Posts Tagged ‘atheists’

Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills?!

May 2, 2019

Religious Forums

#221 paarsurrey

Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

So, what? Does it prove that Atheism is reasonable, please.


Definition of “God” is not owned by the Atheists

May 15, 2015

View, comment or join discussion on< > <Your best argument that God does not exist>.

Post #196


I don’t agree with you.
Definition of G-d is the prerogative of a Theist, whatever way he defines according to his perspective. The Atheists cannot bind one on their definition. This would be against the freedom of religion and freedom of thought.


Point to Note:
Nobody has given any positive proofs and evidences that “G-d does not exist”

The retention rate of Atheists is 30%, the lowest

June 25, 2014

Please access the link below to know the context of the discussion or to join it. One may comment at this blog if one likes.

Originally Posted by Vinayaka
Here’s a study comparing retention rates by religion. (Just for US, I think) I think all faiths struggle to some extent these days. With much more education available, people shift around a lot more in belief, that I suspect they did even 50 years back.

I don’t see it as a bad thing, just an observation on life.

Thoughts?…tention-rates/&#8221; Unquote

Paarsurrey wrote:

The retention rate of Atheists is 30%, the lowest, because those belonging to Atheism became as such without a positive proof or evidence in its favor; they must shift it as soon as they realize their blunder.


Evidence for atheism?

June 11, 2014

My Christian friend unkleE from Austalia has written a very good article in his blog
“Is there a God?”
Under the topic
“Evidence for atheism?”
With his permission, it is reblogged here:

Evidence for atheism?

Why do you believe what you do – about religion, politics, ethics or life itself?
Many sceptics about religion are evidentialists, that is, they believe we should proportion our belief according to the evidence. Different disciplines (e.g. law, science, history, journalism and everyday life) require different types of evidence, but the principle seems reasonable.
But what if the sceptics are ignoring their own creed?

Evidentialism and atheists

Philosopher Michael Antony observes that most atheists criticise religious belief for its lack of evidence, but then notes that many atheists offer little evidence for their own views. He asks: “How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism?”

He also notes that several reasons are offered for why atheism doesn’t require evidential support, and discusses five of them.

1. Atheism Isn’t A Belief

It is common for atheists to claim that atheism isn’t a belief at all, but a lack of belief. Antony argues that this isn’t the standard use of the word (it conflates atheism and agnosticism), but says it makes no difference. Evidentialism applies to all beliefs – believing P, or believing not-P, or suspending belief. Only if a person makes no statement at all can they avoid the evidential requirement for evidence.
Most atheists believe it is unlikely that God exists, so evidentialism requires that they only hold this belief if they can offer evidence.

2. You Can’t Prove A Negative like “God doesn’t exist”

This is in fact incorrect. There are mathematical proofs of negatives (e.g. that there is no greatest prime number) and many negative statements that can be shown to be probably true (e.g. there are no snow-capped mountains in the Sahara).
Some negative statements can be shown to be true and some not; ditto for positive statements. There is no valid general argument here, every case has to be argued on its merits.

3. The Burden of Proof Is On The Believer

“Burden of proof” is a legal term, and it isn’t clear how it should be applied in metaphysics. Antony discusses several ways this concept is argued by atheists:
• “The burden of proof falls on the one making a positive statement.” But most positive statements can be turned into negative statements, and vice versa. For example, “there is no supernatural” can be re-phrased as “everything is natural”.
• “One acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion.” There is some truth in this, but received wisdom varies from group to group.
But evidentialism says nothing about burden of proof. According to evidentialism, evidence is required for any belief to be justified even if there is no ‘burden’ to defend the belief. So Antony concludes that “in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked”.

4. Ockham’s Razor
Ockham’s Razor advises “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity”. So, some atheists argue, we shouldn’t add an extra entity (God) into our thinking when we can explain everything without him.
But this is the point. Theists, and some atheists, believe that naturalismcannot explain everything – for example the origin of the universe, or consciousness. Ockham’s Razor therefore doesn’t apply until all these things can be explained.

5. Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

This is a favourite argument of many atheists, sometimes expressed in the supposed comparison between God and the hypothetical Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) or Bertrand Russell’s orbiting teapot. There is no way, it is said, to disprove these things, yet no-one takes their existence seriously. So why should it be any different with God.
Antony puts this argument in this form: “When there is no good reason for thinking a [positive existence] claim to be true, that in itself is good reason for thinking the claim to be false.” Then he asks, is this true?
He suggests that we distinguish between strong and weak evidence. Evidence is strong when it provides convincing grounds for a belief, but weak when it is insufficient on its own to compel belief, though it may form part of a cumulative case. Most hypotheses start with weak evidence, which may become stronger as the hypothesis is tested. So is the principle we are discussing based on weak evidence or strong evidence?

Either way, it is in trouble.

