This discussion may surprise some of you, people usually put logic and atheism in the same sentence, some people even claim that to be completely rational one has to be an atheist. Today I hope to show you the absurdity of Atheism, not weak atheism, but strong, militant atheism. After reading the ‘God Delusion’ I thought Dawkins had thrown religion and my beliefs into a garbage bin; I had lost my faith and became what they call a ‘skeptic’. However, instead of committing intellectual suicide and becoming an atheist, I was an Agnostic Deist for quite some time; I couldn’t rule out God as I had no reason too or empirical evidence to do so.
I somehow or other got my faith back (or more so destroyed my skeptical self and instead of saying, ‘I doubt it.’ Saying, ‘perhaps.’) and then it struck me, atheism is some what irrational. There are always reasons why one does or does not believe in something. For example I don’t believe in Santa because there is no man on the North pole and it is a fact that Santa was created by Coca Cola. I have reasons not to believe in pokemon, flying tea pots or even a flying spaghetti monster. When I ask an atheist why they do not believe in God, they have no rational reasons to deny His existence none, zero, nada. This is rather odd, many atheists are famous scientists who are used to using empirical evidence and observation their whole lives and yet make the illogical conclusion that God does not exist. Dawkins thought that evolution proved that God was not in existence but was by humans (which is a big assumption). Dawkins has not ‘disproven’ God, he has dismissed a God some fundamentalists believe in.
A reason for a belief or lack of belief is a necessity for something to hold any weight.
Premise 2 needs to be backed up by something. Think about it for a second, any non belief you have is backed up by reason; you do not believe not believe n Zeus because you do not believe in him, you have some concrete reasons not to believe he exists. Perhaps even the Judeo-Christian God, you have reasons to dismiss. But you can not logically dismiss God. A being who created the universe may exist.
Some people will then try to bring in the flying tea pot argument, 'We can never dismiss that a flying tea pot does not exist, should we believe in it?' When rational people are talking about God they do not give Him any form (They may imagine He has a brown beard and appears somewhat Jewish) but we have no idea the form of God. God and the flying tea pot are not on the same page, one would have to use scientific evidence and observation to see if a flying tea pot exists. One can not see God, therefore we enter the realm of meta-physics. So what are your guys views? I will take back what I said about atheism being irrational if I am proven wrong (note: I am talking about strong atheism, not weak).
You need to re-read what I wrote about knowledge and evidence. I tried to make the point that there is no such think as absolute knowledge, maybe I should have said that more strongly. I gave 3 examples to illustrate what I was trying to say, including 2 regarding standards of evidence in legal cases. You are of the opinion that some atheists (strong atheists) are irrational. I tried to give my examples so that you'd understand that there are different degrees of knowledge and varying degrees of evidence needed to support that knowledge. I maintain that if evidence can support the knowledge claim then it is not irrational to make that knowledge claim.
I disagree with you that evidence is subjective, evidence is objective. But yes, it can be interpreted differently by different people. For example, I interpret the fact that so many children suffer horribly in this world to negate the existence of god (or at least a god that is loving and worthy of worship). And, I feel comfortable saying that in light of this fact, I "know" there is no god. Others interpret the fact differently - some religious people, for example, believe that the god in which they believe has his reasons that we human can't understand. But, do you think that my interpretation is irrational?
But really I want to make the point that it is not irrational in the least to say that one knows god or gods don't exist. (In some ways it is semantics anyway people use "to know" and "to believe" interchangeably even if that isn't the most artful usage.) Because no one knows anything "for a fact" I am not sure what that even means. If it means that one has access to all possible facts/evidence that could ever be imagined to support or negate a knowledge claim than okay then, if that is what is required to make a knowledge claim then anyone, ever making any kind of knowledge claim would be, from your point of view irrational.
If that is the standard, how would one go about gathering enough evidence to meet your standard? Let's forget about god for a minute and take unicorns. I feel quite comfortable saying that I know unicorns don't exist, I'd even say I know for a fact they don't exist. Is it irrational for me to make this claim? If you say it isn't I need to tell you that I have never even considered any evidence, never researched unicorns at all to support my lack of belief in unicorns!!
Therefore your interpretation of the Gospels is correct:
Thus Jesus existed, was crucified and arose to rise to heaven.
So much for rationality and logic.
I kind of see where you're coming from, however I have to disagree with your idea. (your initial statement, that is). First, when you ask an Atheist why they don't believe in God, most of the time the Atheist has MANY reasons as to why they do not believe in the idea that a God (as described in the Bible, Qur'an) could exist. THERE IS AN INSURMOUNTABLE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE.
1)It was impossible for Jesus to walk on water, unless the Laws of Physics were somehow changed for that instant of time
2) Moses couldn't have parted the Red Sea just by what you call "faith" and "belief", since these ideas in their own right are irrational experiences that are completely based on the subjective experiences of each observer. you remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Well, the same ideas can be extrapolated to multi-atom objects. just by our own observations of "God's Divinity" or whatever have you, one cannot logically claim that, because they have "experienced" God, that God exists UBIQUITOUSLY. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that one cannot know both the Velocity and Position vectors of a particle simultaneously; so just by observing a particle (ie, shining light on something to find out its position), you influence that particle and change your subjective reality (by shining the light, you change velocity by slowing the particle down, by pinpointing velocity, you do not know where the position of the particle lies).
So let's extrapolate this one step further. If God came to you (hypothetically speaking, of course) and you experienced the "brilliance of the Gospels through Him", you still have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF PROVING "HE" EXISTS. Just because you have claimed to have seen or heard something, we cannot believe it until sufficient evidence concludes that God in fact exists in reality. Your own observations influence whether or not God may or may not exist in your mind, so you cannot demonstrate whether "He" exists. Your own subjective experiences are completely unique to your mind... so, in effect, you may be perceiving something in YOUR MIND that may not actually exist. what is this? It's a psychological disorder, known as DELUSIONAL PERSONALITY DISORDER.
As far as I am concerned, however, I tend to think of God in the following way: God exists and does not exist at the same time. My reasoning for this involves the Schrödinger's Cat Paradox. Look it up on Wikipedia.
*I would like to add, that, in my reference to God in the final paragraph, I am IN NO WAY referring to the humanistic, primitive "God" of the Qur'an, Old and New Testaments, and other religious texts. I am referring to some type of "thing" (use your imagination) that is completely out of our realm of understanding. there are many things we don't understand in the universe (some may call it the multi-verse), however there is no excuse for deference to ignorant religious beliefs that have ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDING IN LOGIC AND PHYSICS and abstractions so unintelligible that, in the past 300 years, "scholars" of religion have had to continuously redefine what "faith", "belief", "God", and other terms in light of Science's continuous push towards understanding. religion, not the idea of something we don't understand, is obsolete then.