In another (now closed) thread, this subject was raised. I find these three concepts very interesting. In interests of full disclosure, I strongly identify as agnostic.
Atheism and theism are, I believe, different sides of the same coin, with each belief system requiring a leap of faith in the face of a total lack of evidence to arrive at such a firm conviction.
Please share your thoughts, and keep Rule #1 in mind.
Atheism can have any number of logics behind it, but one of the most obvious is that an absence of evidence is itself evidence of absence. If there is no evidence that something exists, then it does not exist. This can come with caveats like the "there is no evidence yet therefore it does not exist as far as we know" but this is a completely different coin from a personal belief in something based in personal experiences or understanding. Atheism can be based in scientific reasoning, while most theism exists completely outside of it. That's getting into a debate about falsifiability more than anything, and that's just a giant black hole from which nothing comes back out.
I'd probably count as agnostic. The statement "God does not exist", to me, is meaningless, since there is no way of proving it. Equally, "God does exist" has no way of proving it. The end result I end up getting to answer the question "Does God exist?" is "Error: additional data required" ad infinitum.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd probably count as agnostic. The statement "God does not exist", to me, is meaningless, since there is no way of proving it. Equally, "God does exist" has no way of proving it. The end result I end up getting to answer the question "Does God exist?" is "Error: additional data required" ad infinitum.
Yeah, that's where I'm at. It feels like the question is "X plus X equals infinity. Find X"
Edit: Or, to paraphrase a half- remembered quote from school, it's like looking in the dark for a black dog without a flashlight. The Theist will say "there definitely is a dog" The Atheist will say "there definitely is no dog" and the Agnostic will say "until you give me a flashlight, I cannot say."
feeder wrote: I think that both theists and atheists are relying on zero evidence to form a firm belief. Both require faith.
An absence of evidence is not zero evidence. I know the maxim "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has become quite popular, but it tends to be abused as though it were evidence itself.
An absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence (this is abused almost as much as its contrary above, however it remains true nonetheless). EDIT: As far as evidence goes, it's pretty weak evidence on its own, but functionally if you test for something 500 times 500 different ways, and you still have no evidence to support its existence, it is safe to say it does not exist. Again, that just turns back to questions of falsifiability because I'm unaware of a test for God the divine, but that's still kind of beside the point.
Atheism does not require faith or anything approximating it. It can be reached as a scientific conclusion.
feeder wrote: I think that both theists and atheists are relying on zero evidence to form a firm belief. Both require faith.
An absence of evidence is not zero evidence. I know the maxim "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has become quite popular, but it tends to be abused as though it were evidence itself.
An absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence (this is abused almost as much as its contrary above, however it remains true nonetheless).
You don't think that if there was an all powerful deity, it would be trivial for it to conceal the evidence of it's existence?
I think that absence of evidence swings both ways, personally.
feeder wrote: You don't think that if there was an all powerful deity, it would be trivial for it to conceal the evidence of it's existence?
If god is all powerful, can he make a taco too hot for him to eat?
Both questions are pointless to ask, and have absolutely no bearing on whether one believes in the divine or doesn't. Religion is funny that way. It does not posit evidence at all. It needs no evidence. That's why it's faith. Atheism is fundamentally different. It can be reached using evidence.
feeder wrote: You don't think that if there was an all powerful deity, it would be trivial for it to conceal the evidence of it's existence?
If god is all powerful, can he make a taco too hot for him to eat?
I thought it was microwave a burrito
Both questions are pointless to ask, and have absolutely no bearing on whether one believes in the divine or doesn't. Religion is funny that way. It does not posit evidence at all. It needs no evidence. That's why it's faith. Atheism is fundamentally different. It can be reached using evidence.
Only if you accept that no evidence is proof of no existence. It's circular logic that itself requires faith to accept.
There's a bunch of versions of the questions. A boulder too heavy to lift, A burrito/taco/whatever too hot to eat. etc. All are basically calling to a contradiction of the concept of being all powerful and they are rather pointless questions because they're completely beside the point.
Only if you accept that no evidence is proof of no existence. It's circular logic that itself requires faith to accept.
So you believe in dragons, mermaids, and jackalopes as well then? A common thought experiment is if I have a picture of Africa with no elephants in it, can I argue that elephants do not live in Africa? Yes I could argue that. The picture is evidence, but we all know that someone could easily disprove the argument by producing a picture of an elephant in Africa. On the other hand, with the same picture I could argue that there are no dragons in Africa. Until someone produces a picture of a dragon in Africa, this proposition can be held as possible, but not necessarily true because it is still possible a dragon might be in Africa somewhere. If no pictures of a dragon in Africa materialize after multiple attempts to obtain one and numerous tests trying to prove dragons do live in Africa, then is it still possible dragons live in Africa? Scientifically, we'd eventually conclude that dragons in fact do not live in Africa. If they did, we'd have found one by now. Where exactly can a giant fire breathing reptile capable of flight with a lust for gold and dwarf flesh possibly still be hiding at this point in time? Science would move on and stop wasting its time, because the continued absence of evidence has built up sufficiently for the evidence of absence to be sound.
God can be regarded as similar from the perspective of science. There is no faith involved (especially when science can produces models of creation and the universe that don't require a God to exist). Religion can always move its goal post of course. Any model of the universe existing with no need for a creator is just god working in mysterious ways or intelligent design or what have you. That's because religion doesn't rely on evidence, it relies on personal perspective.
I believe something or somethings created the universe we live in. I do not believe that said thing or things are actively monitoring our world and require our love/devotion. I do not believe said thing or things are dropping pillars of salt on people or flooding the world.
It is possible said thing or things do not even exist anymore or just have better things to do than make sure we are doing exactly what they want us to do.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The question then becomes where to draw the line, which is subjective and thus not actually science at all.
How many different proofs that 2 + 2 = 4 are needed disprove 2 + 2 = 5?
There's nothing subjective about evidence. Evidence exists independent of our own perspective (that's why it's evidence). What evidence means, especially a set of evidence, does involve a degree of subjectivity but not really about whether or not the evidence exists but how strongly it supports a given conclusion. That's besides the point here. How strongly an given absence of evidence supports a proposed evidence of absence has no bearing on the reality that one can use it to support a position of atheism and that that conclusion would be scientific and devoid of any faith based reasoning. EDIT: In this sense, the difference between agnosticism and atheism has nothing to do with anything faith related, but how significant one considers the lack of evidence for anything divine.
I subscribe to basic empiricism. If I have not directly experienced it, I maintain that things may not be as I think them to be. And even if I have, I am open to the possibility of having been fooled.
For example, I am told the moon is made of a rock orbiting the Earth. Not having been there, and not being large enough to reach out and pick it up, I accept that this is the most likely case. But I don't /believe it to be the case. If it turned out I lived in a matrix world where the moon was imaginary, it would be mildly shocking, but I'm not completely wedded to the concept of the moon to the point where it would destroy my concept of reality.
Openmindedness is the key to mental flexibility. Take the world as it appears, but accept everything you know may be wrong, and just because something happened yesterday, it might not be the case tomorrow. Every generation believes they have the right of it, but who utilises phlogiston now?
Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color.
And I think you're starting from a flawed premise here. The short and simple definition of atheism may be "there is no god", but the reason for saying that is "because the burden of proof lies on the side claiming that there is a god, and they haven't even come close to meeting it". Obviously we don't know absolutely for sure beyond any conceivable doubt, but at some point you just a round 0.000000000000000000001% chance to zero. We do it when it comes to every single other thing in our lives besides religion, so why should religion be any different?
Why would God hide His existence so thoroughly as to leave a lack of evidence...and then a couple times give us books and miracles that are supposed to be convincing? Just from a suspension of disbelief POV, most gods don't make sense.
Technically speaking, "there is no God" needs proof just like "there is a God." All claims require evidence. The difference the thread started missing is that one can produce evidence that there is no God in multiple ways, while evidence for God is fundamentally unobtainable short of God himself popping into the lab and saying "hello I'm God" and even then, you have to deal with the the whole being alpha and omega thing, which is just a long series of paradoxes as far as science is concerned.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Why would God hide His existence so thoroughly as to leave a lack of evidence...and then a couple times give us books and miracles that are supposed to be convincing? Just from a suspension of disbelief POV, most gods don't make sense.
I suppose if you are an all powerful deity you need something to do to pass the time.
Most atheists do not disbelieve in God as an act of faith, they do so because of lack of evidence. They don't go as far as to say God is an outright impossibility, just that no evidence means a position of disbelief is most logical. Even Richard Dawkins says this, as if evidence were to come along proving the existence of God, he would revise his opinion. It's simply nonsensical to say that if there's no evidence of something, then claiming that it exists is as logically valid as claiming it's not. You could equally argue that a species of purple elephants live on Pluto, because we've no real evidence to the contrary.
This is what saying 'atheism and theism are opposite sides of the same coin' suggests, but it's stating that both sides have equally logical basis for argument, they do not. It's a false equivalence. If you had a box you knew a mystery dog was inside that neither person had see, but that one person believed it would be white and the other person believed brown, then they are equally valid guesses, same logical substance to their belief or faith, same level of evidence. Brown and White believers have no evidence but are opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak.
If you had a mystery box of unknown content and one person said that as there was no evidence of any contents, they didn't believe it contained anything, while the other claimed they believed it contained a unicorn - well are those positions both valid? No, because one is based on a balance of available evidence or lack thereof, while the other has no basis in fact at all and no basis for creating complex arguments for its contents. Better still, with evidence being demanded the box is then weighed, and found to be very light. The person saying it was empty still has no evidence of any contents, so argues that with a furthering lack of evidence to the contrary, it's likely empty so they continue to believe it empty. The other person revises and complicates their opinion - it's actually a floating unicorn and thus the experiment did nothing to disprove it.
This is what arguing about God using scientific evidence is like, a waste of time because any lack of evidence is excused, and somehow atheists are told their position of not believing in stuff that doesn't have a credible basis or any supporting evidence, requires an equal basis in faith as believing in complex explanations of the supernatural. Rubbish.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Why would God hide His existence so thoroughly as to leave a lack of evidence...and then a couple times give us books and miracles that are supposed to be convincing? Just from a suspension of disbelief POV, most gods don't make sense.
Because if you help people they get lazy. 'God helps those who help themselves'.
LordofHats wrote: Technically speaking, "there is no God" needs proof just like "there is a God." All claims require evidence. The difference the thread started missing is that one can produce evidence that there is no God in multiple ways, while evidence for God is fundamentally unobtainable short of God himself popping into the lab and saying "hello I'm God" and even then, you have to deal with the the whole being alpha and omega thing, which is just a long series of paradoxes as far as science is concerned.
The claim against the existence of any god in particular is the same as the claim against any particular mythological creature. "There is no Loch Ness Monster because there is no evidence of a Loch Ness Monster" tends to be more compelling for the average person, yet there has been a lot more success debunking all of the 'evidence' that the J-C God exists.
Besides, any believer in a particular faith not only believes in their own God, but also 'believes' in "there is no God" for every other religion's Gods. Or rather, they are perfectly willing to accept the evidence of lack for every other God.
That just goes back to one of my earlier points; evidence has no bearing on faith. That's why I hate this illogical argument that theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin. Howard Treesong posits some good reasons for why this is a bad argument. I'd add another; the whole point of having faith is that you have no evidence (or even evidence to the contrary). That's not the opposite of science. It's completely outside of science.
Claiming that atheism and theism are both alike and therefor agnosticism is the only reasonable position is the sort of thing that insufferably smug no-nothings say. Agnosticism is not a reasonable position. It's a very unreasonable position. We don't live our lives walking around from moment to moment asking for proof of every little thing.
Our day to day lives depend upon evidence and precidence. Where there is a lack of empirical evidence we fill in the blanks by making unconcious assessments based on experience and knowledge. Saying "it's impossible to know, therefore we shouldn't make any decisions" is a philosophical and intellectual dead end. Completely devoid if intellect and contribution. It doesn't make anybody superior if they suggest that atheism and theism are the same therefor agnosticism is the only reasonable position. It doesn't make you look more intelligent or reasonable to be an agnostic. All it means is that you have forfeited your right to be taken seriously when difficult questions are asked.
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument requires some very heavy mental gymnastics to be accepted as a true statement. If you say to me that I cant prove that unicorns dont exist, you are not wrong, I cant definitely say that unicorns dont exist, but that dosent make the claim that unicorns exist any more true.
Im not trying to attack people's religious beliefs here, I just hate it when people try to use mental gymnastics like this to prove their point, for example one of my exes was convinced that I cheated on her but since she had no evidence she told me to prove that I never did.
Peregrine wrote: Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color.
And I think you're starting from a flawed premise here. The short and simple definition of atheism may be "there is no god", but the reason for saying that is "because the burden of proof lies on the side claiming that there is a god, and they haven't even come close to meeting it". Obviously we don't know absolutely for sure beyond any conceivable doubt, but at some point you just a round 0.000000000000000000001% chance to zero. We do it when it comes to every single other thing in our lives besides religion, so why should religion be any different?
This basically. I can't say for sure that there is no god, but there are about fifteen light years of occam's razor between religion and atheism. As such, the logical thing to go with seems to be the latter, no?
If you don't like theism because of the whole all powerful deity concept, why try something a little less exclusive?
Monotheism is generally the set of religions that believe in an all powerful god or goddess. Polytheism answers many of those age old explanations of why plagues break out, hurricanes destroy orphanages, and yet people inexplicably survive where they should not have and miraculously recover. There are many gods and goddesses at play, of varying degrees of power and compassion for humans. I'd imagine that's why most early religions went with polytheism.
feeder wrote: I think that both theists and atheists are relying on zero evidence to form a firm belief. Both require faith.
You're right that both atheists and theists have reached a conclusion, and in that sense they are different to the agnostics who have not. But you're completely wrong in your assumption that there is no evidence.
The 'faith' thing seems to me to be a copout. Faith doesn't mean moving from zero evidence to a conclusion. Going from zero evidence to a conclusion is just guessing. But taking limited evidence, and reaching a conclusion that you find most likely, that's what most people are doing.
If there is a God and this is the world he created, then we can look at this world to see evidence of his intent and his purpose. Theists see many incredible things, sunsets, births, love and so on, and they see evidence of a loving God. Atheists might see chaos, the survival of the fittest, the lack of any kind of natural justice, and things like that and conclude that it's all just a random creation with no intent behind it.
It is fine to reach either conclusion, and also fine to reach neither conclusion and believe that you do not know. What isn't fine is to start reviewing other people's decisions and deciding whether their conclusions meet your own standards.
I'm sure it depends on the evidence. A huge, flaming Hebrew sign across the face of the moon would be more compelling than Kirk Cameron's infamous banana, for example.
Something to think is whether one needs to believe in super powerful god beings to have belief or be religious.
Buddhism doesn't believe in all creating god that controls us(if buddhist can have belief then it's on the idea that just as source of suffering is within us so is the key to removing that suffering). And at the heart of Buddhism is also idea that you shouldn't just take it for granted because somebody you respect told you it's so. Buddha himself said to his followers to take his words, study them, try to poke holes in them and only after agreeing believe it.
I'm an Agnostic Athiest. That isn't a contradiction, people just usually don't understand what the actual terms mean, and tend to misuse them, so people think Athiest means "person who says there is no God" rather than "person who doesn't follow a religion or deity".
Gnostic atheists are rare, and often gets confused with being all Athiests, as they're usually just the ones who actually talk about it and profess their (non-)belief. They're no more annoying than Gnostic theists though in my experience, and involve less yelling at people on the streets, which is a positive.
A lot of the arguments presented is that there is no evidence for God. This is at best uninformed and at worst deliberate denial.
There is plenty of evidence for the existance of God what is lacking is proof.
I will be looking at this from a Judeo-Christian point of view, though other premises could be raised by proponents of other faiths.
Evidence that God exists.
1. Testimonial evidence.
I am no talking about 'I believe' statements, I am talking about life changing testimony. Along the lines of 'I was broken and God changed my life for the better'.
There are numerous testimonies of people who claim to have a relationship with God and have been changed by that relationship.
This doesn't provide proof but testimonial is acceptable evidence in most cases, so why not here.
You could argue that they are all deluded or lying, all billions of them, but that requires a greater leap of faith than accepting that these people consider their testimony true. The changes lives however are completely verifiable, with numerous examples to be given.
2. Signs and wonders.
Throughout history there have been signs and wonders documented, this persists to the current day.
Just do any net search and you will find stories.
Granted a portion of the stories will be hoaxes, but all of them?
3. Prophecy.
I am not talking about reading tea leaves here. Something more substantial.
It is too much of a coincidence that Israel was founded on he exact day May 14th 1948 that corresponded to a fulfillment of a timeline started on the exact day that Jerusalem fell over two thousand years earlier. This is compounded by other events relating directly to the timeline. For more info on this look up 'Daniels 70 weeks' prophecy and the '70 jubilee' calculations.
These are not proofs, but are evidence of the book of Daniel fortelling specific globally recognised events with a to-the-day level of accuracy. The best Nostradamus could do was vague references to Hister and the Danube.
Now, a caveat. There are a lot of nutjob prophecy interpretations out there, check YouTube and you will see. But there are other more level headed ones and back up with clearly written scripture referenced with Biblical numerology. I personally believe the current interpretation of the Daniel 70 weeks regarding the timeline of the restoration of Israel and how it was the will of God that Israel was founded on that day. I am not entirely sure about the eschatological implications, but I am prepared to believe them, if the coming signs appear at the right time. On that note if the 70 jubilee interpretation is accurate the End Times proper begins in September 2017, just after the final 70th jubilee which starts in September this year at the time of the Feast of Trumpets. Things might be about to get interesting.
4. Holy Spirit.
This is hard to quantify to those who do not know God personally. Many Christians myself included make claim that they have personal rapport with a divine being kn on as the Holy Spirit, a part of the Trinity. I cannot in any way prove this to you, but will hand on heart declare it to be true. As will may other witnesses.
The only way to know for sure is to be born again yourselves, which I do recommend, but is not the focus of the thread.
One thing I can say is once you know the Holy Spirit the question of whether God exists is answered, because He is here. In a way I am not really a man of faith, I know my God with certainty, He knows me, and we talk.
I cannot find any way to prove to you I am not lying through my teeth. But why would I do that?
5. NDEs
There are numerous testimonies of near death experiences. The vast majority of these experiences follow the after death Christian theology, even when the person is an atheist or a follower of another faith.
Again this is testimony but it deserves a separate category as a documentable pattern is followed. Person is rendered to a near death state, or is clinically dead. This is often witnessed by professional medical practitioners. Person returns to life/recovers and on waking describes experiences of the afterlife, often with hell or heaven testimonies and testimonies of meeting God.
Other these individuals were atheists or agnostics, who subsequently believed, some lost any fer of death being personally convinced that heaven exists. Many return with evidence of theologies they did not share or were unaware of.
Conclusion We ought to replace the 'there is no evidence of God whatsoever' with 'there is no proof of God whatsoever'.
There is no proof either way or there would be no rational choice but to believe or not believe, respectively of which outcome is proven.
However nobody who claims to have a scientific mind, as most atheists do can justify handwaving away all the evidence. Many atheists do so frequently, and frankly and ironically it is blind faith they move in to do so.
The whole concept of there being no evidence of God and therefore atheism being a 'default' position is wishful thinking and nothing more. There is plenty of evidence, you either have not seen it or prefer to favour other evidence instead. This is the essential kernel of truth behind the statement that atheism is a faith choice. Atheists either choose in faith to disbeleve the testimonies and the evidence, or choose to become atheists without referring to such.
There is evidence out there of living God, some of it profound and surrounded by documented events that defy the odds or even what is considered possible, including documented resurrections of people clinically dead long enough that according to our understanding of brain chemistry would suffer massive brain damage from oxygen starvation. Yet being raised whole and able o testify as to what had happened while they were dead.
From a Christian point of view I have no problems with anyone saying there is no proof of God's existence. That is how He wants it.
Once again, since this was bound to come up. Ill hold off on the reasons religion lead to so much conflict in the world.
As said many many times, Theism is having faith something is without needing or wanting proof.
Atheism is wanting and needing proof to acknowledge something exists. No faith whatsoever.