If absence of strong evidence is evidence of absence

For example, consider the question of whether earthworms have a primitive form of consciousness. There is little evidence for this (i.e. weak evidence) but some researchers believe it may be true. But since there isn’t strong evidence, we should (according to this principle) believe the contrary, that earthworms don’t have primitive consciousness.

But suppose we then say ‘the boundary between conscious and non-conscious creatures is above the level of earthworms’. But there is no strong evidence for this either so, following this principle, we again have to believe the contrary, that the boundary between consciousness and unconsciousness is below the earthworm. But this means we are affirming two contradictory statements, which is obviously wrong.

If absence of weak evidence is evidence of absence

This is a more reasonable statement. But of course it then doesn’t apply to the existence of God. For there is certainly evidence that might point to the existence of God – “religious experience, the fine-tuning of physical laws and constants, the apparent contingency of the universe, etc”. Atheists may contest all or any of these evidences, but they clearly can be seen as evidence.

Thus, Antony argues, the atheist case for this principle is based on finding examples (like the FSM) which fit easily with the principle, but ignore examples where the principle obviously doesn’t apply. So the discussion must return to the place where it should always have been – what is the evidence for God?

Antony’s conclusion

The five ways which atheists sometimes claim exempt themselves from providing evidence of their belief all fail. Unless they make no statements about God at all, they have as much a requirement to support their statements with evidence as anyone else does. He concludes:

the various positions that can be taken on the existence of a divine being – theism, atheism, agnosticism, and variants – are in principle no less intellectually legitimate than positions in disputes in the sciences and other fields in which none of the positions enjoy strong evidential support.

That is, each position has to show why it is more probable than the others if it wants to gain support.
What do you think?

Where’s The Evidence?
Michael Antony argues that the New Atheists miss the mark.

Core teachings of religion do not change; Cultural effects could change peripheral concepts of people though

May 15, 2014

May 14th, 2014 at 3:27 pm

@ violetwisp:May 14th, 2014 at 11:14 am
“As a women, the passages on submission to men in the Bible obviously get under my skin, and were in fact key in my deconversion.”

I am a Muslim, so I don’t have to defend Christianity; that will be done by Christians themselves.
I will defend here Religion in general.
These are cultural points; and hence do not belong to the core teachings of Christianity and for that matter to any other religion. The subordinate creeds must be interpreted under the core teachings of a religion.

Jesus did not say anything against women or against their rights. He was compassionate and respectful to them.

When society moves from primitive social set-ups; say from tribal to democracy etc; the social perspectives also changes and with that the relative religious implications also change while; the core teachings remain intact.

It could be understood as a cultural effect.

The Atheists never had any Atheistic political role, as a well-nit unit to play in any phase of the human history in any region of the world; and whenever they happened to have one; they disowned it later due to its failure.

If one differs from a cultural point with any religion; that is not a valid reason to become an Atheist. In such a situation one only has to try for reformation of that religion on that cultural point.

One could understand it easily if an Atheist looks for as to what his fellow Atheists were doing at such a point of time.


Can science define and measure real value and worth of a piece of art or an item of poetry?

April 24, 2014

I started a discussion on my favorite religious education discussion forum on the topic “Does science support Atheism, positively?”.

The viewers could read/join the discussion at the forum accessing the link given below or they may comment at this blog Paarsurrey; and then after due deliberation form their own sincere opinion independently.

paarsurrey wrote:

Originally Posted by FunctionalAthiest
We cannot sense anything beyond the natural, so saying we can know nothing that does not present itself to the senses, directly or indirectly, eliminates anything beyond the natural. If i can see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it, then it is natural. Not because I define it that way, but because we know how senses work. If i see it it is composed of light, which is electromagnetism. Hear it and it is energy in the form of a sound wave. Etc.

This is precisely why acceptance of science is a denial of super-nature. While science does not address the supernatural and cannot prove it does not exist, it is because super-nature is non-sensible.

If super-nature, being non-sensible, left so much as a fingerprint on nature, science would falter.

A piece of art or an item of poetry.

Can science define and measure its real value and worth? Please

If Atheism is a perfect Ideology; the Atheists give claims and reason in its support from peer reviewed science journals of repute

April 16, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 01:59

@makagutu :April 16, 2014 at 21:27
“Are you saying that to ask you to consider the possibility you are wrong and no preaching are many conditions?”

Well, the Atheists also preach; but I was not hinting at that.

I already agreed that when one enters into a discussion one accepts the possibility that one could be wrong.
There are other conditions:

• “That morality has nothing to do with the gods so I propose that in our discussion you will not bring up the question of where I get my morals if I have no belief in god.”
• “Let us also agree here that whether life has meaning or not has nothing to do with gods.”

