From: "Starman"
Subject: Atheism-childish and immature viewpt

It takes maturity and experimentation to move past the childish and immature arguments of atheism. Atheist are the "living dead" for the most part. You can stay if you like, it's ok.

This person makes some very serious allegations about atheism - unfortunately, these allegations are not followed by equally serious arguments. If the arguments, critiques, and objections raised by atheist about theism and religion really were so childish and immature, then it shouldn't be very difficult at all to explain why and refute them.

For some reason, though, Starman doesn't bother to do that. He doesn't even try - not even a little bit. Instead, all he really does is insult atheists over and over again. Now, is that supposed to be representative of a position that is not "childish and immature." Is that supposed to be an example of a adult and mature way to argue?

Just because of contradictions in the bible they set out for a lifetime of debate without any experimentation into what is REALLY being conveyed. They jump on the obvious little contradictions in a book that written by unenlightened people. Does it surprise you that there are contradictions and obvious fallacies?

To be quite honest, I've never met anyone who has set out for a "lifetime of debate" simply because of "contradictions in the Bible" and without ever having indulged in some "experimentation" (by which I mean without ever having held any religious or theistic beliefs). Now, I grant that such people might indeed exist and if they do, I would disagree with them. Still, I doubt that there could be many such people and it is wrong to generalize about all atheists on the basis of these few.

It is true that many atheists started down the road to atheism because of contradictions in the Bible. Noticing these errors has led quite a few people to doubt other things they have been taught by religious leaders and, in some cases, this has led to doubting or even rejecting religion in general. It would not be correct, however, to assert that they are atheists only because of contradictions in the Bible. Although that may have been the spark that lit the fuse, in the end their atheism can be attributed to more than that.

I'm a little surprised, though, at someone attacking atheism who also says that the Bible was written by "unenlightened people." I personally wouldn't characterize the authors of the Bible as "unenlightened" - at least, no more "unenlightened" than the authors of other ancient works, like the Illiad, the Odyssey, or the Upanishads.

True, there are sections of all such works that we rightly regard as unenlightened and even barbaric, but there are other sections that can offer profound insight into life and human nature. After all, these authors were as human as the rest of us and it would be arrogant to assume that all of the insightful ideas only came about in modernity.

Grow up and move past this childish and immature way of looking at existence. Try some experimentation and less intellectualizing. How can Atheists know anything of other dimensions and spaces. It's like trying to explain to a baby that just because someone is out of sight it doesn't mean they don't exist.

The real question is, how can anyone know anything about other dimensions and spaces. It's easy to claim that they exist. It's easy to claim that one has experienced them - and Starman here doesn't hesitate from doing either. It's much more difficult, however, to offer others good reasons to believe that such claims are true - difficult, but absolutely necessary if you want others to believe you.

Unfortunately, Starman doesn't do anything of the sort. We read lots of claims about how these dimensions exist and lots of insults stating that atheists are childish for not believing these claims, but at no point do we see anything that would cause a person to rationally and reasonably adopt such beliefs.

Quit being so hung up on the senses- they are wonderful but they don't show the totality of the existence- they weren't intended to. "If I can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, hear it-then it doesn't exist. How superstitious can you be? To think that just because YOU can't experience it then it doesn't exist. Again, how superstitious can you be? There are many who CAN experience these other dimensions and spaces.

The accusation that atheists are superstitious is quite ironic - although not for the reason you might think. One's initial reaction might be to think that Starman is the superstitious one for believing in things like other spaces and dimensions; while not unreasonable, there is in fact something much more interesting and ironic going on.

If you notice, Starman berates atheists for only believing things that they experience through their senses. Then we hear about how we should experiment so that we can experience these other dimensions and spaces. So first we are criticized for relying only on personal experience and then we are criticized for not going out and having the experiences that Starman says are possible. What's wrong with this picture?

It's not unreasonable to say that a person shouldn't rely only on personal experience for what they believe. Fortunately, atheists don't only believe things they can hear, smell, touch, or see - so that criticism is simply misplaced. It's also not unreasonable to suggest that a person might believe something if they had the necessary experiences. After all, you can't really understand love unless you have experienced - and even then, maybe not.

The problem with Starman's argument here is that he is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand he argues, correctly, that it is a mistake to say "just because I experience it then it doesn't exist," but then the only basis he offers for someone to accept the existence of these "other dimensions and spaces" is to go out and experiment so that you have experience them. If he really believed his first and correct criticism, then why insist that we need to experience these dimensions and spaces?

Why not try an open mind and quit falling for the childish atheist arguments that are comfortable for you- run the experiment and don't think that just because the bible is fucked up that that means there isn't anything else out there. Many report of it. And they are the ONLY ones to trust. They've DONE the experiment. Because you can't TOUCH or SEE what they experience means nothing. Show a little courage and experiment. Be a little bit scientific for a change.

Like so many who try to invoke science on behalf of their cause, I suspect that Starman seriously misunderstands what the scientific process is all about. It is indeed true that experimentation is important; however, if that's all that science were then it wouldn't be able to produce all of the things that it has.

Critical for science is the ability to move beyond an experiment and allow others to replicate it. Only when others are able to reproduce the same results independently is one justified in being confident that they have found something - otherwise, they need to seriously consider that their results were an error of some sort.

So, what kind of experiment does Starman think we should "run" and is it something that can be reliably and consistently replicated, giving us the same results? I don't know. Unfortunately, Starman doesn't offer any information along those lines. We are exhorted to "experiment," but we aren't told what sorts of "experiments" we should run or what sorts of results we can expect. It's almost as if Starman doesn't take these ideas seriously either.

Note: This message originally appeared in the Agnosticism / Atheism forum. Read the whole thread. More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...