipotenz of reality you undermine the omnipotenz of your conciousness. There would be no basis for any quest at all – you are living in a fluid heraclictic universe.

    Then we also have no basis for discussion! If this should go anywhere you need to address all points.

    “…that is why I try to explore the world with non-thinking and without words”

    Now it is me to apologise – with all due respect: just how would you achieve this miracle?

    Reply
    1. skakos

      I find the conversation highly intriguing. Might I make a suggestion? Do you want me to open a new “Modern Platonic Dialogues” article where we can put our conversation online? It is up to you (anyway our conversation is already online and public) but I believe this dialogue deserves its own space. What do you think? All these subjects of irrationality, beliefs etc are more and more getting away from the “theism vs atheism debate” and it would be a shame to “burry” it inside this more and more irrelevant article page.

      Reply
      1. alphachamber

        Sir,
        that will be fine by me. (Although I am rather more an Aristotelian)
        BR

      2. skakos

        Great! I will set it up then and tell you when it is online! I believe having ‘Aristotle II’ as your pseudonym would be OK? Just to let you know, I will be ‘Parmenides II’…

    2. skakos

      My answer (independent of whether you accept my offer above):

      Your questioning of where the irrationality ends and where the logic begins are valid. And yet the answer is surprisingly easy. I am not a fan of relativism in general (e.g. in ethics I do believe there are some universal principles which we should follow) but I do believe that some aspects (if not most) of what we call “reality” are indeed subjective. And you may understand what I mean by just trying to “prove” the objectiveness of any “fact” taken for granted by science. You will soon realize than our interpretation of the cosmos is based on principles and these principles are always unproven. One of these principles is even this “law of identity” you mention. In Dialethism a proposition can be both true and false at the same time.

      So essentially the questions you pose can be rephrased and redirected back: How do we know that what we see is objective? How do we know that there is an objective reality or an objective logic with which we can examine the cosmos? I would say not only we cannot say that such things exist, but that it is obvious that there are not objective in any way.

      But I don’t want to sound like I am avoiding answering your questions, so I will clarify further what I mean with “irrationality” and “non thinking”. My irrationality is not any less rational than your rationality. All I am trying to achieve is to discard all the subjectivity and try to reach to the core objective essence of the cosmos – and discarding what most people see as “common logic” makes me sound “irrational”. The quest for non-thinking is not a silly way of saying “Everything goes” but a way of comprehending the cosmos without any “principles” (a.k.a. axioms) which we normally use when we start analyzing something. Our thought is inherently limited (since it is based on axioms and of course… language) and thus, sometimes silence can convey more messages. But again, it is the silence which comes out of an attempt to accept the cosmos “as it is” and not a silence denoting arrogance and denial of reason.

      Reply
  12. alphachamber

    Sir,
    I appreciate your reply.

    “First of all saying “we don’t know” and then quoting someone claiming that he knows (that the creator of the universe was chaos) is inconsistent.”

    Let us stay away from bogus rhetoric and sophism. We did neither imply nor claim to know what Hobbes really believed. We used his mind as example for a thinking which could have not been more sceptical at such an early age, where the rest was steeped in religion and mysticism.

    When we talk about “god”, we – hopefully – do not discuss about an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud. Until today the church is using childish images and rituals centred around biblical personalities created by story-tellers and shamans. Therefore, Hobbes thoughts were incredibly audacious.

    Sorry, there is also no “reconciliation” to your stance. We do respect your eloquent rhetoric and knowledge – although you would rather call it “education”, since you possess no “knowledge”, right? We realize that you can never concede, but we are enjoying your wit. In your “about”, you dismiss logic and reason, yet here, you are trying to apply it against rational arguments. This is – with all due respect – dishonest. I just feel it would be more truthful to stick to your believe on mystical grounds – rather than defending belief and mysticism with reason (theologians like to declare: “it is rational to believe”, which is a contradicio in adiecto)

    The first god has been fire, because man could not explain its nature. Through the ages gods changed and moved around according to man’s enlightenment and knowledge. I find when great scientists display their religious belief, like Einstein, Heisenberg and modern astronouts, it is a calculated act of self-exaltation by humility, like the bigottry of politicians. It makes them look more serious and symphatic to those who are funding them. If god means “SOMETHING” (similar to Hobbes) we are a lot more in agreement. But that would not need religious belief, just scientific curiosity.

    “…science is based on the premise that humans can understand the mind of God…”

    Why? That is bogus epistemology! If you tag everything you research for as “god”, than your gods diminish with every discovery. As in fact they have been rapidly over the last centuries.
    About terms, if we cannot agree over the meaning of words, we won’t be able to agree on anything. And here is where we have to side with “Longi”. Whenever your dialectic drives you into a corner, to get out by deflating the meaning of terms. Language was “invented” to enhance communication, not for obfuscation.

    If everything, every entity exists in our mind, i.e., if we can only think, understand and discuss, because language gives our senses formatting- and expression power, than our mind it is the only tool we must rely on. Man thinks through his language. As Wittgenstein wrote: “language is the limit of philosophy”. If you violate clarity to accommodate emotions and belief, you violate the greatest faculty god supposedly bestowed on you. Feuerbach wrote: “Man created god after his image”. Because it is US who think, not god!

    And we repeat Wittgenstein!s quote:

    ““If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning of your words either. If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty”.

    You earlier did not take up his challenge.

    Regards

    Reply
    1. skakos

      First of all serious theology does not refer to God as an old man with a white beard. Not in any case.

      I did not wish to disrespect you. Apologies if I did so. In any case the belief that non-thinking is better than thinking does not refrain me from using both. And also the fact that I believe the cosmos is inherently irrational does not limit me from using all possible tools I have available – and surely logic is one of them. (although obviously not all of us reach the same conclusion with that tool – one of the reasons one might wander how useful this tool might be) Logic is very much mystical too. Its origins are clouded with a cloak of mystery – no logical axioms can ever be proved.

      You are right that the main problem at hand is to first of all discuss what “God” is. It is not logical to discuss about the existence of “something” of that something is not well defined. That is why in the above conversation I tried to discuss God as a First Cause – effectively limiting the debate in a very very very specific attribute of “God”.

      Yes it is us who think (although for a moment I thought you actually talked about the U.S. – just joking). But we are part of God and God is us. At least in Christian theology. And in a sense in the cosmos of Parmenides as well: We are all part of the One and nothing except the One can exist. This indeed sounds mystical and irrational – but as I said before what is the rationality in the rational anyway?

      I sit in an irrational cosmos trying to find rationality. And yes, the words are the limit of my thinking – that is why I try to explore the world with non-thinking and without words. (that is the “mystical” part)

      Really enjoyed this conversation. (which I hope continues)

      Reply
      1. John Smith

        I don’t believe in your god or any religious ideology but the way you portray us is just insulting and incorrect for the fact that atheists are just people who have a reasonable doubt to not accept the ‘proof’ you have, I would like to debate about god’s existence though, let’s talk about Noah’s ark, it was real right? Doesn’t that mean that we are part of incest products? Also Ken Ham’s ark was ‘accurate’ and but it couldn’t survive the rain so physics has proven Noah’s ark wrong, if you want to contradict me, feel free to.

        I’m not being a raging scumbag like you portray us to be ;P

      2. skakos

        So your idea about debating God’s existence is discussing about incest? And you really believe that you are different than what I described in the article? Come on… You can do better than that. If you want to discuss God’d existence be my guest. How do you believe the cosmos came to be?

  13. alphachamber

    May we butt in?

    The great mind Thomas Hobbes said as soon as the early 18. cty:
    “…the unformed matter of the universe was a god called chaos…” His works were on the black “bestseller-list” of the papal bigots.

    Why do we need to argue about something which man will never be abe to know?

    German philosopher Trendelenburg put it succinctly: “How could the finite being grasp the infinite”

    And yes, there is belief, knowledge and certainty. All 3 can be translated unmistakenly into any language of mankind. Things do not exist because man created terms for them, man found terms for entities.

    Cheers

    Reply
    1. skakos

      I both agree and disagree.