Not only the host should be respected but the guests should also be respected; neither bullied nor ridiculed.
Why should the religious be put to answer the questions or to give the proofs and evidences? If Atheism is a perfect Ideology; then the Atheists should provide the proofs and evidences they so often demand from the religious.
The Atheists extol science as if it has been invented by them; nevertheless they should quote for their claims and reasons from a peer reviewed scientific standard journal of science.

If the religious quote their scripture; their quotes should have the claims and reason-content in them.

It should be a friendly discussion.

Please have a thought on this.


paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 02:40
@Ben Nasmith :April 16, 2014 at 17:5
“I think that such a being exists, and as a Christian I am devoted to the God revealed by Jesus.”

I endorse the One-True-God that revealed Himself on Jesus; but that God was not Jesus and cannot be Jesus.

Do you agree with this? Please


paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 18:50
@clubschadenfreude : April 17, 2014 at 18:18

If you are an Atheist and as you say that you are not on blind-faith rather everything you believe is based on sound experiments and is nothing but science.

As I requested from the Atheists; now please start providing proofs and evidences favoring Atheism- the perfect ideology for the human being; for the claims and reasons supporting it from peer reviewed journals of Science.

This is an open question to all the Atheists. Please


paarsurrey says:
April 21, 2014 at 17:54
@clubschadenfreude :April 17, 2014 at 20:27

Sorry to point out.

The arguments you have given are based on your understanding of religion and are against religion.

You have extremely failed to prove and give positive evidences favoring Atheism; not a single quotation from a text book of science or a peer reviewed article from a journal of science which even mentions of Atheism and arguments of its truthfulness.

Did you?

If Tom is proved to be wrong, supposedly; it does not prove automatically that Harry must be right.


Atheists and their hatred of “religion”

April 14, 2014

I appreciate the following excerpt from the post “When Religion is not Religion” at the blog “triangulations” which could be viewed at the following link:

Quote: “Religion” is the word in which these atheists package their hate. When challenged with their overgeneralization about religions by pointing out religions practiced by real people that don’t contain any of the repulsive things they associate with the word “religion”, these atheists often just deny that such practices are really “religions”. You see, they are committed to hating the word “religion”.Unquote

I concur with Sabio Lantz on this observation.


No worst nonsense than Atheists accepting “God does not exist” without any proofs and evidences

April 8, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

paarsurrey | April 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm

@archaeopteryx1 | April 8, 2014 at 4:34 pm
“What you consider facts, I consider nonsense. ” Unquote

I think there is no worst nonsense than Atheists accepting “God does not exist” without any proofs and evidences they demand so often from others; they believe in “nothing” for nothing.


Criterion of finding truth in religions and non-religions

April 7, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

paarsurrey says:
April 7, 2014 at :
@(Matt) Brisancian :April 6, 2014

“If you would, please give your criterion for falsifiability of religious texts as either divinely inspired or merely human in origin. However, the criterion cannot be circularly dependent upon the text itself or the author(s).
Your answer will be the beginning of my response.” Unquote

One could be born in any religion or without a religion. It is beyond one to decide where to be born. Wherever one is born; that starts one’s journey to find the truth.

The tools make easy for one to do a job. It is therefore important for one first to find a tool that gives equal opportunity to every religion to search.

Using a tool and then making a comparative study of religions to find which one is the most truthful religion is therefore most reasonable and rational.

I give here a principle of comparative study of religions which was suggested by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah 1835-1908 in an essay that was read in a Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896; and was later published in a book form titled “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” translated in many languages of the world.

I give below the principle and its explanation in precisely his words:

“It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book”
“I consider it essential that everyone who follows a book, believing it to be revealed, should base his exposition upon that book and should not so extend the scope of his advocacy of his faith as if he is compiling a new book.

As it is my purpose today to establish the merits of the Holy Quran and to demonstrate its excellence, it is incumbent upon me not to state anything which is not comprehended in the Quran and to set forth everything on the basis of its verses and in accord with their meaning and that which might be inferred from them, so that those attending the Conference should encounter no difficulty in carrying out a comparison between the teachings of different religions.”

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad adhered to this principle and answered the five important questions set by the moderators of the Conference:

1. The physical, moral and spiritual states of man
2. The state of man after death.
3. The object of man’s life and the means to its attainment.
4. The operation of the practical ordinances of the Law in this life and the next.
5. Sources of Divine knowledge.

One could access the following link to read the book available online, freely:

Click to access Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics don’t have a book to follow. They extol science to find answers to all the questions in the world. Although the questions don’t fall within the scope of science and would overburden it; yet they are open to answer with the condition that they quote some standards text book of science for the claims to answers as also to the reasons given specifying the discipline of science that legitimately deals with it.

Please take your time for your journey of search and as to how the criterion is to be applied. Please read the small book mentioned above; that will provide ready-made solution to many questions that arise.

Wish you good-luck.

Thanks and regards

%d bloggers like this: