Is belief in God equivalent to belief in ghosts, etc.?

[humanguy]

I am surprised you see the number of those who have reached out to God as being as high as you do.

Why?

I would have thought there were a fair number of people who thought the whole idea of God was absurd and impossible and other people who just never think about it.

If you are right it would certainly do away with this idea that atheism is the default option

Why?

Because it would suggest that people do have some kind of idea that there might be a God. I'm not suggesting they are born with that idea but if you are right it would mean that wherever they acquire it from it seems people do think it seriously worth acting on in a crisis

and suggest that most people at some level do have some kind of belief in God wherever that has come from.

Why?

Because in order to call out to God in despair and to really mean it people would have to think God is at least a possibility.

I see, but you've missed my point. Of course people have some kind of idea that there might be a God. People who have some kind of idea that there might be a God are the majority of the people in this country, if not the world. You're not suggesting that every single last one of those people has had a personal experience of God, are you?

And that default position thing, I'm not interested in that for the simple reason that it is impossible for a newborn infant to be an atheist.

[Keep The Reason]

1) the entrance of Jesus into our history (I won't deal with the fringe position of Jesus not being a real person),

Nevertheless, it's a valid position since Jesus' existence is not a confirmed fact. But apart from that, to play devil's advocate, people have been claiming ghosts throughout history, so this isn't anything special about Jesus.

2) the existence of written documents of people that knew Jesus or knew people who knew him,

None of these documents are verified as "people who knew him", or from "people who knew people who knew him". You're just granting yourself this luxury, but it's not confirmed that any of the writers of the NT actually knew him.

Meanwhile, people up to this day can cite having ghost experiences, or "know people who have had ghosts experiences" -- so that neutralizes this one as a special claim of Christians.

3) the volume and reliability of these documents,

Can you please support this? First, what "volume"? The New Testament, and some scant references peppered in other docs, many of them likely to be later insertions? Second, do you have original manuscripts that will help confirm the authenticity of the versions we have much, much later, and can you verify they have not been changed in any manner?

Finally, the volumes of testimony for ghosts appear up til the present day, and many of the claimants seem fairly reliable. Hell, there are even pictures in some instances-- we don't see many of those exposing Jesus, do we?

4) the birth and continued existence of the church that his disciples established,

Ah, so you are then perfectly comfortable with being a Mormon. The church that Joseph Smith birthed and its continued existence and in fact fairly rapid growth. So, you're a Mormon? No? Well, what about a Muslim? Muhammad also established a church and it continues to this day. In fact, its strength seems to be on the rise.

So, we're agreed Mormonism and Islam are true because they have been around for awhile, and have continued to this day. Cheer up Scientologists-- your day is a mere few hundred years away!

5) the way the disciples would not deny Christ even upon pain of terrible death (and this is NOT the same as martyrs of today - the apostles KNEW Jesus first-hand and KNEW if they were telling the truth or not),

Ah, so David Koresh and his followers were clearly embracing the truth, since they faces horrible death, and did not repudiate their beliefs.

6) the way that the Jesus writings work in my life, and

Uh-- what writings of Jesus is that? Jesus wrote nothing; unless you refer to those "reliable volumes" you seem to be in sole possession of. And exactly what is special about Jesus' philosophy as recorded by unknown authors 60 some years after his alleged death. All of it can be found across a wide variety of other religions, predating Christianity by hundreds of years.

But many people also take solace in the writings of those who proclaim ghosts,because it propels them to bleieve in an afterlife. So nothing special there either.

7) the way I sense God in my life.

Ah, "Because I feel it." That's one I've never seen before-- no other religion claims this, do they? And of course, people who would believe in ghosts "because they feel it" aren't to be taken seriously at all, are they? Only theists deserve that privilege, is that what you're saying?

[humanguy]

I'd just like to point out that if the existence of eyewitness accounts are what gives God or Jesus the edge then you're sunk. There are thousands of books that claim to contain actual eyewitness accounts of encounters with ghosts. Many of these books have sold millions of copies. More than a few have been made into major motion pictures.

For that matter there are more books with eyewitness accounts of UFOs than there are books with eyewitness accounts of God or Jesus.

I'd go so far as to say that there are more books that supposedly contain eyewitness accounts of werewolves than there are books that supposedly claim to contain eyewitness accounts of God or Jesus.

[Rian]

And that default position thing, I'm not interested in that for the simple reason that it is impossible for a newborn infant to be an atheist.

