[lorriman]

A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy ideas than real psychology/neuroscience.

Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims:

"Science is not compatible with religion."

Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had google doodles recently.

"Evolution and creationism are not reconcileable."

But Christianity has never had a formal dogma that the Bible is literally true as a historical document (but neither any reason prior to modern science to think otherwise, but that misses the point). 3/4 of Christianity is fine with evolution and the Big Bang, and 14 billion years, and for Catholics even the existence of aliens. It's arguable that the rest are just reacting to Atheist claims, clutching to a dogma that doesn't exist because they are simple and uneducated Christians who don't know better.

"There is no evidence of a god."

But this claim has to discount those who claim to personally know a god as deluded. That's clearly a fallacy. Sure, spiritual 'contact' doesn't give 3rd party verification (the 3rd party being an agnostic who hasn't had such contact), and will not satisfy the determinedly materialistic who will only accept physical evidence, but what evidence of a spiritual God can we expect in the material universe?

More importantly, wouldn't a god be able to give proof of itself? And wouldn't that proof, if it were a personal god as claimed, be person to person communing? The author evidently did not actually personally know the god she eventually rejected and by a Christian standard never had faith.

Faith "Belief without evidence". Thanks for that presumptious redefinition, Bertrand Russell, but that is not a Christian or religious definition and has no etymological roots. Sure makes them look silly, though. The real definition of faith is more to do with direct personal knowledge of a god.

Or let's take Dawkins favourite argument "Who made God?". But this was answered by Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. A thing whose nature/essence is existence, to exist, self-evidently exists. Since it must also self-evidently exist of itself, and is therefore self-referencing, the real question is not "Is there a god" but "Is this self-referencing fundamental thing also self-aware?". Either Dawkins is ignorant or he's lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution).

But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god - which is why they quite outrageously call religious persons deluded as no agnostic would - yet there is no proof of the non-existence of a supreme being.

So while atheists are always irrational whether or not there is a god, religious persons are only irrational if there isn't a god.

The irony is wonderful. Faith as "Belief without evidence" applies to atheists more than religious persons.

What's your best atheist argument? I can pretty much defeat any atheist argument.

[dang]

Please don't do religious flamewar on HN. It's all the same, and nothing good ever comes of it. No one will be persuaded about such profound things on the internet; all that happens is that people whose feelings get triggered show up to carp at each other.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[lorriman]

How was what I wrote a 'flamewar'? And especially in the context of the anti-religious views that elsewhere were not flagged nor called flamewars. What's your agenda, Dang?

Politics, religion, philosophy, these are worthwhile things to discuss.

And fun.

Now leave us be to have fun.

[dang]

HN is not for generic discussions about grandiose topics that always get people riled up. Those discussions are not driven by intellectual curiosity, which is the organizing value of this site. They turn into ideological battles and tangents, which produce mediocre comments. It's a clear win for HN not to host such arguments, so you should look elsewhere for that variety of 'fun'.

I know it always feels like the mods are biased against you, but I've scolded plenty of anti-religious zealots for breaking the HN guidelines over the years, including at least one in this thread.

[zzo38computer]

Yes, some religious people have done some good science. "There is no evidence of a god", but, what counts as the evidence of the gods existence? How, even, will you define the specific meanings of "God" and "exist" in this case? It is difficult.

I fail to see how Dawkins is "lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution)"; maybe you can elaborate how that is.

I agree when you say there is no proof of non-existence of a supreme being.

Also, I think that faith as "belief without evidence" doesn't applies to atheists more than religious persons. I have seen argument of such thing but fail to see how it is good. How is that?

I have seen many arguments for and against the existence of God, and they are not valid. There are different problems with them.

Also, believe or not believing the existence of God doesn't make you irrational. (Although a lot of both atheists and religious people will do many irrational stuff sometimes.)

[magashna]

Rather than Atheist arguments, I prefer how the Church of Satan deals with religion, challenging hypocrisy with silly but strong legal arguments. I think Atheists should change from arguing whether a god exists or not to challenging the self-serving frauds found in fundamentalist churches in the US Bible Belt. So much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need.

[zzo38computer]

That is a valid point. There is people doing bad stuff and they say by religion or by God (not all people doing bad stuff is, but a lot is). And, yes, you should challenge it and try to stop such bad thing. Yes, I believe you, so much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need. (Some churches maybe do help those in need sometimes, but many don't. And you don't need to be religious to help someone, anyways.)

