By Matt Buchanan and Scott Ellis
September 5, 2011
via Sydney Morning Herald
They may be godless heathens but the atheists are an altruistic bunch at heart, with the aim of their convention next year being not to annoy the religious, but to save them from themselves. ”We’re not so much people who don’t believe in God, but people who have realised there’s absolutely no evidence for any of the 3000 gods and that, considering the harm that is wrought by the mass belief in this delusion, we need to start looking at the world, politics and human relations in a rational manner so that we may survive for at least a few more generations,” the Atheist Foundation president, David Nicholls, said. Belief, he said, might just kill us all. ”[Religion] has the potential to end the human race,” he said. ”If enough people who consider that their god wants them to destroy people who have other gods, and they have the weaponry to do so, [it] creates such a situation that none of us may survive.” Nicholls said he expected thousands of like-minded atheists to attend the convention in Melbourne next April where (surprise!) arch deity-denier Richard Dawkins is to speak. And yes, they’re also expecting a few protesters from those who think he’s as nuts as he thinks they are. ”There will be a few of them who think we’re the son of Satan or something like that,” Nicholls said. ”They don’t get it.”
Sounds like an interesting topic this year. I won’t be there, but as a Christian I’ll take the opportunity to be celebrating reason along with you all.
Haha! Good one, Tim.
Lol! Tim that is comic genius!!!! Because God and reason are binary opposites.
I wasn’t joking Jane! Jesus says the most important command is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.” In case you missed it, “Love … God with all your … mind.”
Rational thinking is very important for most Christians I know. It’s important to examine the evidence that exists for the existence of God. Many atheists have done so and come to a different conclusion to what I have. That does not mean that only one side is using rational thought. As a lawyer I often see judges examine the same evidence and yet come to conflicting conclusions. The same is true with atheism and Christianity.
That is where Mr Nicholls is being misleading. He states that “there is absolutely no evidence” for any god. That statement is clearly false. Evidence does exist for the existence of god. Sure, he might (and probably does) think that the evidence is rubbish. And he could quite reasonably assert that no proof of any god exists. I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven, although I believe the evidence does point towards the fact that Jesus is God. But to deny the existence of any form of evidence for any god is ridiculous. Jane, I could very well say “Good one Mr Nicholls!”
Is that really the sort of “reason” you will be celebrating at the conference?
Lets see, hummm, the sort of reason is that which says that the burden of proof for the existance of god lies not with us who see it as pretty looney from about a thousand different angles, but with you, the believers and those of you who want or demand others to believe – its your belief, and fine if you want to have it even though there’s not a single good reason for doing so. But when you insist on spreading the word then you have the onus. By the way, on what day did your god create the fossils? Um, that sort of reason I suppose. You really should get along you know. Cheers, J
“But when you insist on spreading the word then you have the onus.”
Interesting. Given, “the aim of their convention next year being not to annoy the religious, but to save them from themselves.” and “considering the harm that is wrought by the mass belief in this delusion, we need to start looking at the world, politics and human relations in a rational manner so that we may survive for at least a few more generations”
Both imply the insistence of spreading the word (or rather, unsupported assertions and sweeping generalisations). So does not the burden of non-existence lie within this convention?
One can’t take the rational high ground while also purporting all else to be a ‘mass delusion,’ whereby any rational thought in politics or world events are completely ignored – Christianity, Buddhism and others have produced some marvellous thinkers, activists and philosophers seeking to aid the human race.
If you wish to speak reason to save humanity, then (i) know your foe, and (ii) acknowledge that treating them like an idiot at the outset will not work on any ground to win one over. Rational fail.
The smug arrogance of most neo-athiests is shameful. Coming across as knowing very little about humanity, history or philosophy – learning little of the world and giving little back. Celebrating reason my foot! Sounds more like a thinly-veiled convention of back-slapping and superiority complexes. Totally helping the human race, i’m sure… or rather, Dawkin’s bank account.
At least Davo below has sought a level headed discussion.
Jonno, yes, of course Christians usually have the onus. I never denied that, yet for some strange reason atheists seem to love to randomly bring up the argument you’ve just outlined in the most irrelevant areas. Hardly the best example of the rational thought which atheism supposedly brings. It’s the equivalent of the students who turn up at the exam and blurt out everything they know no matter what the question. Not very rational at all.
PS, good points Josh.
This is a response to Josh:
“So does not the burden of non-existence lie within this convention?”