Agreed!

[Rian]

KTR, first of all, I never said that only one of these was sufficient by itself, so most of your reply is not even valid.

Second, your responses are so extreme, like for #2 and #3, that they're just worthless. I mean, you're asking if I can verify that the texts haven't been changed in "any manner"? What about order of words, when that has nothing to do with the meaning of the sentence? I'll take the opinion of experts over yours any day.

But mainly, KTR, your post absolutely reeks of sarcasm from beginning to end, from the "Ah"s to the "Uh"s, and the "I've never seen before" and the "Cheer up" and the "we've agreed" - the list goes on and on. That's the bad thing - that a person could be just so mean-spirited to another person who is in a discussion in good faith. The good thing is that you've finally exposed yourself beyond any shadow of a doubt to be absolutely not interested in dialogue with me (and frankly, with most Christians here, from what I've seen). I've turned the other cheek many, many times with you, hoping that I could break through your sarcasm to the real person below and actually talk with you. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek, but also teaches that there's a time to stop, because the other person has free will and it takes two to talk. So goodbye for now on this thread, and on the other threads, too, unless you change your behavior and speak to people with respect.

My post to humanguy was a respectful answer to his question. Yours was anything but that - it was just a sarcastic, mean-spirited screed, filled with the desire to strike out at those with differing beliefs. You've made it evident on other threads that you feel very attacked, and at this point, it looks like all you want to do is hit back at anyone even remotely connected with those that you feel have attacked you. It reminds me of the people who treated Muslims badly after 9/11.

Anyway, best wishes to you and yours, and I hope you can get over this need for replying with sarcasm to a perfectly innocuous post. There are too many other atheists who can hold respectful dialogues around here - I'll be talking with them.

[JustJim]

And that default position thing, I'm not interested in that for the simple reason that it is impossible for a newborn infant to be an atheist.

That depends, of course, on your definition of "atheist." If you define it to mean "believes gods do not exist," then I agree, since newborn infants don't believe anything yet. If you define it to mean "does not believe gods exist," then I disagree, since it is true that newborn infants do not believe gods exist.

Jim

[Rian]

And that default position thing, I'm not interested in that for the simple reason that it is impossible for a newborn infant to be an atheist.

That depends, of course, on your definition of "atheist." If you define it to mean "believes gods do not exist," then I agree, since newborn infants don't believe anything yet. If you define it to mean "does not believe gods exist," then I disagree, since it is true that newborn infants do not believe gods exist.

Jim

Actually that brings up the very interesting question of what do babies think, if they think at all? We don't really know, do we? But we see more and more that they think more and earlier than we realize, as teaching them sign language shows (I taught my kids sign language before they could speak, and they caught on like a house on fire, and even transferred concepts from one realm to another - I taught my son "more" in the context of eating, and he transferred it to using the sign to ask me for a toy he couldn't reach). I wonder if babies have a sense of God that they're born with and therefore think/believe that he exists? Studies are going that way more and more - that religious beliefs are inborn and not taught (they're easy to find -just google). (of course, specific doctrine is taught - I'm talking about basic belief in God).

Anyway, we'll never know for sure, but I thought it was interesting to toss around a bit.

[Rian]

I'd just like to point out that if the existence of eyewitness accounts are what gives God or Jesus the edge then you're sunk. There are thousands of books that claim to contain actual eyewitness accounts of encounters with ghosts. Many of these books have sold millions of copies. More than a few have been made into major motion pictures.

For that matter there are more books with eyewitness accounts of UFOs than there are books with eyewitness accounts of God or Jesus.

I'd go so far as to say that there are more books that supposedly contain eyewitness accounts of werewolves than there are books that supposedly claim to contain eyewitness accounts of God or Jesus.

Well, I didn't say it was merely the eyewitness thing - it was the eyewitness thing coupled with the fact they were willing to die instead of saying what they saw was false. Plus all the other things in the list, too. It's things from many different areas and directions all coming together that have made me believe - it's reason plus experience plus faith (the kind of faith where reason and experience will only get you so far, and you have to decide if that's a sufficient base to take the final step - we use this kind of faith all the time).

[Keep The Reason]

KTR, first of all, I never said that only one of these was sufficient by itself, so most of your reply is not even valid.