      First of all saying “we don’t know” and then quoting someone claiming that he knows (that the creator of the universe was chaos) is inconsistent. I understand though that you possibly said that in a general mood of reconciliation and I will agree with you that there is no reason to argue in the bad sense of the word. We are just discussing. Surely I do not claim to know the “truth” in anything – I am just stating my opinion. 😊

      Trendelenburg is right, but on the other hand science is based on the premise that humans can understand the mind of God. (that was the idea of the early scientists back in the days of Newton)

      As to whether things exist because we named them, opinions differ. I am sure many philosophers would claim opposite things if asked that question…

      All in all what you convey as a general message is interesting: No, we cannot know anything. No knowledge can be certain. And this has great implications for both science and religion…

      Reply
  14. Longi

    This article is just loaded with fallacies. First of all you’re using a strawman and assuming what atheists claim. Atheism is merely a rejection of the religious claim that Gods exist. Anything else is just a personal opinion of the individual atheist.
    Also another fallacy is you saying that atheism and science also require faith.
    Atheistic position is not to claim that you know how the Universe began. “I don’t know” is a viable answer. And just because we don’t know doesn’t mean that you can just make up stories and pretend that they are true. If I say that I don’t know how the universe was created, that doesn’t make your fairy tale any more true. You’re gonna have to come up with hard evidence.

    There’s a big difference between a belief and faith. Faith means belief in something despite the lack of evidence. And so there is no such thing as “faith based on logic and evidence”. You are completely wrong here yet again.

    Another thing is the No True Scotsman fallacy, that you use to defend things like the Crusades. “Oh sure there were people who killed in the name of God, but those were not real Christians.” This article is just loaded with fallacies. You’re just setting your readers up for a failure, because all of your claims have all been debunked already, and some of them are even on the list of fallacies and arguments, that even your own religion is asking people not to use.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      I am always happy to talk with atheists, dialogue is always useful. So thanks very much for the comments. Let’s take what you say one by one. (this is part of the “Structure the conversation” advice)

      You claim that atheism has no beliefs but is merely the rejection of the existence of God. And then you go on and claim that “I don’t know” is a viable answer for the question “How did universe came to be?”. But this answer has only two possible answers: Either someone/ something created it or nothing created it and it exists for ever and ever (and ever…). So if you claim that “There is no God”, then you clearly choose curtain No.2. Are you not?

      And since you choose to also speak about faith, let me make something clear: Faith is not synonym with “BLIND faith” – which is what you actually refer to. Faith in the existence of a First Cause (aka God) is very well based on evidence and logical arguments (e.g. First Cause argument first postulated by Aristotle). So again, what are your arguments for saying that there is no First Cause and, thus, the universe existed for ever?

      Looking forward to your answers…

      Reply
      1. Longi

        Actually I didn’t say that atheism rejects God, you’re twisting my words. I said that it is the rejection of the religious claim that any gods exist, based on lack of evidence.

        Also why should the only two options be that either someone created the universe, or it has been here forever? Did I ever say that I think that universe has been here forever? Nope. You are using a manipulation technique to discard all the other possibilities. So far it seems like the Big Bang is the most viable option and you didn’t mention that at all.
        Also I thinm it is very arrogant to think that you have an answer to a question that no one knows. Therefore “I don’t know” is a perfectly viable answer, simply because I really don’t know.
        But just because we don’t know doesn’t mean that we can use “magic lol” as an answer, and doesn’t make it any more true. Christian explanation doesn’t explain anything, it just substitutes reason and logic with magic.

        Also faith really does mean belief without any evidence. Isn’t Jesus supposed to reward people who are faithful, despite not never having seen or met Jesus? There simply is no faith based on evidence, because then it’s not faith anymore, it’s knowledge.

        And about your First Cause, universe doesn’t care about any cause. It simply exists, just like life simply exists and wants to continue. If all people died, so would their Gods.

        But since you’re saying that you have evidence for the existence of God, Christian God even, why don’t you demonstrate it to me? Give me that hard evidence that you’re talking about here.

      2. skakos

        Impressive.

        You ask me why there should be only two options for how the universe was created (something created it/ it existed for ever) and yet you fail to offer another option.

        You mention a theory postulated by a catholic priest (Big Bang) as an “explanation”, but you ignore that the question here is not about whether the Big Bang is the answer to something but what created the universe (or in other words: What caused the Big Bang?) You missed a step in the process there.

        You claim it is arrogant to say “I know” to such a question (which, btw, I did not say), but then you claim that “the universe simply exists”.

        You ask for evidence and yet you fail to deliver your own when mentioning “the universe simply exists”. The basic evidence for the First Cause argument is the obvious one: Something must be created by something. Nothing is created by… nothing.

        Again: Impressive…

        Come on. I think you can do much better than that. Give it another try.

        PS. I will not even go to answer your absurd claims about religion and what faith is, you really need to straighten up your ideas on the universe creation then and after that we will dig deep into more difficult subjects.

      3. Longi

        If you want to know what caused the Big Bang, you are free to become a scientists and look for the answers. Good luck. You definitely won’t find the answer in some book of ancient myths that someone made up to control people and their thoughts. So far the answer is that we don’t know.

        And me saying that the universe simply exists is much different than you making a claim that God exists, even more specifically the God of your religion. We can observe the fact that the universe exists, but no one has been able to prove existence of any Gods yet, much less your God. You are the one making a supernatural claim, and that requires extraordinary evidence. Stop trying to turn this around on me. The burden of proof is on you. If you claim that your faith is based on evidence (which literally doesn’t make any sense) then give me that evidence.

        Also your statement that “Something must be created by something” is false. We are the result of natural processes. The funny thing is that even if we were created by something, that still doesn’t prove existence of your God.

      4. skakos

        Science and civilization in general progresses through searching for answers. I am not saying that I “know” – nor does science. Ever. Science simply creates prediction models which change and are revised continuously. It will never say “I know”. However it DOES provide potential solutions to problems and that is what we are trying to do here: to discuss potential solutions to the problem “How was the universe created”. Saying “I don’t know” is simply denial to get into the conversation. Saying “Nothing created it” is simply an attempt to impose one of the TWO potential solutions as a solution. Saying that you do not try to do that is simply a sophistry.

        The burden of proof lies to everyone claiming something. I claim that it is logical (and scientific) to say that something is created by… something. And I name that “something” the First Cause. My evidence? All the things I see around me: everything has a cause. So with logical reasoning I reach to the conclusion that the universe must also be made by something.

        If and when we pass over the obstacle of persuading you that you DO convey an opinion when you say that “No God created the universe” (since the negation of one of the TWO potential solutions leaves only one viable solution to choose) we will also try to discuss what are your evidence to claim such a thing…

        PS. So you do accept that we are made by something – isn’t “natural processes” something? Or do you believe it is… nothing?

      5. Longi

        You are using very strange kind of twisted logic that doesn’t make any sense. You’re using another fallacy called argument from ignorance. You can’t imagine things being a different way, but that’s just your limited view of the world.
        Not to mention your complete lack of understanding of the atheistic position. I am simply rejecting your claim that your god exists, because religious people failed to meet their burden of proof. It doesn’t automatically mean that I’m making a claim of my own. I am simply rejecting yours, and that is all.

      6. skakos

        Perhaps you are answering to someone else here. I did provide the logic behind my argument and also asked you to provide yours. You failed to answer to both. Not wanting to discuss is perfectly fine. Just tell me so.

      7. Longi

        I don’t need to provide proof to anything. Atheism is the default position. It doesn’t have anything to do with science or how universe was created.
        Christianity on the other hand says that it has answers to questions that no one has really been able to answer, but fails to provide any proof. So first you’ll have to provide proof of your concrete God, and then we can start talking about creation and what caused this God to happen. You haven’t even gotten through the first step yet. Which of course is no surprise, because no one has been able to prove existence of any Gods, much less your christian one.

      8. skakos

        Let’s summarize again: We are discussing how universe was created. And for that there are two possible answers: Something/ someone created it OR it existed for ever (you have failed to provide a third option). I claim the first. You claim the second. (by refuting the first option without even discussing it).

        My evidence: All the things we see everyday around us, which have a cause. So I logically reach the conclusion that the universe (the set of all the things we see around us) also must have a cause.

        You have failed to provide evidence or at least a logical explanation of your thesis though. And no, being an atheist does not make you “immune” from having to prove or at least back up what you claim.

        Looking forward to your evidence.

      9. Longi

        I know that you would like to sway the discussion your way, but that doesn’t work on me. You and me cannot possible solve the reason for the existence of the universe in this discussion, so it’s really pointless to even talk about it.
        Not to mention that your “evidence” is just circular logic and a fallacy of argument from ignorance. Just because you see something a certain way doesn’t mean that it’s true. People are wired to see patterns, and when there are none, they create them in their heads.
        You are trying to go about this in a very roundabout way, and somehow tell me that because you see that things have purpose, that must immediately mean that there is a divine entity who created everything, but that’s a pretty big leap in logic and frankly is just dishonest. Even if things had some kind of inner purpose, it still doesn’t bring you anywhere near any God.
        And once again you are trying to shift the burden of proof on me, but you are the one making supernatural claims here, not me. I didn’t say anything about how the universe was created, there are millions of options, and yet you are using this loaded argument of there only being two options. I don’t play those games, sorry. You can try this on someone else.

      10. skakos

        Regarding the question at hand (How the universe came to be?) there are indeed TWO options: Either someone/ something created it OR nothing created it. As simple as that. If there are “million” (sic) options as you mention, feel free to add them. I have asked you already twice to do so and twice you have failed.

        I have provided evidence for my view. I did not say that this is the full argument, it was the starting point for discussion. I have wrote whole articles for that subject and surely you do not expect me to analyze everything before you even bother to get into that discussion.

        Repeating over and over again that you have no “burden” to prove anything does not add anything to the discussion – it simply shows you are not able to clearly articulate your views.

        For me the way forward goes something like that:

        1. Present the “other” options to the problem, which you so intensely insist exist.

        2. If not able to do so, understand that by refuting one of the two possible options you actually lean on one of them. This is actually also a scientific method of reaching conclusions by the way…

        3. Discuss on both options and find pros and cons. You will see that many “fallacies” which you see existing in one option are also present in the other one…

        What do you say?

      11. Longi

        You still don’t understand how burden of proof works. I’ll demonstrate it to you. Do you believe in unicorns?

      12. skakos

        It would be better to first try to answer the open questions in the conversation before asking new ones… This will only blur and confuse the situation.

        PS. And your question is extremely vague and not-well documented. Believe in unicorns which have what characteristics and in which context? You keep forgetting the fact that “God” means many things and that is why I have tried (and failed obviously since you don’t seem to get it) to discuss the existence of God as First Cause only. I tried to narrow down the issue under discussion for your convenience. And yet here we are. Still discussing the obvious.

      13. Longi

        Looks like I’ll have to spell it out for you. You don’t believe in unicorns, because you’ve never seen one. For you to believe that unicorns exist, you’d have to see one with your own eyes.
        And if I wanted to prove to you that unicorns exist, it would take much more than just my words. The burden of proof would be on me, and I wouldn’t be able to say “prove to me that unicorns don’t exist, or otherwise they’re real, because you can’t disprove their existence.”
        You wouldn’t just accept the existence of unicorns because someone told you. You would want hard undisputable evidence. That’s why atheistic stance is considered to be the default position. We are all born as atheists, until we are indoctrinated. Same case with Gods of different religions. Christians are able to employ same views and logical thinking as atheists when it comes to different Gods or supernatural beings, but turn into gullible sheep when it comes to their own doctrines, which they have been conditioned to since childhood.

        And that’s why your questions are pointless. For them to be relevant, God would have to come down before me and prove to me that he is omnipotent. That’s what it would take to persuade me.

      14. skakos

        It is dishonest and rude to bypass a question posed to you multiple times. I will gladly discuss about whatever you wish, as long as we end up somewhere regarding the question of “How the universe was created”. I have told you many things on that matter and you have left them all unanswered (e.g. what are the other options beside the two I mentioned to you) only to try to divert the conversation to unicorns.

        But since we are discussing about unicorns, I would agree that I do not believe they exist because I have not seen them. On the other hand, I do believe the universe has a cause because I have seen all things having a cause in the known universe…

        Your turn…

      15. Longi

        I already told you why your question is irrelevant. First you will have to prove that there is a being who is capable of creating universes. Even if the universe was created, it still doesn’t mean that it was created by the christian God. It could’ve been the ancient Spaghetti monster, or made out of testicles of the Bull God. So how will you prove to me that it was your God?
        Not to mention that I never mentioned a possiblity that the universe has been here forever. We know that the universe had a beginninng, so I have no idea where you even got that from. It’s just another strawman from you. You are using manipulation techniques again to presuppose that there are only two options.
        Frankly said I’m getting pretty tired of you trying to manipulate me. I’ve made my points and you are free to addrress them. If you’re gonna deflect and dodge them again, then we’re done here.

      16. skakos

        The two options are “The universe was created” and “The universe was not created, it existed for ever”. There is no reference to a “Christian God”. And it does not matter how you get to call the First Cause. Call it whatever you like. It does not make any difference whatsoever. The only characteristic of that First Cause is that it is… the first cause. We did not get into discussing any other attributes of that “something”, so hold your horses. Let’s deal with this in a sequential manner – the full list of attributes of that “something” is at the end, not in the beginning, of the discussion.

        And I am not manipulating anything, you are. From the beginning we had these two options, so stating Option No. 2 again as if you bring it to the table is dishonest. I told you that if you reject one of the two option (Option 1: Creation) then you are automatically in favor of the other (Option 2: Existed for ever) and you counter-argued by saying that there are not only two options. So I am asking what are these other options.

        Finally we can answer (or attempt to answer) the question posed without necessarily getting into the details of what kind of creature would be needed to create the universe. The question is related to whether First Cause exists. In the same manner science now postulates the idea of “dark matter” without knowing what exactly it is.

      17. Longi

        You are being very dishonest right now when you say that you are not inferring the Christian God. All you mention in your article here is Christian side of things, and now you’re trying to tell me that you are not talking about the Christian God. Are you a Christian or not? Do you want to deny that now?

        Also you are still trying to strawman me. I personally think that the most likely way that the universe stared was the Big Bang, not that the universe has existed forever. Did you intentionally leave out the Big Bang? I don’t know of any scientific hypothesis that says that universe has existed forever.

        And finally, you are completely wrong when you think that you can just pull a First Cause out of your ass, and not have any burden of proof. Prove the existence of a being that is capable of creating universes, and then we can continue.

      18. Jason

        Hi Skakos: I wanted to address a few of your comments above.

        ************************************************
        “You claim that atheism has no beliefs but is merely the rejection of the existence of God.” ~ Skakos
        ************************************************

        This does not accurately portray what longi said. His/Her actual comment was that “Atheism is merely a rejection of the religious claim that Gods exist. This is not a trivial difference.

        Atheism is simply a statement of belief regarding a single topic (god/gods exist)… and is a rejection of this singular theistic claim. To reject this claim does NOT mean the atheist is supporting the negation of this argument. For example:

        Belief statement: “There are an even number of grains of sand in the world”. You have no reason whatsoever to believe this is either true or false. There is simply not enough evidence to know this claim, and no reasonable way to demonstrate it.

        You would be an “A-even-number-of-grains-of sand-in-the-world-ist”. You don’t believe the claim; however, this doesn’t mean that you believe that there is as odd number of grains of sand. This says nothing about your position on how sand was created, or how sand interacts with its environment. Your simple (and singular) belief is that I have not provided sufficient evidence to support my claim that there IS an even number of grains.

        For the record: Any atheist claiming that “NO gods exist”… must demonstrate that claim as well.

        ************************************************
        And then you go on and claim that “I don’t know” is a viable answer for the question “How did universe came to be?”. But this answer has only two possible answers: Either someone/ something created it or nothing created it and it exists for ever and ever (and ever…). So if you claim that “There is no God”, then you clearly choose curtain No.2. Are you not? ~ Skakos
        ************************************************

        No sir. The claim is NOT that “there is no god”. The claim is that there isn’t enough evidence to convince one that there IS a god. This is the same proposition as I posed above. Not believing that there is an even number of grains of sand… does not mean you believe that there is an odd number. It simply means the burden of proof has not been met that the number is even.

        “I don’t know” is a viable (and honest) answer for many subjects.

        ************************************************
        And since you choose to also speak about faith, let me make something clear: Faith is not synonym with “BLIND faith” – which is what you actually refer to. Faith in the existence of a First Cause (aka God) is very well based on evidence and logical arguments (e.g. First Cause argument first postulated by Aristotle).
        ************************************************

        There are 2 propositions being conflated here.

        Your first argument is that there IS a first cause…. and while is does seem intuitive that everything must have a 1st cause, it is still a claim that must be demonstrated. This logic becomes an infinite regression if we state this as fact. For example: God was the 1st cause for the universe… however… that automatically begs the question “What was god’s first cause?” To state that “god” does not require a 1st cause is the definition of the special pleading fallacy. “Everything must have a first cause (except for the god which i am trying to define into existence)”. This does not logically (or honestly) work.

        Secondly, even if first cause COULD be demonstrated, we cannot logically jump to “God was the first cause” without that out also being demonstrated. To make matters worse, it’s not just any God, but a specific Christian God that now requires demonstration. One easily assert that universe-creating-pixies were the first cause, and they “told me so” thru divine pixie-revelation.

        Neither proposition is falsifiable, and therefore neither get us no closer to the truth.

    2. Longi

      Are you already done? I mean, I knew that you would have nothing but fallacious arguments and that you would just try to deflect me asking you to provide a proof of God, but you were very underwhelming.
      I suggest that you read my arguments again and realize that in all of this you are first assuming the existence of an eternal being, and then you’re trying to make up theories that support it. That is a confirmation bias, and that’s the wrong way to go about things.
      I know that it feels good to have faith and you wish that it was true that a God existed, but that doesn’t make it any more real.

      Reply
      1. skakos

        Again, try to answer the “How was the universe created” question honestly. And then we can move further on.

      2. Longi

        First of all, another fallacy. That is a loaded question, which is begging the answer. You should be asking “how did the universe begin?” You are already presupposing that it was created which is extremely dishonest. And my answer is that I don’t know.
        You sure seem to love using fallacies. Do you know how that makes you look? How would you look at your opponent if all he did was use one fallacy after another?

      3. skakos

        You are indeed right about the phrasing of the question, although I am sure you understood from the multiple exchanges we had that I had no intent of dogmatically imposing one solution over the other. Yes, as I already told you, the question is to choose if the universe was created or if it existed for ever.

        So you claim “I don’t know”. OK.

        You mean “I don’t know” as in “The possibility for the universe to have been created is 50% and the possibility for the universe to have been existing for ever and ever is again 50%”? So do you accept as a viable option that something/ someone created it – even as a possibility? Is that a valid thing to say since you seem to “honestly” not “know”?

  15. Tittie Fucker

    Your site is full of shit

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Thanks a lot for the fruitful comment. And for proving some of my points in the article…

      Reply
  16. Brotherdave0000

    The “..you” at the end of my last post is a typo. Sorry.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      OK.

      Reply
  17. Ellen smith

    We must remember we are not battling a flesh and blood war, nor an intellectual battle, but a spiritual one! Satan has blinded their minds to truth with demonic strongholds of unbelief. It requires the power of Jesus to set them free. If they repent and change their mind and will, He will free them, so our biggest weapon is prayer.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      It is a battle on many fronts. The front of common logic is the first one…

      Reply
  18. Francis Bede

    People who kill usually have their reasons, and choose to do so. The act will be right and it will be wrong, it depends on the perception. State executions and revenge killings are seen as right by some, and wrong by others. Why I make my choices is simply because they are me, in all my individual ‘glory’. I feel there is no point in constantly asking why. I’d rather work on ‘being’ with the knowing that my being will come to its end. A philosopher and scientist will always ask why, and thankfully I’m neither. .

    Reply
    1. skakos

      And the fact that you cannot argue against a man who just kills people for fun does not alarm you? Do you honestly believe that a healthy society can be built upon such logic?

      PS. And actually the philosopher and the theologian would ask Why. The scientist would just be bothered with the How…

      Reply
      1. Francis Bede

        I will argue against any person who chooses to kill for pleasure, particularly hunters. But I can’t stop them. That wasn’t my original point. I can’t argue with whatever a person chooses to do. If there were really a God, then perhaps that God could or might or maybe intervene, but I can’t imagine it.

        I choose not to do harm. And this is one of my ways of contributing to a healthy society which hunters also do I’m sure. And my choices suit me, which so far suits my reasonably healthy society, good on yer Australia! I simply make them without a God and associated human coercion.

      2. skakos

        You completely miss the point I am trying to make. What I tell you is that you do not have ANY argument against someone who likes killing. And I am asking if that troubles you or not and you just keep repeating that “you choose not to do harm”. Cool.

      3. Brotherdave

        And the fact that you can’t argue against a god who just kills people for his own reasons does not alarm you?

        You see, in the end, you are still left with your own moral judgement. Calling on a god doesn’t help you. You must still make a choice based on your *own* reasoning and ethical thinking. You choose god because you think that’s the right thing to do. Could you be wrong? Of course! Could I be wrong in my moral choices? Of course! But in the end, we all must choose. God doesn’t help.

        As for why I believe that we can (and must) make moral choices separate from any belief in a supernatural overseer, you answered it yourself — to build a healthy society. Why do we need a healthy society? There are several answers, but one of them is because we need healthy individuals. If you have to ask, “Why do we want to be healthy?”, then I’m afraid you won’t be around long to engage in the discussion. Nature will select you and your decendents out, no god required.

      4. skakos

        The notion of free will and the idea that each and everyone of us is morally responsible for his own choices is a deeply christian way of thinking. Yes, we are responsible in what we choose I agree.

        The argument that we need to be moral in order to “build a healthy society” would not suffice though I am afraid. For Nazis a “healthy society” was a society without Jews…

      5. Brotherdave0000

        No, you can’t fool me by agreeing with me. Your belief is that we cannot trust our own moral sense, or perhaps you think we don’t even have one, separate from god. In other words we cannot make moral choices without god’s direction. Then how are we to choose to seek out and follow god? If we cannot trust our own choices, how do we know that choosing god is the right thing to do? How do we know god is good? If it’s just because god tells us he is good, then we are not making a moral *choice* at all. We are not acting as moral agents. We are just taking orders like a trained monkey. Or like a Nazi.

        Speaking of Nazis, your comment about societies doesn’t follow logically from what I wrote. I very clearly said that I felt healthy societies were necessary for healthy *individuals*. In other words, societies must work to serve *individuals*, not the other way around. Obviously, Nazi society did not fit the bill because many *individuals* were harmed by it.. you

      6. Brotherdave

        No, you can’t fool me by agreeing with me.

        If our moral sense cannot be trusted, if we must rely on god for all our moral reasoning, then how can we trust that we have made a moral choice to follow god? How do we know God is moral? Because he tells us? If so, we’re not acting as moral agents. We’re just following orders. Like a trained monkey. Like a good Nazi.

        Speaking of Nazis, your remark about them is a nonsequitur. I clearly said that I felt that healthy societies are necessary for healthy *individuals*. In other words, societies should serve individuals, not the other way around. Authoritarian societies like Nazi Germany are unhealthy too many individuals, and obviously do not fit the bill.

      7. skakos

        The notion of free will is something which stems out of the christian philosophy. What is more, the comment I made was mostly related to the fact that any moral code not founded on solid foundations cannot exist – since it will be definition constantly change. As simple as that.

  19. skakos

    That is the problem: If it is a “choice” then it is not about right and wrong. The discussion is about “choices”. So you cannot actually argue against someone who just “chooses” to kill people for no reason can you?

    Reply
  20. Francis Bede

    And yes it is a choice.

    Reply
  21. Francis Bede

    Just some simple questions. What can a believer do for God that an atheist can’t? To put it in another way. Is the character of an individual in relation to another individual God dependent? Can I be good without God?

    Reply
    1. skakos

      You can. And I am pretty sure you most probably will. But the question is WHY will you be good? Is it a matter of choice as in choosing spaghetti over pizza?

      Reply
      1. Francis Bede

        I like them both. I try to be “good” because I’m then nurturing my self esteem which hopefully can have a positive effect in my world.

      2. skakos

        The “whys” continue. Why do that? Why have a positive effect? There are people who want to have negative effect. Can you argue against those people?

  22. skakos

    I understand the point you are trying to make, however I disagree for multiple reasons. And I will explain why while I explain my view also on the matter.

    1. You say that you need to see something to believe it. Cool. First comment: People who believed in the miracles you mentioned above saw them. Second comment: These miracles were replicated. Yes by the same person. But again, they were replicated. So your objection is that YOU cannot replicate them? But you can. In the same way you can replicate the Casimir effect. With proper training (meditation leading to theosis is what religion calls it) and in proper conditions. The fact that you cannot resurrect people is very analogous to the fact that you cannot also replicate the CERN experiments. I would like to add a small historical note here: In the past science and religion were not separated. And they are still not separated in the minds of the greatest scientists. They both look for the truth, each one having its own scope and methods. Religion mainly for the metaphysical questions of the why, science mainly for the physical questions of the how. The separation was enforced from the Galileo case and onward from people wanting to promote that fake ‘war’ between science and religion which only exists in their minds.

    2. The Casimir effect does not answer the creation of the universe. Not even close. It just shows a phenomenon. This is not an answer to why the universe existed for ever. To be more exact: this is more like a mechanism to show how the universe was created – from ‘nothing’ based on laws and conditions someone/ something put there. So do not believe that you have done your part in ‘proving’ or showing something with regards to the question of how the universe was created. Some particles do not explain the creation of the super-heated ball of energy which caused the Big Bang. And replicating the Casimir effect experiment is not replicating anything related to the creation of the cosmos for sure.

    3. I believe (as you might have guessed) the Solution 1. I believe that someone/ something created the universe. This belief is based on evidence I have and on my logic. I see all events having a cause. So it is logical to say that the creation of the universe also has a cause. This is evidence combined with logic. Of course the First Cause does not have a cause and this is where the thing gets more complicated – or so it seems. Because if it is weird to have a cause without a cause, it is much more complicated (unnecessarily complicated – see Okhams razor) to imagine a whole universe with billions of galaxies existing without a cause. No solution is without problems, but Solution 1 has much less things to explain than Solution 2. So The First Cause argument is simply the simpler possible solution to a weird problem and, thus, the one which must be selected if we want to think as scientists. And to answer to the objection that we do not know the details of that First Cause or how it came to be, this is not relevant to the argument at THIS point. At this point we are trying to select which solution fits the data and our logic. Surely afterwards we will analyze the details of such a First Cause. But not knowing the details of that cause or its characteristics is like not knowing why and how the universe existed for ever but still believing this is the best solution. Or even better: it is like not knowing how and why the physics laws which cause the Casimir effect came to be. The question of the creation of the cosmos is difficult. I currently stand by the simplest solution.

    Reply
  23. Complete123_

    I understand what you are getting at; however I think there is some distortion of ideas on your part more so than my own. Solution 1: Something/someone created the universe. Requires some sort of thing or person. But I have not seen evidence that this is necessarily required. I have also seen no evidence that there is not some kind of alternative law that is in place prior to the laws we currently understand existing. I agree completely that it does not require ‘supernatural’. Nor does it require that it is something we understand currently as ‘natural’. This encapsulates my own ideas that one must follow the clues without believing in a conclusion. Hence my atheism. As an atheist I am not convinced we know of a solution to the beginning of the universe and have not been provided any evidence that any kind of being supernatural or otherwise could be or is the cause.

    Solution 2: Something has to be there. You are correct; a form of energy; virtual particles. Whatever you like to propose is a something that does not exist within our world as we understand it until they are called forth. In this case by two mirrors. This particular experiment defies the laws of nature as we currently know and identifies laws that we are not currently aware of showing that what we currently observe as something is not complete; and there is something in the realm of what we consider nothing. In terms of the particles that pull the mirrors together in the Casmir effect; they do not exist within our natural laws by our understanding until the correct situation occurs. Now; just ‘accepting’ them is not necessary. With the correct equipment and tools anyone can set up and demonstrate the same scientific experiment and recreate the result. This is the idea behind scientific progress. The same idea can be taken anywhere else in the world and demonstrated to be true by a totally different crew of people with the same results. To use your example; just accepting ‘the first mover’ in this way there by creating a correlation between the two ideas similar to ‘simply accepting the experiment’; I would need some kind of demonstrable occurrence that could be repeated by someone else in another location that can only occur as per the entity being tested. For instance if a miracle of water turning to wine could be demonstrated by two different people of the same belief via prayer. I would have a grounds for verification that such a religion would be considerable. Likewise if Voodooism was able to demonstrate that it could turn people into zombies (which was claimed) and then demonstrated (which it was somewhat; but not the zombie that we see in movies) a scientist can then test and verify the truth behind the claim. This lead to our identification of a previously unknown drug Tetrodotoxin being used in the rituals. While this is not demonstrable evidence of Voodoism as a belief being true; it has grounds for a demonstrable occurrence that was wrongly considered supernatural but was able to be tested. A verifiable claim.

    The distortion here is the inability to correlate evidence due to belief. If I was for instance to simply believe something; that two mirrors in a vacuum were being pushed together despite the evidence that it is an entirely empty chamber. I could have proposed that it was the hands of god pressing the mirrors together. However I do not hold this belief; that a god can interact with the physical world in demonstration. And because the Casmir effect was a predefined theory that was proven to be true on grounds of an understanding of the scientific idea; I can accept that the effect is likely (if not entirely understood; a well known quote “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” is a good way of putting it) to be the result of an understanding of the theory presented.

    Now in the last two posts I have responded to you giving information as I understand it and reasonable assertions and explanations for what I believe and why. You have not yet given me information on what you believe; why you believe it and how you came to the conclusions of your beliefs and what evidence you believe is reasonable and hold in this matter. I have been very forth coming and have requested the reconciliation of ideas of religion; explaining how and why they are reasonable beliefs and the evidence presented by them and historians should be taken as factual.

    I am very interested to hear what it is exactly you think and believe; if this is simply a debate that will continue to challenge my ideas without presenting your own then it is less of a debate and more of an interrogation. I can continue explaining why it is I as an atheist follow science but do not believe in the ideas of any kind of causal beginning without evidence, scientific or otherwise; but I think by now you must know my stance on the matter.

    Reply
  24. Complete123_

    I find the generalization of this argument to be frightening. It assumes that all atheists are angry; that they are quantum physicists and statisticians that have answers to the creation of the universe; and have a belief in science. More so if the debate is against someone that does have this information it continues to claim the argument from ignorance as I would assume that the theist generally wouldn’t have reasonable qualifications in Quantum Physics.

    I would put to you that assuming I am void of information; having no belief system. No understanding of the world around me; no insight to understand things defined within the English language. Only a blank slate ready to have information filled. The only devices I have to understand the world as a blank state is logic, reason and observation. By default I refuse all instances of special claims and require some kind of special pleading (eye witnesses that can not be verified, these scientists believe in god there for there must be a god, everything exists there for there must be a god etc).

    What can you offer me to convince me that your god not only exists; but is the one true god and creator of everything?

    Reply
    1. skakos

      There is no easy way to “convince” someone in these matters. One can only start from the basics and try to build a solid cosmotheory step by step. To begin with, do you accept the idea of the cosmos having a “Cause” (it does not matter how we call it, God, chair or stone)?

      Reply
      1. Complete123_

        The problem here is the identity of the word ’cause’. I will assume here that by ’cause’ you mean something that brought it into existence. A starting point.

        While I personally take the stance of it being extremely difficult to accept any information immediately; and am more interested not in deciding the universe ‘had a cause’ but instead only piecing together the evidence that would directly lead me to a cause if there was one to be presented; I do not jump to the immediate conclusion that there is a need to believe a cause must exist. So to answer your question I personally can not accept the idea of a cause without first understanding how a cause could have occurred. But likewise I can not deny that a cause may be a possibility without also knowing weather or not a cause could have occurred.

        Now; within the confines of the argument I presented; that I would only offer the argument using logic, reason and observation. I will attempt to appeal with this:

        The argument for the universe having a beginning is accepted reasonably by Christians and some Scientists.

        The Christian belief is that there is a prime mover. This prime mover is defined and proposed by what is appealed to as eye witnesses during the time of Christ and following through the resurrection. This was noted in a book which many historians have claimed to be true and use reason and logic to attempt to justify claims of a true existence while offering that a super natural occurrences happened that can not be explained or demonstrated by science. A once off that can not ever be demonstrated. (water to wine, resurrection, walk on water etc) and need to be accepted on faith alone that these supernatural circumstances indeed occurred because of the eye witnesses noted but not named within the book.

        Scientists claim that the universe was created from what they have redefined as ‘nothing’. The absence of matter and mass as we know it; but not necessarily completely devoid of any substance. They propose that something could have been started by nothing; for this I they provide evidence like the Casimir effect. Where two mirrors in a vacuum devoid of all substance draw each other together by ‘creating’ particles from their definition of nothing.

        On one hand I have been given interesting evidence that it is possible for forces to appear where there was once nothing. However I have not been given any evidence that a prime mover would be absolutely necessary to trigger these forces. On the other I have a special claim telling me that supernatural forces were in play and that such forces can not be reproduced or demonstrated as they are outside of the control of our current abilities within the confines of our universe. There for the controller must exist to make this possible.

        If I accept the conclusions being suggested by scientists; I must accept demonstrated claims of what could be considered extremely unique and unusual properties demonstrated by quantum physics. These tests can be repeated continuously with the same results.

        If I accept the conclusions being suggested by Christians; I must accept the proclamation that indemonstrable occurrences happened only once before unnamed eye witnesses and were noted down in a book which was passed along and translated over generations. As there are several other religions with ancient books depicting gods and creation; if I am to accept this I must give reasonable justification towards all other equally valid possibilities.

        What if anything would you offer a person like myself to reconcile such an issue?

        If I have gotten anything wrong please feel free to correct me. I don’t proclaim to be the be all end all knowledge of everything reasonable. This is purely information that I have acquired over time and I have only the desire to strengthen my arguments.

      2. skakos

        Actually you see things in a distorted way, perhaps because deep inside you feel it more easy to believe (this word always comes up in such discussions) one potential solution over the other. On one side you have Solution 1: Something/ someone created the universe. Then you have Solution 2: The universe existed forever. The first claim does not entail anything ‘supernatural’ unless you define the First Cause as supernatural. In the same way one could argue that the second solution also entails the ‘supernatural’ idea of an everlasting universe which existed and will exist for ever and ever. Also the evidence from quantum mechanics do not solve the problems of Solution 2, i.e. how the laws generating the particles out of nowhere came into existence for example. The Casimir effect does not come out of the blue – something has to be there: a physical law, the mirrors and a kind of ‘field’ to begin with. How these things got there are some of the problems people adhering to Solution 2 must explain. Just accepting them is like ‘cheating’, like someone supporting Solution 1 would claim the ‘First Mover’ as just… “being there”. Solution 1 does not refer to indemonstrable occurrences any more than Solution 2 which also claims something existing forever without ever being able to verify or observe such a claim. See what I mean?

        PS. And also I would like to add that the miracles you mentioned are not things which people believed with no evidence but exactly the opposite! Miracles were events made in a public way for people to see and believe. Miracles are actually there to support what you say: That in order to believe something you must experience and see it! 🙂

  25. alphachamber

    Sir, an axiom is the RESULT of a discovery, coming from rational thought and confirmed by reason.

    So, you believe in some things and you know none. Fine.

    You just move things into the ring of metaphysical battle between science and believe in order to stay inside your own realm. I do not egage in your aphorisms, i.e.:

    “…excluding the input from your prejudices (…) lead to the things which have the highest possibility of being actually true:” Can you offer any prove?

    Define “soul”!
    From antiquity to enlightenment it described certain intangible attributes or “mental matter”, much like the physicists had to think about an “ether” to explain the transmission of light or other phenomena. Nowadays, its indescribability lets it remain as a childisch tool for the mystics.

    If you re-check Gödel yourself you will find that he writes about mathematical concepts, not a subterfuge for phylosophical irrationalism.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Actually no. An axiom is not the result of rational thought. It is the beginning of a rational thought.

      Reply
  26. alphachamber

    @skakos Sir,

    1. Everything resulting from thought is by definition a “human construct”. Man is the measure of all things. Long before Descartes, St. Augustine of Hippo said “si enim fallor sum”. Ayn Rand finally korrekted Descartes 1/2 cty. later: “I exist, therefore I think”.

    2. “…which people like you believe are derived from “reason” where such a thing is arbitrarily defined.”

    What do you mean by “people like you”? What are YOU like? I don’t make any presumptions,

    Again: Everything human IS arbitrary, but we can agree on concepts, language, formulas etc. otherwise there would be no communication between man and not this dialog. If I refer to the sun, you know what I mean, without writing a lengthy description.

    3. I make a clear distiction between believe and knowing. Believe, for me, is always a religious act, (I don’t say: I BELIEVEI am going to have a bath, but: I THINK I am going…). Therefore, I KNOW what reason is. It is the basis for my life qua man. Reason lets me survive, be productive and enables me to reach my highest possible standards to my available faculties and attributes – if I so choose. Therefore, it is believe and religion which is arbitrary. Because you can CHOOSE to believe what you want – but in order to jump higher, you MUST develop your leg muscles.

    4. I don’t call on others for anything. It is only, when people in power infringe on my basic rights to live as a free and rational being through force and legislation, that I object. The greatest infringers on human rights are the ideologists, those who base their thoughts and actions on believe, religion and emotions.

    If it is all about a “baseline” for reality – think of your own survival.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      We are just discussing. No one is forcing anything on anyone. However we do have a disagreement on definitions: How do you define “reason”? Surely it is something based on rules, but who defines these rules? Regarding belief, no it is not something related to religion only. Belief is part of science as well. And logic also, especially at the part where you believe that the axioms you use to build your logical (reasonable) rules are ‘true’. On the other hand ‘knowing’ is something you will never achieve with anything with 100% certainty. Not accepting that is the beginning of dogmatism. And is may sound weird, but this would not be a religious dogmatism…

      Reply
      1. alphachamber

        I am trying to give you concretes; you, however, just repeat the same questions – without ever disclosing your own views or axioms.
        Just HOW is believe part of science? (epistemologically, through abstract, conceptual thought, imagination or deduction and, if possible through experimentation, one goes the path of discovery and knowledge).

        “…On the other hand ‘knowing’ is something you will never achieve with anything with 100% certainty.” Sir, I beg your pardon, that’s just metraphisical claptrap. This postulate leads to nowhere.
        You may be, or not a “religious” man who tries to pre(re)serve the “ultimate mystery”.
        I am comfortable with reality and certainty. So far, your objections haven’t brought us foreward or backward. Maybe you cannot shake your kantian thoughts? 🙂

      2. skakos

        I have already stated that all scientific theories begin with axioms, the correctness of which is a matter of belief. Regarding my philosophical view, let me make this clear since I understand that you are somehow confused: Not believing in the things scientism claims as “facts” and “certain” (too big words for a scientist to use, which automatically imply great illiteracy in basic philosophy) does not lead to nothingness or chaos. To the contrary: excluding the input from your prejudices (e.g. the inputs from senses which are subjective) lead to the things which have the highest possibility of being actually true: your own soul which defines your very existence.

        PS. And no, the “We cannot prove anything with 100%” is I am afraid true. Check your Godel bibliography. Or in any case think for yourself: if you start with arbitrary unproven axioms to formulate theories, how can you be certain for anything?

  27. alphachamber

    @Skakos said: 2017/01/27 at 6:24 pm

    My reply was to “Anthony said: 2017/01/24 at 3:36 am”
    He came up with the court room analogy.

    The ability to reason seperates beast from man. So I hope you do reckognize rationality. It means – among other things – “a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality.” Reality meaning the law of identity: A = A.

    If there were no certainty, nothing else would matter, not even moral or religion, wouldn’t it.

    Wittgenstein wrote:
    “If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning of your words either. If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty”.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      I agree that life and existence is autoanaphorical. Having said that, how can you speak to another person for rationality if he has build a cosmos in his own mind where indeed A=A but different that your “A”? Who defines “reality”?

      Reply
      1. alphachamber

        Sir,
        you are a very learned individual (I don’t even read classic Greek). But it seems you are mostly sniping, without hardly building a case for your own philosophical system. Did YOU get any further than to doubt everything?
        The acceptance of A=A presupposes reason. If A=A does not exist in someone’s, than this individual is commonly called an idiot. That doesn not mean I despise him as man, but won’t waste a second for a serious dialog.
        There are cultures, where “reason” is no more than pragmatism, and does not necessarily lead to logical thought; reason needs to be exercised and logic trained.

      2. skakos

        Reason is a human construct. No, A=A is a tautology which implies many things regarding philosophy but not reason per se. I am not doubting everything, just those things which people like you believe are derived from “reason” where such a thing is arbitrarily defined. Needing to have the others accept your opinions (about reason in this case) and calling them not to doubt everything is not reason – it is just fear to accept that what you know as foundations of your logic are not so solid as you believed…

  28. Harm Kramer

    I have a question for you. Can you close your eyes, and imagine anything, any sort of evidence whatsoever, that would make you change your position and stop believing in God?

    I know something that would make me believe in God: evidence. If He stepped down from heaven for a minute, and showed something that could not possibly be explained by the laws of nature. It should be really easy for Him, for He is omnipotent. Half the things He does in the Old Testament would qualify. Split a sea! Turn a river to blood and back! Anything, really.

    That is the difference between an atheist and a theist. An atheist changes his mind to whatever model suits the evidence the best. A theist never changes his mind.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Sure. If it is proved that something can be created randomly by itself and have attributes and qualities that seem designed, that would be something that I could consider for changing my mind. 🙂

      Reply
    2. skakos

      There is a lot of evidence which points to God. It is a matter of whether you want to see them or not. Being in Harmonia Philosophica is a good place to start. Enjoy! 🙂

      Reply
  29. Jon

    Can you give us some links to debates where you have ‘easily’ beaten atheists, so that we can check for ourselves that your advice actually works?

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Unfortunately I cannot since most of them are either in forums which I am not sure if I have the right to ‘advertise’ in such a way (in any case if you are a member there you should already know the discussions I had) or in private conversations. I am available for debate here and now though. What is better than that? 🙂

      Reply
  30. Илья Марголин

    Here is a nice long article which disproves not the “arguments” but the idea that one could easily beat an atheist in a debate: https://www.quora.com/Does-Harmonia-Philosophica-have-atheism-cornered

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Interesting. I will have a look. Thanks.

      Reply
    2. skakos

      Have posted an answer there as well. And answered many of the “answers” of other people.

      Reply
  31. Wesley Street

    Wow, there is so much straw in this essay you could build a dozen Strawman Arguments out of it.

    <>

    Starting off with a Strawman argument isn’t going to win any points in a debate. The only atheist assertion – based on a sheer and overwhelming lack of evidence of their existence – is that divine beings do not exist in the universe. Individual atheists have different takes on the universe based on their understanding of science.

    <>

    The cosmos that we exist in began as a high-density, high-energy state and suddenly expanded. There is abundant evidence that this happened because physicists can measure changing background radiation and the red/blue dopplering of objects in the greater universe.

    Why this happened is irrelevant because the universe operates the way it operates with our without human beings in it. “Why” questions only matter to people, not the universe. The universe doesn’t care about gods or humans. It doesn’t care that people think they need to have a purpose in life or that the universe should have meaning. The universe doesn’t care about anything. Caring is a human emotion, not a product of energy or mass. Humans created gods in their own image and assigned them human motivations. If human beings were to go extinct, so would our gods. Human beings who assign their personal preferences to how the universe works are, by definition, irrational. Which is the antithesis of scientific behavior and evidence based fact-making.

    <>

    Matter can create brains because brains are made up of the various elements that make up the universe – primarily carbon and other elements. Those elements form molecules which form proteins which is the building block of all life. Consciousness is a result of brains becoming more complicated due to external stimulus. All complicated biological forms including plants evolve due to stimulus. Human beings and higher lifeforms are no different. What we consider human consciousness is a result of our genetic ancestors’ need to survive and not get eaten by animals.

    <>

    I will never see my own brain. I know it exists. Also, this definition of “parallel universe theory” is based on bad science-fiction, not math and physics.

    <>

    Because it’s been rationally proven again and again by mathematicians and scientists.

    <>

    There’s no such thing as “faith based on logic and evidence” because faith is belief without logic and evidence.

    <>

    No, it does not. Science uses the scientific method – make an observation, think of a question, formulate a hypothesis, test, refine and re-test as needed, gather the data, develop a theory, then develop a Scientific Theory. At no part is faith a part of the process.

    <>

    No, it doesn’t. Scientific axioms have been proven through testing and re-testing and skeptical evaluation. The “love that Christ taught” was written down by men decades after his death and transcribed and re-transcribed. If you want to talk about the love that Christ taught, you better pick which version because the last time I checked there was Roman Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and whole bunch of different Protestant denominations.

    <>

    Again, another Strawman argument. Luck is a human belief and emotion, not a scientifically verifiable force in the universe.

    <>

    Logic isn’t the only foundation of skepticism and logic is only the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Aristotle codified the process of Logic, he didn’t found it. Aristotle also lived in a time when human beings though that the earth was flat. Einstein was a Jew who believed in God. He never proved God’s existence.

    <>

    The cornerstone of Christianity is Jesus Christ, a Jew who lived in bronze-age Nazareth. The Bible is made up of the Old Testament (aka what the Jews believe) and the New. You don’t get to separate the two because they’re inseparable. Even mainline Christians believe that. And don’t blame atheists for those Christians who use the Old Testament to push for oppression of gays or women. That’s not on you, not on us.

    <>

    No, the Enlightenment was the foundation of the free-thinking Europe. Christian Europeans were responsible for the Inquisition and whole lot of awful things that you aren’t fessing up to.

    <>

    To which I say, so? Yes, Christian monks had great libraries and created illuminated manuscripts. The Vatican had one of the world’s greatest telescopes and astronomy studies programs in the world. That doesn’t prove anything, other than Christians were studious and took good notes. You know who else is studious? Jews and Muslims (aka, the people who invented modern math). It’s not like Christians cornered the market on that.

    You know what happened to those medieval Christian thinkers and scientists who went against the Church’s doctrine? They got imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake by other Christians. Where was your Christ-like love then?

    <>

    Do you understand that a religion is made of people? If the people in a religion commit an act, it reflects, positively or negatively on that religion. You don’t get to separate the teachings of your religion from those who practice it because they’re one and the same.

    <>

    Oh, awesome. I was waiting for Islamaphobia to rear its head. This is the same line of logic that dictates that if the US hadn’t gotten involved in World War 2, America would be speaking German now. It completely invalidates economics, geography, sociology and a whole lot of other powerful factors that influence history.

    Religions don’t have “secular” aspects. Secular is an antonym for religious. The two can live in parallel but they’re not the same thing.

    <>

    And yet no evidence is presented to back up this statement.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Let’s start from the… beginning. You claim that “The cosmos that we exist in began as a high-density, high-energy state and suddenly expanded. There is abundant evidence that this happened because physicists can measure changing background radiation and the red/blue dopplering of objects in the greater universe.” Religion and discussions about God do not claim that this is not true. What is in question here is what is the cause of that cause. If you claim that this is the First Cause, then you will have to explain why. Cheers! 🙂

      Reply
    2. skakos

      You claim “Consciousness is a result of brains becoming more complicated due to external stimulus.”. But every EVIDENCE we have is PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE with BOTH the idea of the brain producing consciousness AND with the idea that brain is a mere receiver of consciousness. 🙂 And if you claim that brain produces consciousness you should tell us how this is done. 🙂

      Reply
    3. skakos

      Logic is the beginning of reason for you. Fine. Who defines what is logical? 🙂

      Reply
    4. skakos

      Where did you see “islamophobia”? LOL.

      Reply
    5. skakos

      Enlightenment values are all about defending the right of other people to have an opinion, UNLESS it is a religious one. 🙂

      Reply
    6. skakos

      Yes, religion is practiced by people. And so is science. So?

      Reply
    7. Callum Fraser

      A quick thing, Einstein did not believe in god. He often used the word god but his definition was that God was the universe… Sort of.

      Reply
  32. David Shelton

    I only have to read the first point to understand that you are providing ways to lose in an argument, and you are unnecessarily biased against atheists. If you would like to take the chance to debate me, I’m fine doing it via email or even Skype for simplicity. Maybe you’ll see my “anger” if you look really, REALLY hard. You can make any claim, provide any evidence. Use your Bible if you really think you need to. Go ahead and try me, an atheist for 4 years, and debater for less than 1.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Why are you an atheist?

      Reply
  33. Missa

    #1. *rolls eyes at this*

    #2. Most all Christians who want to debate my atheism with me rely so heavily on the Old Testament more than anyone else I know. They also tend to be focused on the perceived sins of others, than love and acceptance preached in the Bible.

    Now, the other Christians who do not want to have a debate on atheism with me are the exact opposite, they want a discussion and focus on love and acceptance and believe it’s god’s lace to judge when it’s time. All they want to do is learn about my perspective and I like to learn about their’s too.

    #3. As an atheist, I agree the whole ‘look how bad Christians in the past and present are’ is stupid and doesn’t do anything.

    #4. I know many people who have science and their religious beliefs working in harmony together. I do not agree that religion is the why. I don’t need a why and science also provides us with many why’s and many more ‘we don’t know why yet’s’

    #5. ‘This is how atheists who debate are most of the times: Rude and aggressive.’ Goes both ways in my experience. Those who want a discussion and not a debate are what we need from all atheist and religions.

    #6. Atheist don’t want to control life, you cannot always control it, but we can work understand it. Telling us god will help us control it more is like us telling believers god isn’t real.

    #7. ‘Do not accept statements as arguments’ is correct for all sides debating.

    #8. ‘Hit them when they believe they are the strongest.’ yet another reason debating is dumb and pointless. It should be discussion and learning from both sides, then and only then can we really understand each other.

    #9. Yes, both sides should leave in peace and be happy with the discussion they just had and an imaginary war between science and religion that works for some is pointless too.
    As for ‘Atheists are fed with rage and anger.’ total BS and my god loving husband will tell you it’s farthest from the truth. His first comment after learning I was an atheist was “But you are so good and moral and nice.” He had been taught and brought up on many of the fallacies you have in your article, just like their are many fallacies people have with each other or other religions that are just ridiculous.

    Atheism is not an excuse, nor is there ‘so many arguments in favor of religion and in favor of the idea of an immaterial consciousness/ soul.’ You may believe that and that is fine for you, but don’t try and project it as truth or correct.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Thanks for the comment. The article refers to the common atheist, not to any possible exceptions out there. And yes, I too have discussed with atheists who are not rude. And I have surely discussed a lot with Christians who are. However remember that the exception only verifies the rule. You claim that life cannot be controlled, only understood. You also claim that science provides many ‘whys’. Regarding what? Has science explained why we exist? Why we laugh and cry? Why we must love each other? I would like to learn why you ‘rolled eyes’ at the #1 point. And I would also really like to understand how much of religion is true according to your logic and experience. Do you find value in religion? Do you believe religion conveys some truth anyway?

      Reply
      1. TomClement

        Skakos, when you say “remember that the exception only verifies the rule” do you really mean it. When presented with evidence that something you have said is wrong, do you conclude or argue that it proves you are right. Honestly, I would think this violates your own dictate that one should “not accept statements as arguments.”

        I’m sure you would like to be perceived as an honest and honorable communicator, but this kind of statement doesn’t engender that perception.

      2. skakos

        I am just stating my experience with debating atheists. Of course you are free to express your disagreement.

  34. atheism

    Why the Christian God and not the Muslim?

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Christianity speaks about love. Islam speaks about killing the non believers. If you cannot find differences between these two, then you are simply blind.

      Reply
      1. fcya

        my point is here we are going to lose in our debate

  35. Mandy

    Curiosity doesn’t equal belief

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Of course not. That is why they are two different words… 🙂 Your point?

      Reply
  36. alphachamber

    sorry for the errors:
    “…It is foolish to debate things man may know.” Should read:
    It is foolish to debate things man may n e v e r know.

    Reply
    1. skakos

      OK.

      Reply
  37. alphachamber

    Any debate can be “won” by posing wrong, irrelevant questions.
    Firstly, the atheist does not b e l i e v e. He accepts reality and seeks for the truth,
    a religious man simply accepts and believes his story-tellers. You should debate physicall evidence. It is foolish to debate things man may know.
    And if you do believe in a god – then, reason is his greatest gift to man for his survival. If not through reason how would the pious man have discovered god?

    Reply
    1. skakos

      Nothing can be “known” with 100% certainty. Thus, a percentage of belief is incorporated in almost everything we say regarding philosophical questions of existence. What is the “evidence” supporting the idea that the world existed for ever? (on the other hand there are numerous cases which show us that something as carefully designed as the cosmos we live in, must have a “designer”) What is that “reality” you refer to? Something objective only atheists have access to?

      Reply
      1. alphachamber

        The basic argument should not be between atheism and belief, but between reason and irrationality.
        Thomas Hobbes: “The unformed matter of the world was a god called chaos.”

      2. skakos

        OK.

        Some questions:

        1. Who defines what is “rational”? What are the foundations of “rationality”? Who defines them?

        2. Do you believe life can be explained with rationality? Is life rational? Nietzsche said a lot against rationalism. Do you accept this great (so called) “atheistic” philosopher?

        3. The rationalism of Aristotle told him that there is a God. Do you accept the FOUNDER of Logic as… “rational”?

    2. Anthony

      “Firstly, the atheist does not b e l i e v e. He accepts reality and seeks for the truth,
      a religious man simply accepts and believes his story-tellers.”

      Is seeking to accept reality and seeking for the truth not a belief as to how life should be lived or thought of? As such atheists do believe, just not in God as it were. Saying one should not, or does not hold beliefs is in itself a belief that holding beliefs is wrong. But where did this right and wrong come from? Stating “I have no beliefs” shows that one is simply substituting the word ‘think’ for ‘believe’. I maintain that atheists hold a moral code themselves. Their morality is determined by their subjective experiences and partial knowledge of the smoking gun of creation.

      The second problem is that you imply the other side of the debate is not intellectual in their pursuit of the truth. For the reasons mentioned in this article regarding the history of intellectual theists and Nobel laureates, that is untrue. It is childish to say anyone accepts stories at face value or else I would believe you and your assertions without ever reasoning something for myself. The morality of the church goers would change on every whim, but that is also not the case. The beliefs of modern Christian theists are nearly identical to those held over two thousand years ago. People are presented the same facts or data, just as inside a courtroom and arrive at very different conclusions.

      Reply
      1. skakos

        Believing that you have no free will or spirit or consciousness and that you are just… matter I would say that it actually IS very “non-intellectual” in any case. Atheists create their own world based on their beliefs, as any other man does. This is not inherently bad. What is bad is their strong belief that they have some kind of “magical” connection with “reality” when even the greatest philosophers cannot agree even on its existence. And another “small” problem they have is that their beliefs require much more axioms to stand than the belief theists hold…

      2. alphachamber

        1. You play with words. Believe is not a “substitute” for think, but there is a difference between believe and knowledge or certainty. If there were no certainty, you could not even trust your first thought or believes and you would be left without any reason.

        2. Yes rational man has a moral code, but it is based on the rationality of man’s life qua man. Something you seem to have never explored.

        3. “The beliefs of modern Christian theists are nearly identical to those held over two thousand years ago.”
        Rubbish!!! Learn more about the history of religion. You believe in words by man, those words or text have been amended and rewritten and translated (partially totally wrongly) a hundred times.
        I hope, I will never be tried with you as judge in “your courtroom”, Sir!

      3. skakos

        You are not in any ‘courtroom’. 🙂 Where did that come from anyway? You speak about “knowledge with certainty”. Please tell me: What do you know for “certain”? You also speak about the moral beliefs of a rational man. So you say that ethics is based on rationality? And what if the rationality of a person tells him that he must kill someone in order to survive? Who defines what is “rational”? You? All comments are welcomed. No one is judged. 🙂

Discover more from Harmonia Philosophica

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Verified by ExactMetrics