Does the burden of proof of the non-existence of Russel’s teapot, FSM, Zeus, Thor, Krishna or any other similar entity lie within ANYONE? No. There is no such thing as burden of proof for a non-claim.
The atheist position is the position that your claim (gods existence) has not met is burden of proof (therefore we reject said claim); by suggesting that we have a burden of proof on the claim of atheism is to say (and make sure you read this correctly):
We (atheists) must provide proof for our claim of your not meeting the burden of proof.
That’s the most inane statement I’ve ever produced… equivalent to “You can’t prove that I didn’t jump 10 feet high, therefore I did it!”
And if we switched places and changed the argument to the existence of the invisible cat sitting on top of my head, you would see exactly why your argument is fundamentally flawed and stupid.
You start with “Jesus says”. How do you know he said it? You’re quoting a gospel, and they are totally problematic. It’s possible Jesus was a total construct. Ever heard of higher criticism?
Tim makes an excellent observation. I describe myself as a “non-superstitious follower of Jesus”. Did he exist? Non-religious evidence suggests he did (he’s mentioned in contemporary Jewish and Roman writing – not much, admittedly, but he is mentioned). What religion has turned Jesus into, however, is a whole different question! And I suspect the Jesus of the religious is little or nothing at all like the man he may well have been.
This is a reply to Alistair P D Bain:
You must be very careful when you claim “Non-religious evidence suggests [Jesus existed]“. You must take this evidence as saying that an influential man named something like Jesus existed and said some nice things; NOT as that he was anything more than a simple man with some poetic ability.
If you’re using the evidence of his existence as evidence that he was in any way divine, you are misleading yourself.
So when you say you’re a non-superstitious follower of Jesus, does that mean you believe he was just a man that said a few nice things? No god, no holy spirit, no ghosts, no supernatural; nothing. Is that the case? Because if not, you’re still superstitious; maybe not as much as others, but it’s still there.
You assert “But to deny the existence of any form of evidence for any god is ridiculous.”
Why is that? Could you provide this evidence?
“It’s important to examine the evidence that exists for the existence of God.”
What evidence do you speak of?
Reasoning is what has led me to understand that the god claimed of christianity could not possibly exist, mainly due to the omni-max paradox, which shows an all loving, all powerful, all knowledgeable god is impossible.
Davo, thanks for the reply. Sorry, but I don’t have the time to outline the arguments for the existence of God on an internet forum. I just wanted to highlight that it is irrational to claim no such evidence exists, even if some would claim that it is poor evidence.
I’ll use the example which you have raised to illustrate my point. From investigating the omni-max paradox, you’d know that arguments for and again have been put forward. Of course, you believe that the arguments on one side are stronger than the other. However, to claim that no Christian responses to the omni-max paradox exist would be deceitful. You could, however, legitimately claim that no “good” Christian responses exist. However, I believe good responses to the problem of suffering and evil etc etc etc do exist.
Similarly, anyone who has legitimately investigated the potential existence of a god would know that arguments on both sides exist. To claim that no evidence for god exists is deceitful, plain and simple. But to claim that no “good” evidence for god exists is a legitimate opinion, although one I personally disagree with.
Hope that helps.
OK more claims by you, that it is irrational to claim no such god (as the christian god, to whit I was talking about in regard the omni-max paradox) does not exist.
I asked for evidence, yet you cannot provide one bit of solid, indisputable evidence.
The omni-max paradox is just that, a paradox. It is not logical. To state that it is logical to believe that a god can somehow get around this is irrational.
Just look at omniscience and omnipotence.
1/ An omniscient being knows all future and past facts, including all possibilities and experiences any of those possibilities could have.
2/ This means these facts are unchangable as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, there is no way these facts were not known.
3/ The result is the existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future as it already knows what it would change, it knows EVERYTHING.
4/ The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.
5/ But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.
Now please explain how it is simply a ‘belief’ on my part that this shows the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence, and this is simply one side of a coin with your ‘belief’ that there is some way around this.
Could you explain to me how omniscience and omnipotence are compatible properties?
I haven’t at all said arguments don’t exist, I have put forward that when comparing the arguments, religious belief suspends our normal rationality of the balance in favour of the belief. It tries to fit things into the belief, rather than weigh the two positions, as is the rational way to approach the information.
That’s a cheery shot of Christopher Hitchins you’ve got there. A wonderful advertisment for the joys of atheism.
Come on Chris, cheer up you old bugger. See, it’s the end of the film…..
I guess, considering the dude’s dying of inoperable cancer, one can understand a trifle back-peddling on the unrestrained joy front… Sadly, because of his ill health, it’s highly unlikely he’ll be able to travel to the conference anyway. I hope he is able to make it because at his best he’s intelligent, articulate, insightful, and just plain funny.
Guys,
May I know whether the self-proclaimed atheists contributing on this thread of discussion are the ones disenchanted with one particular religion or have they thoroughly analysed all of the world religions without exception and come to the conclusion that they have? This understanding will help me post accordingly my views.
Regards
Prashanth
I am atheist as I do not have a belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with being ‘disenchanted’ with a religion.
There is no sufficient evidence to show the possibility of a god exists enough for me to believe that one does.
Belief is a positive assertion, a held concept that a god exists is truth. I cannot hold something to be true that I have no evidence for.
While I agree that demanding or coercing others to believe in God is wrong, proclaiming the existence of God as a matter of truth and encouraging and inviting others to find out for themselves about the reality of God is within the tenets of human liberty. It’s certainly democratic to profess and practice one’s religion.
But if one is to proclaim the existence of a god is truth, one should expect others to question that claim. There is nothing wrong with that, I would question the proclamation from someone that Elvis still lives and works in a 7-Eleven.
The reality however is that those making such belief claims, then turn around and demand such beliefs are respected at the same time as demanding rights above and beyond others in our society for holding them.
Good debate going on here.
For those that speak of the irrationality of Christians who believe there is a God – check out Francis Collins and Anthony Flew. They may not change your mind but they are worth a look at because Hitchens et al at least have some respect for these guys.
I mentioned it above, you might like to show me the rationality in the paradox of believing in an omniscient and omnipotent entity.
There are many issues such as that. Pointing at people like Flew etc doesn’t help, it simply supports the position that many christians beliefs are not rational and they simply avoid that.
With regards Flew, his arguments are terrible btw, Richard Carrier has pointed this out very well over and over again, you can read about his comments on Flews latest book here and the complete ignorance of basic evolutionary principles.
Now this may sound all good to yourself looking for support for your beliefs, but not to others with a more critical mind.
With regard Francis Collins, have a read of Sam Harris scathing review of his book The language of god, called ‘The Language of Ignorance“
How do you know that you have a more critical mind than me?
Because you refuse to approach the critical examination of the god concept in regards the paradox as presented.
To be critical of your position is to question it. Unfortunately most religious belief systems make faith a virtue.
If you are not being critical of the god concept then you are less critical than me, who is.
How do you know that I refuse to approach the crtical examination of the God concept? Note that I’m assuming that we are both defining “critical” as – “careful, exact evaluation and judgement”
If we go back to the omni-max issue – where does Christianity claim that God is omniscient and omniscient?
Davo – I am interested to know what you make of Jesus Christ. Do you think he existed? If yes then who was he? Was he who he claimed to be?
I don’t ‘make’ anything of him, I have no idea if he existed nor is it relevant if he did or not. There is a lack of evidence let alone evidence he was divine, especially during a time that everything was seen as magical and mystical and was attributed divinity by many.
I see no reason at all to believe the claims of others that this fellow was divine, even if he did exist. Christianity is just one of many gods in which I fail to believe.
Same reason you don’t believe the scriptures of Vishnu are truth is the same reasons I don’t believe in your claims your scriptures are truth.
Yeh – the claims of Christianity hang heavily (totally) on the reliability of the Bible and of Christ doing & saying what the Bible says he did & said. If that stuff gets refuted then Christianity collapses (i.e. if Christ didn’t die & the resurrection didn’t happen etc). I guess it has met the standard for me but not for you.
I am interested to know how you know that Christ lived in a time when “everything was seen as magical and mystical and was attributed divinity by many”?
I don’t have to refute christianity anymore than refute the existence of leprechauns.
It is up to the person making a claim to substantiate it.
And during jesus time, there was heaps of sects and cults around different people, remember the jews were waiting for a messiah, and there was plenty of hopefuls. We see this in historical writings such as Josephus and Tacitus, which mention many of them and what they believed.
Ok so let me put it another way: the claims of Christianity hang heavily (totally) on the reliability of the Bible and of Christ doing & saying what the Bible says he did & said. If that stuff isn’t proven to be true then Christianity collapses
What do Tacitus & Josephus have to say about Christ?
Nothing.
Josephus had a paragraph later inserted that claimed a christian view which interrupts the flow of the text and Tacitus wrote of what christians believed.
Josephus for example had extensive writings in regard all sorts of things (down to the cost of produce at the markets, local thieves etc) and was clinical in his recording of history. Outside of that one passage that has general agreement was inserted at a later date by a christian, Josephus lists about 20 Christus, a very common name just as Jesus was, in the time Jesus was supposedly said to have existed. Christus (or Messiah) was used by many of the many prophets walking the streets of the time, hoping to be the savior the jews expected. Anyone that believed in christus was effectively christian, and this covered all the jews as they all believed in a coming messiah, or ‘anointed one’.
Anyway, as you say
.. and since it hasn’t, then Christianity collapses. (as a truth claim anyway!)
Righto. Strange that Christianity then managed to gain “traction” given all of those things – particularly in the first 100 years or so.
It’s funny how the idea that the MMR vaccination gives children autism has gained as much traction in the past 10 years as it has… There’s a sad fact about the human race: the vast majority of it are stupid and gullible.
We’ve been working against this for quite a while, developing our knowledge, educating people and making it easier for anyone to access such breadth of knowledge in the palm of their hands; and to put it bluntly: people don’t want it.
Many people, I’ve noticed in my lifetime, have this unreasonable fear of knowledge and information. Epistemophobia is a very significant part of our culture, propagated through social constructs, the mass media and from parent to child. Nerds and geeks are seen as losers, scientists are seen as crazy lunatics that blow stuff up, philosophers are seen as nutbags that babble incomprehensible rubbish…
Mass media outlets and the corporate world have been dumbing down their product more and more, driven by demand from the public to not want to think as much. Science journalism very rarely includes any actual science in it, the software industry is being driven to less functional but easier user interfaces… The iPhone has one function button on the front, where Android devices have 4-5; these extra buttons are often touted as a nuisance and a hindrance to ease-of-use, even though they provide an avenue for much more in-depth interaction.
These are all examples of how the population of (at least) the western world do not want to have to know too much or think too hard. Just because a lot of people are of a particular belief, doesn’t mean they’ve thought about it in any way, shape or form.
In any case:
Christianity gained traction through war and conquest, not on the merit of their claims; Islam did the same thing a few hundred years later. The point is, just because the religion’s popularity holds steadfast, doesn’t mean that it is in any way truthful or relevant.
I’d also add in regard the reliability of the bible, specifically the claims of a god in it that is omni-max, is one of the leading reasons I cannot believe in such a god presented by the christians, or most other religions for that matter.
How do you resolve the omni-max paradox?
I presented a logical argument above in the comments in regard omniscience and omnipotence, and generally this is met with the same kind of responses from christians. They generally avoid engaging in the discussion at all and simply ask questions back, which I answer but they don’t seem to answer mine. They just avoid it basically.
Conversation works both ways. I am happy to have a real discussion.
Where do I go to read the best description of the omni-max paradox?
Claims of a god being all powerful, all knowing, all loving etc etc. This is a common claim with those of faith. It is backed by theological positions.
Just on omnipotence (the ability to do anything), we see references such as Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27 (with god all things are possible). The greek pantokrator (Παντοκράτωρ), or all powerful, was translated as Almighty. God all powerful.
There are plenty of descriptions of the problems that omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence bring just in themselves and also when combined as attributes.
If you are really interested you can view a discussion I had as a debate with a theist on “An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical” with myself on the negative, putting forward my position.
http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=5865
Feel free to approach the paradox as presented in short form above ^^ which you seem to be avoiding. I would be interested in seeing your critical evaluation of the logic.
Fair go Dave – I’m not avoiding it. I just asked you how to get more info on it. I had a quick look at that link. I will need to read it all pretty slowly to get my head around it. Cheers for the info
Apologies if it seemed I was having a shot, I meant it more generically than that but see that I could have come across that way in my writing style, been guilty of that before!
Here I have summarised my thoughts on it as I posted above … if it’s easier :
1/ An omniscient being knows all future and past facts, including all possibilities and experiences any of those possibilities could have.
2/ This means these facts are unchangable as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, there is no way these facts were not known.
3/ The result is the existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future as it already knows what it would change, it knows EVERYTHING.
4/ The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.
5/ But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.