[penetrarthur]

My best argument is that there is no point to discuss any of it. All the people you discuss are irrelevant.

[cannonedhamster]

Your post is full of strawmen and logical fallacies. You cherry pick statements in order to make your own position sound more rational. You lump Christianity into one big group and then ignore the anti-science crusade currently going on by most of Christianity. You dislike definitions so you make up new ones and claim that are better because only then can you claim that they are silly. Every single part of your post shows you didn't understand or possibly read much of the article. The article at hand didn't say religion is silly, it didn't say it was wrong. The article simply described that more people in the United States are losing faith and that it's a gradual process where faith gets replaced by the brain by some other thing whether that be sports, science, or some other thing it didn't matter. I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but your arguments only sound clever if you make up arguments or you already fervently believe solely in Christianity.

[lorriman]

cannoneshamster: "Your post is full of strawmen and logical fallacies."

You've made a lot of assertions about my 'logical fallacies' without any reasoned demonstration.

How am I meant to argue with that?

Meanwhile, what's your best atheist argument?

[bill_mon]

You answer "Science is not compatible with religion." by mentioning religious scientists. We all know such exist, that's not the point.

You're not being thorough with your reasoning.

[lorriman]

Yet I spelled out that much of Christianity (at least; if not other religions) have no issue with the fundamental scientific claims that are said to disprove religious claims.

That the Big Bang, 14 billion years, and evolution are all the product of famous scientist Christians was just the icing on the cake.

The fact is that science does not in any way disprove the existence of a god.

[me_me_me]

>> Meanwhile, what's your best atheist argument?

Maybe rephrasing this whole think will help you see this whole argument from different side.

Say you have a friend that claims they have and invisible imaginary friend.

They have to prove that this imaginary friend exist. Its crazy to think I would have to disprove that existence of imaginary friend.

[lorriman]

You mean you suppose it to be imaginary.

The example isn't the same as religious claims. Firstly because all religious people claim that the 'invisible' friend will talk back if you make the effort to make contact (with few exceptions, but some are: the arrogant, the idly curious, those who wouldn't change their lives even if they knew).

And unlike fairies at the bottom of the garden, a supreme being has by definition the power to prove its own existence to the individual. Nothing else does. Think about it, you can't even prove your own sanity to yourself, or that anything around you exists. Even science can't deal with that one.

So sure, I can't prove a god's existence to you but I could witness to my own contact with one. Depending on your evaluation of me as a person of integrity and sensibleness, you may be encouraged to make contact. But to dismiss a person as not sensible because of such a claim is clearly fallacy. First you would need to prove it can't be true.

[me_me_me]

>> You mean you suppose it to be imaginary. ... if you'd talk to schizophrenic, you also refer to their imaginations as 'supposed imaginations'?

All you are trying to do is bend reality to fit your view. By shifting my word and redefining stuff. There is no difference between imaginary friend of you child and god.

>> So sure, I can't prove a god's existence

Thank you, end of conversation. Anything else added after 'but' is superfluous fluff.

[dang]

Please don't do religious flamewar on HN, and please especially don't cross into personal attack, because we ban accounts that do that. It doesn't matter how wrong or annoying another commenter is being.

If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in its intended spirit, we'd be grateful.

[Starwatcher2001]

"But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god"

Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend.

"What's your best atheist argument?"

I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we?

As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.

[lorriman]

"Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism."

Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God".

Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse.

But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers.

Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist):

Either you:

1)believe there is a god 2)beleive there isn't a god 3)have no belief either way.

Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate.

We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?

Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.

[me_me_me]

>>We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?

Is there a god? Myabe yes, maybe no. There is no way to tell. Is there a christian god, absolutely not (same with any other religion claiming their god is the one).

I think that's the nuanced position of Dawkins that gets lumped into a bag of atheism.

[zzo38computer]

What Dawkins says is not true of all atheists. Also, there is the difference of positive and negative atheism. Dawkins also has the scale of atheism 1 to 7, and he himself ranks 6 on that scale apparently. Some religious people are good people and some non-religious people are good people. And then, there are also agnostics, ignostics, and meta-agnostics. And then, there is Tom Swiss.

In terms of your "either you: 1) 2) 3)" there is the fourth possibility that the question isn't very meaningful, and you forgot that one.

Also, some scientist and mathematics and computer programmers are religious, but some aren't, and as long as it doesn't interfere with your work, it is OK.