I could make the same argument coming from Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and Muhammad regarding Islam. Both belief systems have vastly more supporting documentation, records, and historical support for them than does the 1st century Christian religion. There are miracles, there are people willing to die under painful circumstances for those beliefs, and they have both grown vastly larger than they began.

Second, your responses are so extreme, like for #2 and #3, that they're just worthless. I mean, you're asking if I can verify that the texts haven't been changed in "any manner"? What about order of words, when that has nothing to do with the meaning of the sentence? I'll take the opinion of experts over yours any day.

The experts themselves admit they cannot identify any of the 4 gospel writing apostles with any assurance, except for Paul, and Paul admits to coming into the game after Jesus is dead. The experts also agree that each gospel has signs that it was taken from an earlier one.

Yes, I am asking you -- or anyone -- to verify the validity of the bible you base your worldview on. Why is that so difficult? You claim it's of divine origin. Can't a divine book overcome the challenges that mere human books overcome every day? I mean, a math text book is able to consistently deliver the same information over and over without anyone having to argue for its reliability. Why is the "divine book" so shackled by mere human hands? We have numerous versions of Charles Darwins "Origin of Species" that specifically points out the changes made from the First Edition onward. Seems like the "bible of evolution" has an ability the "bible of Jesus" is sorely missing.

But mainly, KTR, your post absolutely reeks of sarcasm from beginning to end, from the "Ah"s to the "Uh"s, and the "I've never seen before" and the "Cheer up" and the "we've agreed" - the list goes on and on. That's the bad thing - that a person could be just so mean-spirited to another person who is in a discussion in good faith. The good thing is that you've finally exposed yourself beyond any shadow of a doubt to be absolutely not interested in dialogue with me (and frankly, with most Christians here, from what I've seen). I've turned the other cheek many, many times with you, hoping that I could break through your sarcasm to the real person below and actually talk with you. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek, but also teaches that there's a time to stop, because the other person has free will and it takes two to talk. So goodbye for now on this thread, and on the other threads, too, unless you change your behavior and speak to people with respect.

There is utterly no hostile or even sarcastic intent in my post. I tend to post in a more conversational style, seeking moments of humor (which I admit can be dry) but apparently this statement from you over on the Testability thread:

Just to be clear - I don't think it's the right style, because I don't think there is one right style. I think it is a good style, one of many, because I value different ways of thinking.

doesn't apply to me. You are perfectly content to give to Mitch of all people --who you even AGREE is insulting and mocking-- this benefit, but for me, you decide to project a "sarcasm" when it's not even meant that way. Ok, well, even this is not meant sarcastically, but this is so absurdly funny as to boggle belief.

My post to humanguy was a respectful answer to his question. Yours was anything but that - it was just a sarcastic, mean-spirited screed, filled with the desire to strike out at those with differing beliefs. You've made it evident on other threads that you feel very attacked, and at this point, it looks like all you want to do is hit back at anyone even remotely connected with those that you feel have attacked you. It reminds me of the people who treated Muslims badly after 9/11.

Anyway, best wishes to you and yours, and I hope you can get over this need for replying with sarcasm to a perfectly innocuous post. There are too many other atheists who can hold respectful dialogues around here - I'll be talking with them.

Suit yourself. There's something that comes across so disingenuous here. I pump out a line-by-line comparative analysis of why your points are easily matched by any number of other models, and you call it a screed. Meanwhile, you admit that a person like Mitch is insulting -- overtly, obviously so -- and him you defend.

So -- I call your response here cowardice, and pretty much what I've come to expect from theists backed into a corner. And the endless arrogant psychoanalyzing from you folks! It's a wonder you aren't all well paid therapists and psychiatrists. But as I said -- suit yourself. Answer me or not, it really doesn't matter. And my style is what it is.

[Keep The Reason]

Actually that brings up the very interesting question of what do babies think, if they think at all? We don't really know, do we? But we see more and more that they think more and earlier than we realize, as teaching them sign language shows (I taught my kids sign language before they could speak, and they caught on like a house on fire, and even transferred concepts from one realm to another - I taught my son "more" in the context of eating, and he transferred it to using the sign to ask me for a toy he couldn't reach). I wonder if babies have a sense of God that they're born with and therefore think/believe that he exists? Studies are going that way more and more - that religious beliefs are inborn and not taught (they're easy to find -just google). (of course, specific doctrine is taught - I'm talking about basic belief in God).

Such belief being "innate" is not any indication of the actual existence of a supernatural realm. Read the (inappropriately titled) WSJ article on this study of twins:

Link

Some highlights (and pay particular attention to the third paragraph please):

Of course, genes do not determine whether one chooses Judaism, Catholicism, Islam or any other religion. Rather, belief in supernatural agents (God, angels, demons) and commitment to certain religious practices (church attendance, prayer, rituals) appears to reflect genetically based cognitive processes (inferring the existence of invisible agents) and personality traits (respect for authority, traditionalism).

Why did we inherit this tendency? Long, long ago, in a Paleolithic environment far, far away from the modern world, humans evolved to find meaningful causal patterns in nature to make sense of the world, and infuse many of those patterns with intentional agency, some of which became animistic spirits and powerful gods. I call these two processes patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless data) and agenticity (the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention and agency).

Imagine that you are a hominid on the planes of Africa and you hear a rustle in the grass. Is it a dangerous predator or just the wind? If you assume the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator and it is just the wind, you have made a Type I error (a false positive), but to no harm. But if you believe the rustle is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator, you have made a Type II error (a false negative) and there's a good chance you'll be lunch and thereby removed from your species' gene pool. Because we are poor at discriminating between false positives and false negatives, and because the cost of making a Type I error is much lower than making a Type II error, there was a natural selection for those hominids who tended to believe that all patterns are real and potentially dangerous. This is the basis for the belief not only in God, but in souls, spirits, ghosts, demons, angels, intelligent designers and all manner of invisible agents intending to harm us or help us.

Of course, there is a big difference between an inanimate force (the wind) and an intentional agent (the dangerous predator). Most animals can make this distinction on the superficial life-or-death level, but we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex, we have a Theory of Mind—the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others. We "read minds" by projecting ourselves into someone else's shoes (as in empathy) or by imagining someone out to get us (as in fear).

No one argues that as babies develop they don't adapt to hard-wired belief of authority; the issue of "is belief in god innate" is being blurred by the word "god" here. The real issue is whether or not belief in authority is innate. It is.

[Rian]

Such belief being "innate" is not any indication of the actual existence of a supernatural realm.

That is certainly true.

Some highlights (and pay particular attention to the third paragraph please):

Well, that's sheer speculation, but it's possible.

[humanguy]

It's an interesting article, KTR, so much so that I bookmarked it. Thanks for sharing it.

[humanguy]

And that default position thing, I'm not interested in that for the simple reason that it is impossible for a newborn infant to be an atheist.

That depends, of course, on your definition of "atheist." If you define it to mean "believes gods do not exist," then I agree, since newborn infants don't believe anything yet. If you define it to mean "does not believe gods exist," then I disagree, since it is true that newborn infants do not believe gods exist.

Jim

Picky picky, Jim. See, I think of atheism as being a set of ideas that one arrives at as the result of applied critical thinking, so that leaves out the little babes in swaddling clothes.

[mitchellmckain]

And that default position thing, I'm not interested in that for the simple reason that it is impossible for a newborn infant to be an atheist.

That depends, of course, on your definition of "atheist." If you define it to mean "believes gods do not exist," then I agree, since newborn infants don't believe anything yet. If you define it to mean "does not believe gods exist," then I disagree, since it is true that newborn infants do not believe gods exist.

Jim

And whether a newborn infant is a Christian also depends on your definition of "Christian". But the fact remains that according to any functional definition of either by which real people actually determine whether people are atheists or Christians, a newborn is neither.

[Dr Mundo]

And that default position thing, I'm not interested in that for the simple reason that it is impossible for a newborn infant to be an atheist.

That depends, of course, on your definition of "atheist." If you define it to mean "believes gods do not exist," then I agree, since newborn infants don't believe anything yet. If you define it to mean "does not believe gods exist," then I disagree, since it is true that newborn infants do not believe gods exist.

Jim

Picky picky, Jim. See, I think of atheism as being a set of ideas that one arrives at as the result of applied critical thinking, so that leaves out the little babes in swaddling clothes.

I see Atheism as, being without theism. So in no way would I ever think this would be an issue on debate (that a baby isn't an atheist). I know most people don't want to talk about it anymore, but if we can't get past this small point it would be hard to get into any meaningful discussion about anything. How or why someone would argue that a baby is not an atheist is beyond me, if we use the definition I just listed.

What ideas can you arrive at about God by critical thinking? I know of none, but perhaps you do? Would you mind helping me understand why you see it this way?