I have faith my daughter won't get pregnant, I have no proof.
If I locked her in a room and never let her out, thats proof shes not going to get pregnant.
Agnostics are willing to accept either conclusion could be true.
I am an Atheist. If JC himself came down, pelted me with his scarred hands and lashed me with his crown of thorns I would be one very repentant SOB after I told him what a DB his father was for allowing to keep killing each other.
but I know without zero doubt that could never happen.
So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Prove muhammed was taken to heaven on a winged steed, or Mary was impregnated with the holy spirit as a virgin.
Prove intelligent design. But do not quote Ken Hamm. Im out if that happens.
I always bring ot back to what you consider evidence and what you dont, Personal experimce ext.
What happened to my mother was in my opnion proof a god where others can see it differently.
Early october 2010 she was told she had lucemea or how ever you spell it. Was told she would die before years end. After nearly two month being home horibly sick and falling to sleep randomly and crying saying her bones hurt.
They took her to halifax within two days did all the tests and confirmed she had the disease and said she would be lucky to make it to christmas. The house hold fell to hell and we where getting ready for the worse thing that can happen to anyone lossing their mom.
My first son was born two days later and I got to admit I cried like a baby lossing my mom when I needed her most I was scared and unsure what to do, my dad was panicing refusing to buy food or anything scared to buy anything because of money issues.
Well a day before her first treatment the doctor came in said how are you feelig , she replied I am feeling pretty good. He said we will fix that for you, this treatment will probly make you really sick.
The next day she was walking around asking if she could go home to see my child the doctor said someing seemed off and redid some test. Strangely all signs of the disease where gone, nothing remained so they redid them again then sent her home.
The doctor who is a friend of my uncle his neoghbor dropped by a couple weeks later and asked how she was and stuff, she said I am doing great the orginial tests must of been wrong he said there is no chance they where run several times and all the test showed the same signs. That he cant think of any reason it would just go away.
They retested her several times over the course of the year and next, no signs remained. When she was at the mall several months later she ran i to the nurse and the nurse was talking to her and I am not sure how the conversation went since I bumped in half way threw but the nurse comment of we cant think of any way that would explain the results we recieved from you for those several weeks.
So how ever you treat my life experince is up to you but I believe it was by the grace of god.
Not to mention my cousin was born with cancer in his brain they treated it and said that any more treatments and he would be completely blomd amd it would cure nothing, his mother prayed for years that je would atleaat finished highschool if she could see that it was all that mattered. Well he graduated many years ago about she passed away from cancer the same year he graduated. So to me it looks like her prayers where anwsered he lived and his is now benin or what ever e spelling but she passed away with what should of killed him.
So to end it in my eveys there is and always will be a god.
As said many many times, Theism is having faith something is without needing or wanting proof.
Atheism is wanting and needing proof to acknowledge something exists. No faith whatsoever.
Theism is having belief in the existence of the divine.
Atheism is having belief there is no divine.
The only way either of these conclusions could be reached is through choice of belief unless actual proof is provided. It is a matter of which evidence is accepted and which is rejected, and also how he same evidence is interpreted a lot of the time.
An agnostic is someone who needs proof before acknowledging something exists, and they can have an atheist or theistic outlook.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm sure it depends on the evidence. A huge, flaming Hebrew sign across the face of the moon would be more compelling than Kirk Cameron's infamous banana, for example.
This is where science enters the debate. "Religion" has over the decades made a variety of claims about how God or the gods run the universe, all of which so far have been proven false. (Evolution, heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease, thunder and lightning, and so on.) Naturally this leads people towards atheism.
Of course we are always left with the possibility that God set up the universe with its physical laws, "lit the blue touchpaper and stood well away".
Orlanth, with respect those aren't evidence unless your definition of evidence is very wide. Personal testimony and Holy Spirit have no substance, and there's no reason to conclude that being raised in a religion doesn't largely inform such feelings. People around the world and theought history have felt similarly about personal connections with their own God or gods, conveniently the ones that a popular within their own culture. You don't get often get people raised as Hindus and never exposed to Christianity suddenly saying they've been specifically spoken to by a Christian God. The interpretation of individual experienced are informed by their religion, they don't arrive at God after a logical and unbiased examination of the evidence they have.
NDEs are explainable by many phenomena and are reproducible to an extent. They can be similar experiences to supposed alien abductions, but again the religious belief, or desire to believe in aliens, informs the conclusion rather than the evidence pointing towards God as the logical explanation.
Signs and wonders and Prophesies, again open to interpretation, but age old cognitive bias account for many observations, confirmation bias being most well known, as the brain loves to spot patterns in things and ignore evidence/experiences that doesn't support their preconceived ideas. Gamblers are terrible for this having faith in all sorts of things for what helps them win while ignoring how probability works.
It's not evidence. Most examples require cherry picking for a vast amount of 'data', and the conculsion that God exists has already been decided and evidence is mentally used to fit that conculsion. The conclusion isn't arrived at through deductive reasoning based on the purported evidence, as it is.
As said many many times, Theism is having faith something is without needing or wanting proof.
Atheism is wanting and needing proof to acknowledge something exists. No faith whatsoever.
Theism is having belief in the existence of the divine.
Atheism is having belief there is no divine.
The only way either of these conclusions could be reached is through choice of belief unless actual proof is provided. It is a matter of which evidence is accepted and which is rejected, and also how he same evidence is interpreted a lot of the time.
An agnostic is someone who needs proof before acknowledging something exists, and they can have an atheist or theistic outlook.
Believing in the divine requires faith, of which there is no proof but decide to just accept it. No evidence needed.
An atheist is going to come to a conclusion based on evidence or scientific method. Scientific method dictates that should contridictory evidence arise, and can be proven it then must be accepted. Most scientists publish papers, and welcome others to recreate the work proving or disproving said theory or expirement. Someone of faith can not accept contradictory evidence because there is no evidence or proof to begin with.
Just to add a little bit of different flavour to this discussion, as I do not believe one can actually make believer become an atheist or an atheist to become a believer based on an internet discussion, but:
What if I told you, you can influence (exalt or dim) your belief in any religious or paranormal phenomena or, on the other side, increase or decreas your emotional attachment to the world itself (sometimes to an extent, when you think in purely logical way or in pure, hysteric emotional way) by means of therapy with any major antiepileptic drug? Or many other psychiatric drugs?
In discussions like this people from both sides of the fence usually assume, that they are objective, logical beings somehow disconnected from influence of endocrynological, neurological and psychiatrical effects on human reasoning. Influence, which is VAST and omnidirectional and in all practical terms undermines the sole principle of "free will".
nou wrote: Just to add a little bit of different flavour to this discussion, as I do not believe one can actually make believer become an atheist or an atheist to become a believer based on an internet discussion, but:
What if I told you, you can influence (exalt or dim) your belief in any religious or paranormal phenomena or, on the other side, increase or decreas your emotional attachment to the world itself (sometimes to an extent, when you think in purely logical way or in pure, hysteric emotional way) by means of therapy with any major antiepileptic drug? Or many other psychiatric drugs?
In discussions like this people from both sides of the fence usually assume, that they are objective, logical beings somehow disconnected from influence of endocrynological, neurological and psychiatrical effects on human reasoning. Influence, which is VAST and omnidirectional and in all practical terms undermines the sole principle of "free will".
actually I think that is valid and many, I am not one, believe that raising children religious is akin to child abuse. You condition someone to think one thing, which is simply how you were probably raised, and you have nurture. Free will is a touch existential question. do I choose to do this, or am I doing it because I have been programmed to. I can agree it is probably both, but a certain operating system has been placed in us as were were raised. I myself was raised religious, and I upgraded from windows 3.1 to Ubuntu if you will.
Atheist here. I don't believe in God, and am firmly planted in my beliefs, not only from an emotional standpoint, but from a logical standpoint.
There were times when I was weak (from family deaths) and wanted to believe so badly, and I couldn't because I felt nothing, I felt no god was there. I've also taken several history classes and realized that most religions are just stories, modified to serve a purpose (look at Egypt, Babylon, Mesopotamia, etc.).
That being said, if you want to believe, I support it. Just don't go pushing it on others.
Gitzbitah wrote: If you don't like theism because of the whole all powerful deity concept, why try something a little less exclusive?
Monotheism is generally the set of religions that believe in an all powerful god or goddess. Polytheism answers many of those age old explanations of why plagues break out, hurricanes destroy orphanages, and yet people inexplicably survive where they should not have and miraculously recover. There are many gods and goddesses at play, of varying degrees of power and compassion for humans. I'd imagine that's why most early religions went with polytheism.
Funny, as a polytheist myself, I was going to post this. Most arguments about the existence of the divine in western society focus exclusively on monotheism (thus such arguments as Pascal's wager and the existence of evil). Many dieties with differing interests and levels of power make a lot more sense in the world.
Gitzbitah wrote: If you don't like theism because of the whole all powerful deity concept, why try something a little less exclusive?
Monotheism is generally the set of religions that believe in an all powerful god or goddess. Polytheism answers many of those age old explanations of why plagues break out, hurricanes destroy orphanages, and yet people inexplicably survive where they should not have and miraculously recover. There are many gods and goddesses at play, of varying degrees of power and compassion for humans. I'd imagine that's why most early religions went with polytheism.
Funny, as a polytheist myself, I was going to post this. Most arguments about the existence of the divine in western society focus exclusively on monotheism (thus such arguments as Pascal's wager and the existence of evil). Many dieties with differing interests and levels of power make a lot more sense in the world.
Does it? There has never been a culture with set levels of power. They're always erasing other gods and growing in power (a la Ra in Egypt). How does that make more sense than Monotheism?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Orlanth, with respect those aren't evidence unless your definition of evidence is very wide..
Actually it is evidence.
For a start if three witnesses see you commit a crime and there was no other evidence for or against that might will be enough to send you to prison. Testimony is evidence, in fact its the original source of evidence. Testimony need only be credible and corroborated. Amongst the Christian witness both can be found. Note that testimony is evidence it is not of itself proof. However what I a seeing a lot of shifting of goalposts by dishonest atheists who demand proofs as the only acceptable evidence, and when presented with no proofs pull a fast one and claim there is no evidence.
Personal testimony and Holy Spirit have no substance, and there's no reason to conclude that being raised in a religion doesn't largely inform such feelings.
On the contrary those feelings can lead to actions. It provides credible witnessevidence as lives are chaned, both from the person whose life is changed and also from those who know the person and see the change.
This is seen documentable as statistics. Let me give you an example.
The Argentine prison revival resulted in rehabilitation statistics other prison services could only dream of matching. IIRC in some cases over 90%. Olmos prison claimed a 95% rehabilitation rate due to the revival, with national average at 47%.
https://renewaljournal.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/prison-revival-in-argentina-byedgardo-silvoso/ http://sovereignworldtrust.org.uk/documents/Spring10newsletter.pdf
People around the world and theought history have felt similarly about personal connections with their own God or gods, conveniently the ones that a popular within their own culture. You don't get often get people raised as Hindus and never exposed to Christianity suddenly saying they've been specifically spoken to by a Christian God. The interpretation of individual experienced are informed by their religion, they don't arrive at God after a logical and unbiased examination of the evidence they have.
Why do you say this? Got any studies on this, you seem pretty sure of your premise.
Meanwhile It does happen. Good example of this is the ministry of Sundar Singh, who had a Christian conversion experience when not only not a Christian but as opposed to Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu_Sundar_Singh
In Visions Beyond the Veil a ministry to uneducated Chinese orphans was viited by the Holy Spirit. The children were exposed to spiritual experiences outside their birth culture and to which they had not been introduced.
https://hopefaithprayer.com/visions-beyond-the-veil-free-book-h-a-baker/
NDEs are explainable by many phenomena and are reproducible to an extent. They can be similar experiences to supposed alien abductions, but again the religious belief, or desire to believe in aliens, informs the conclusion rather than the evidence pointing towards God as the logical explanation..
Many NDE experience testimonies are from atheists and believers of other faiths. People who have no vested interest in suddenly becoming Christian.
Signs and wonders and Prophesies, again open to interpretation, but age old cognitive bias account for many observations, confirmation bias being most well known, as the brain loves to spot patterns in things and ignore evidence/experiences that doesn't support their preconceived ideas. Gamblers are terrible for this having faith in all sorts of things for what helps them win while ignoring how probability works.
What confirmation bias can you claim when the book of Daniel written two and a half thousand years ago predicts Israel will be restored after a specific portion of time. This first occurred when the Jews returned to restore the Temple, then again when the sevenfold curse is applied the rest of Israel is restored. Both events occurred on the correct day.
It's not evidence. Most examples require cherry picking for a vast amount of 'data', and the conculsion that God exists has already been decided and evidence is mentally used to fit that conclusion. The conclusion isn't arrived at through deductive reasoning based on the purported evidence, as it is.
Atheism works the same way:
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
Reference
Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.
Now there has to be 'cherry picking', but that is not in any way deceptive but to defend against deception. The Bible tells us to judge prophecy and it is not a sin to discard words or events that you aren't sure are of God.
1 Corinthians 14:29
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
Often critics will unfairly claim that believers will believe anything. Some might, but that is not what the teaching says we should do. Careful scepticism is a valid part of a spiritual walk.
As for the vast amount of data. That is because there are rather a lot of Christians. Its the largest identifiable people group on the planet and includes the worlds single largest organisation in the Roman Catholic church. Even if only a small fraction of the estimated 2.2 billion Christians are walking a spiritual life and encountered spiritual events, that would still be a multitude.
It is odd that a lot of glib wandwaves are used by people to deny the evidence of Christianity. Confirmation bias, mass hysteria, fraud etc etc. Atheism contains more confirmation bias, it is entirely reliant on it, as there is no conversion expereince alternative. Nobody is going to have a blinding light conversion to Dawkins on the road to Damascus.
Yet Atheists oftimes claim to be objective and scientific in their hand waving, and worse acclaim science itself as atheistic. The 'science vs religion fallacy' I ill cover in more detail later.
redleger wrote: Someone of faith can not accept contradictory evidence because there is no evidence or proof to begin with.
Here we are again. To claim there is no evidence for God, is the 'scientific' process' of putting fingers in ears saying "lalala i'm not listening". There is plenty of evidence, often from very credible witnesses, or documented events. You are free to choose not to believe it. But anyone who handwaves it all away should stop pretending they are applying any scientific reasoning to their conclusions.
What about your glib wand waves denying the truth of Islam, Hinduism, or the existence of Zeus?
True believers always think the evidence of their own religion, the one they were raised and trained into, is the most compelling. To anyone who grew up outside your faith, it isn't.
The testimonials and miracles all cancel each other out. If your religion and each of the others are mutually exclusive and present evidence of similar quality, the most reasonable conclusion that they are all wrong.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: What about your glib wand waves denying the truth of Islam, Hinduism, or the existence of Zeus?
Those arent glib hand waves.
I continue to believe in Christianity based on the positive evidence and it is mutually exclusive to the other faith systems you mentioned.
A Hindu or Moslem is perhaps in the same situation and their consequent denial of Christianity is not without reasoning, and I will not try to find fault in that.
The whole point about 'glib handwaves' is that they are correctly directed at atheist dogma, with direct relevance to the atheist position forwarded so often here on Dakka.
Christians and the theists aren't going around saying' there is no evidence for atheism'. I myself have never said that, and I have not witnessed any of the other theists of any faith here doing so either.
However atheist after atheist turns up and bleats the mantra 'there is no evidence for God'.
Funny thing is the same people claim to be atheistic due to scientific evidence, while forgetting that handwaving away unwanted evidence is just about the most unscientific thing a person of science do.
True believers always think the evidence of their own religion, the one they were raised and trained into, is the most compelling. To anyone who grew up outside your faith, it isn't..
Not universally true. People can and to convert or change their faith outlook to one different to that raised. Both Christianity and Islam are gaining a lot of new converts in the UK from cultures outside their own including atheist homes.
Besides the raised 'true believer' can apply to all persons including those raised in atheist households.
First this doesn't necessarily happen, second it doesn't imply that the decision to choose even the same faith as ones fathers is not thought through; and third, it can apply to people brought up as atheists as to any other faith group.
The testimonials and miracles all cancel each other out. If your religion and each of the others are mutually exclusive and present evidence of similar quality, the most reasonable conclusion that they are all wrong.
Is this so. Where are the Moslem miracles or the Hindu ones?
You will find the premise of miriaculous testimony is pretty much unique to the charismatic fellowships, of whatever denomination. There are very few non-Christian miracle stories.
No they don't cancel each other out.
I dont think theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin. Atheism is seeing there's no evidence, at least that youve ever noticed, and deciding that you dont believe. A theist sees all this, and believes anyways. That at least was what I was taught when I grew up Methodist. One of the only things I remember from the sermons was constantly being reminded that the whole point of faith was believing in something that everyone was trying to disprove. That no matter what, you didnt question God/Jesus/Holy spirit and trusted their judgement. Which after being far too trusting of other people and getting burned because of this upbringing, I started to question how wise it was to assume this was different. I went through a brief "devout atheist phase" like many people do when theyre first out, but that mellowed out pretty quick.
My position on religion has been a half hearted "meh" for years now, in that one day I realized that it wasnt an issue of believing or not believing, I just didnt care.
It creates friction with some family and peers, but since I dont really preach "MrMoustaffa's Gospel of I Don't Really Care", its not usually a big deal. The only real place where problems have arisen is dating, because many girls are still "no sex before marriage" religious types here (nothing wrong with that, its their choice.) A dirty heathen like me doesnt have those same reservations so its almost to the point of a first date question, just so I dont waste the poor girl's time.
I just feel I shouldnt need the threat of eternal damnation to make me be a good person, and if there isnt anything after this, I need to make it count. Plus, if I lived a genuinely good life in every way I could, and was denied heaven just because I didnt worship, it probably wasnt a god I wanted to worship anyways.
Now if the Raptrue started tomorrow and I saw people floating into the sky to go to heaven, I'd be the first to admit I was wrong about not believing in a god and apologize. But as we all know its probably too late by then.
Whether thats agnostic, atheist, humanist, or scientologist I dont really care, and it doesnt really matter. I usually just check atheist or agnostic depending on which is available whenever a form asks. Thats about the closest choices I have as far as I'm aware and checking other makes it sound like I worship the Flying Soaghetti Monster or something.
skyth wrote: The Greek pantheon definitely has some gods more powerful than others.
Most pantheons do...especially at different things(spheres of influence if you may...)
Yeah, because of political influence. Trust me, I've spent a year of college studying the effects of religion, and most of the difference in power level is due to priests/politicians using it to rule/suppress others, especially women, by shifting power from female to male deities. Ra is the most classic example, in that he was birthed from a mother goddess, but after a century of rule Ra was revised to have birthed every other god and goddess.
To be clear, I am not operating from a position of superiority, nor talking down to anyone, nor feeling smug about this whole thing.
I am genuinely interested in this subject and enjoy discussing it.
Some points have been raised equating unicorns or some similar fantasy animal to a deity. This is silly. We have described a potential deity to have such awesome power, it's not apples to apples.
I asked before, if there was some all-powerful deity, surely it would be trivial for it to conceal it's existence from us. The best answer I got was "why would it do that".
I understand that agnosticism is a bit of a cop out. But I have seen no compelling evidence either way.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: True believers always think the evidence of their own religion, the one they were raised and trained into, is the most compelling. To anyone who grew up outside your faith, it isn't.
The testimonials and miracles all cancel each other out. If your religion and each of the others are mutually exclusive and present evidence of similar quality, the most reasonable conclusion that they are all wrong.
For second point not every religion denies existance of others so just because evidence would point to religion X being true doesn't mean religion Y wouldn't be true. Both being true isn't impossibility.
For first it conveniently ignores that religions have and do spread outside original place. If it didn't christianity wouldn't have come to europe. Buddhism would have stayed in India(and died out later when India was ravaged by Mongols and Buddhism was all but wiped out of India until birthplace of Buddhism re-received Buddhism from other countries!).
You could say that's ancient history and doesn't apply anymore(which is quite convenient handwavium) except it's happening even these days and indeed with opening of culture, travel and information has become probably easier than ever before...
Buddhism for example(I use it because apart from Christianity I was born that's the religion I'm most familiar with) is spreading into western countries adapting itself as it has had habit of in the 2500 years it's existed. Even in Finland there's organized Buddhism activity. Obviously in Helsinki and I think there's some in Turku and read of some groups in bigger cities in north. Plus n amount of individuals who don't belong to organized groups because either there isn't such in place he/she lives or he/She doesn't know if it does exists(pretty sure there's no Buddhist activity where I live for example. Closest you get is library that at least has related books...)
skyth wrote: The Greek pantheon definitely has some gods more powerful than others.
Most pantheons do...especially at different things(spheres of influence if you may...)
Yeah, because of political influence. Trust me, I've spent a year of college studying the effects of religion, and most of the difference in power level is due to priests/politicians using it to rule/suppress others, especially women, by shifting power from female to male deities. Ra is the most classic example, in that he was birthed from a mother goddess, but after a century of rule Ra was revised to have birthed every other god and goddess.
Polytheism isn't that different from monotheism.
Even without the political, there is the division between the big three (Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon) and the rest as far as power goes.
Plus there is the whole sphere of influence thing. Ares wants more and brutal war. Hermes wants to share information, Bachus just wants to get drunk, etc. which supports how the world is the way it is.
And this is talking about the gods themselved, not the religion that man formed around them. Not neccessarily the same thing. I am a Hellenic Pagan myself, but I don't base it on exactly what the ancients believed.
Soladrin wrote: It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.
Scientology is technically a religion that was founded in the last century.......
Scientology is a religion that has evidence proving it's falsability. Hubbard was a known con man who said the way to get rich is create a religion. I can confidently say Scientology is made up as we can look to the source and say it is not credible.
Soladrin wrote: It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.
Scientology is technically a religion that was founded in the last century.......
Scientology is a religion that has evidence proving it's falsability. Hubbard was a known con man who said the way to get rich is create a religion. I can confidently say Scientology is made up as we can look to the source and say it is not credible.
As opposed to all those voice from the sky sources.
Soladrin wrote: It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.
It's impossible for me to look at society in this day and age and believe people are rational.
Also.... I'm not sure if you realise, but the way you worded that you said you don't think rational people would believe religion is nonsense, where as I think you meant to say you do think rational people would believe it's nonsense. Unless your post was pro religion in which case I misunderstood what you meant and you think religion has a positive history which would leave rational people to believe in relgion now. Oh the difference an apostrophe makes
Anyway, that aside, more generally speaking regarding this thread....
Personally I think rational people can believe whatever the feth they want. It's the ones who think they actually know things with certainty that I think are fooling themselves.
Although I don't entirely agree with him, I kind of like David Mitchell's views on it....
Soladrin wrote: It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.
Scientology is technically a religion that was founded in the last century.......
Scientology is a religion that has evidence proving it's falsability. Hubbard was a known con man who said the way to get rich is create a religion. I can confidently say Scientology is made up as we can look to the source and say it is not credible.
And yet, believers of Scientology could use the same evidence that other religious folk use to claim their gods exist as evidence of Scientology being true, could they not?
I would be a gnostic atheist, based on that graphic shown earlier in the thread. I *know* there is no god, no creator of our life or world such as religions posit, just as those who do believe *know* that there is. One of our groups is likely wrong. I hope it's not me, and it's not because I don't want to admit anything, I just think it'd be very very sad if a god actually does exist that watches us constantly.
And I'm gnostic, but I'm not rude about it. However, considering how everyone just assumes it's okay to say "God did this" or "Thank God" or just sprinkle "God" in conversation as if it's existence is a known fact and without question, I've started saying things like "If God actually existed" or "Please don't speak to me as if a god exists," except phrased differently (it happens so rarely I don't really remember the exact wordings). If they can talk to me about their beliefs as if its fact, I can do the same. There should not be a social expectation that everyone around you believes in a benevolent god, yet my (anecdotal) experience has shown me that most Christians have that expectation, and it makes me uncomfortable in those situations.
I don't do it often, though. Like I said, I try not to be rude with it. However, I don't avoid saying what I would simply because it might be received poorly. It shouldn't be. People should be able to talk about the nonexistence of deities in the exact same casual way people talk about how "God is great." I have religious friends. I have *heavily* religious friends. I absolutely respect their views, and they respect mine. It's okay to not agree, it's okay to *know* two directly opposing things.
Soladrin wrote: It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.
Scientology is technically a religion that was founded in the last century.......
Scientology is a religion that has evidence proving it's falsability. Hubbard was a known con man who said the way to get rich is create a religion. I can confidently say Scientology is made up as we can look to the source and say it is not credible.
And yet, believers of Scientology could use the same evidence that other religious folk use to claim their gods exist as evidence of Scientology being true, could they not?
I would be a gnostic atheist, based on that graphic shown earlier in the thread. I *know* there is no god, no creator of our life or world such as religions posit, just as those who do believe *know* that there is. One of our groups is likely wrong. I hope it's not me, and it's not because I don't want to admit anything, I just think it'd be very very sad if a god actually does exist that watches us constantly.
And I'm gnostic, but I'm not rude about it. However, considering how everyone just assumes it's okay to say "God did this" or "Thank God" or just sprinkle "God" in conversation as if it's existence is a known fact and without question, I've started saying things like "If God actually existed" or "Please don't speak to me as if a god exists," except phrased differently (it happens so rarely I don't really remember the exact wordings). If they can talk to me about their beliefs as if its fact, I can do the same. There should not be a social expectation that everyone around you believes in a benevolent god, yet my (anecdotal) experience has shown me that most Christians have that expectation, and it makes me uncomfortable in those situations.
I don't do it often, though. Like I said, I try not to be rude with it. However, I don't avoid saying what I would simply because it might be received poorly. It shouldn't be. People should be able to talk about the nonexistence of deities in the exact same casual way people talk about how "God is great." I have religious friends. I have *heavily* religious friends. I absolutely respect their views, and they respect mine. It's okay to not agree, it's okay to *know* two directly opposing things.
I agree and I would say it should go further than that. When you have Ken Hamm getting tax payer funding to build an ark and throw about wholly inaccurate claims about history, trying to convince the youth that the world is around 6000 years old, you start poisoning an entire group that could possibly prove to be much more if they had only been given the chance. Why can we not say, "Hey, ken you crazy dude, quite using my tax money to build silly boats and spread lies and inaccuracies. "
Soladrin wrote: It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.
Scientology is technically a religion that was founded in the last century.......
Scientology is a religion that has evidence proving it's falsability. Hubbard was a known con man who said the way to get rich is create a religion. I can confidently say Scientology is made up as we can look to the source and say it is not credible.
And yet, believers of Scientology could use the same evidence that other religious folk use to claim their gods exist as evidence of Scientology being true, could they not?
I would be a gnostic atheist, based on that graphic shown earlier in the thread. I *know* there is no god, no creator of our life or world such as religions posit, just as those who do believe *know* that there is. One of our groups is likely wrong. I hope it's not me, and it's not because I don't want to admit anything, I just think it'd be very very sad if a god actually does exist that watches us constantly.
And I'm gnostic, but I'm not rude about it. However, considering how everyone just assumes it's okay to say "God did this" or "Thank God" or just sprinkle "God" in conversation as if it's existence is a known fact and without question, I've started saying things like "If God actually existed" or "Please don't speak to me as if a god exists," except phrased differently (it happens so rarely I don't really remember the exact wordings). If they can talk to me about their beliefs as if its fact, I can do the same. There should not be a social expectation that everyone around you believes in a benevolent god, yet my (anecdotal) experience has shown me that most Christians have that expectation, and it makes me uncomfortable in those situations.
I don't do it often, though. Like I said, I try not to be rude with it. However, I don't avoid saying what I would simply because it might be received poorly. It shouldn't be. People should be able to talk about the nonexistence of deities in the exact same casual way people talk about how "God is great." I have religious friends. I have *heavily* religious friends. I absolutely respect their views, and they respect mine. It's okay to not agree, it's okay to *know* two directly opposing things.
I agree and I would say it should go further than that. When you have Ken Hamm getting tax payer funding to build an ark and throw about wholly inaccurate claims about history, trying to convince the youth that the world is around 6000 years old, you start poisoning an entire group that could possibly prove to be much more if they had only been given the chance. Why can we not say, "Hey, ken you crazy dude, quite using my tax money to build silly boats and spread lies and inaccuracies. "
I'm against religious handouts of any kind, be they Christian, Hindu, etc. Separation of Church and State.
LordofHats wrote: Atheism can have any number of logics behind it, but one of the most obvious is that an absence of evidence is itself evidence of absence. If there is no evidence that something exists, then it does not exist. This can come with caveats like the "there is no evidence yet therefore it does not exist as far as we know" but this is a completely different coin from a personal belief in something based in personal experiences or understanding. Atheism can be based in scientific reasoning, while most theism exists completely outside of it. That's getting into a debate about falsifiability more than anything, and that's just a giant black hole from which nothing comes back out.
/thread
Also...
Peregrine wrote: Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color.
Ha!
Atheism founded on rationalism- a lack of belief, due to a lack of evidence.
Religion is founded on faith- a presence of belief, despite a lack of evidence. Which is okay, since, well, that's faith. What I completely don't understand is most religions' MO that you need to convince others with manufactured or convenient evidence that your faith is valid. If you've convinced them based on evidence, you're actually making the argument for rationalism rather than faith.
Soladrin wrote: It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.
Scientology is technically a religion that was founded in the last century.......
Scientology is a religion that has evidence proving it's falsability. Hubbard was a known con man who said the way to get rich is create a religion. I can confidently say Scientology is made up as we can look to the source and say it is not credible.
I agree with the below posters and I shall add this. How do we not know that Muhammad was a con man? Or even the apostles that followed Jesus? Or Constantine the Great? Or any of the other religious founders.
Orlanth wrote: 1. Testimonial evidence.
I am no talking about 'I believe' statements, I am talking about life changing testimony. Along the lines of 'I was broken and God changed my life for the better'.
There are numerous testimonies of people who claim to have a relationship with God and have been changed by that relationship.
This doesn't provide proof but testimonial is acceptable evidence in most cases, so why not here.
You could argue that they are all deluded or lying, all billions of them, but that requires a greater leap of faith than accepting that these people consider their testimony true. The changes lives however are completely verifiable, with numerous examples to be given.
IOW not evidence at all. God didn't come down from heaven, pay off their credit card debt, hand them a job offer, and sign them up for therapy. Overcoming obstacles in your life and then putting a "god" label on it is not evidence for the existence of god, no matter how many people do it.
2. Signs and wonders.
Throughout history there have been signs and wonders documented, this persists to the current day.
Just do any net search and you will find stories.
Granted a portion of the stories will be hoaxes, but all of them?
IOW vague handwaving about "there are signs", not evidence.
3. Prophecy.
I am not talking about reading tea leaves here. Something more substantial.
It is too much of a coincidence that Israel was founded on he exact day May 14th 1948 that corresponded to a fulfillment of a timeline started on the exact day that Jerusalem fell over two thousand years earlier. This is compounded by other events relating directly to the timeline. For more info on this look up 'Daniels 70 weeks' prophecy and the '70 jubilee' calculations.
These are not proofs, but are evidence of the book of Daniel fortelling specific globally recognised events with a to-the-day level of accuracy. The best Nostradamus could do was vague references to Hister and the Danube.
Now, a caveat. There are a lot of nutjob prophecy interpretations out there, check YouTube and you will see. But there are other more level headed ones and back up with clearly written scripture referenced with Biblical numerology. I personally believe the current interpretation of the Daniel 70 weeks regarding the timeline of the restoration of Israel and how it was the will of God that Israel was founded on that day. I am not entirely sure about the eschatological implications, but I am prepared to believe them, if the coming signs appear at the right time. On that note if the 70 jubilee interpretation is accurate the End Times proper begins in September 2017, just after the final 70th jubilee which starts in September this year at the time of the Feast of Trumpets. Things might be about to get interesting.
IOW creatively interpreting vague statements of "prophecy" after the "predicted" events have happened. Meanwhile over and over again Christians claim that the "end times" are happening any day now, and every time they're wrong. I would bet a lot of money that your "September 2017" prediction ends up just as much of a non-event as every other failed prediction.
4. Holy Spirit.
This is hard to quantify to those who do not know God personally. Many Christians myself included make claim that they have personal rapport with a divine being kn on as the Holy Spirit, a part of the Trinity. I cannot in any way prove this to you, but will hand on heart declare it to be true. As will may other witnesses.
The only way to know for sure is to be born again yourselves, which I do recommend, but is not the focus of the thread.
One thing I can say is once you know the Holy Spirit the question of whether God exists is answered, because He is here. In a way I am not really a man of faith, I know my God with certainty, He knows me, and we talk.
I cannot find any way to prove to you I am not lying through my teeth. But why would I do that?
IOW "because I said so and I really want my god to be real".
5. NDEs
There are numerous testimonies of near death experiences. The vast majority of these experiences follow the after death Christian theology, even when the person is an atheist or a follower of another faith.
Again this is testimony but it deserves a separate category as a documentable pattern is followed. Person is rendered to a near death state, or is clinically dead. This is often witnessed by professional medical practitioners. Person returns to life/recovers and on waking describes experiences of the afterlife, often with hell or heaven testimonies and testimonies of meeting God.
Other these individuals were atheists or agnostics, who subsequently believed, some lost any fer of death being personally convinced that heaven exists. Many return with evidence of theologies they did not share or were unaware of.
IOW not evidence at all. NDEs are not very credible in the first place, and it's not at all surprising that people would interpret their experiences in the context of the most common religious ideas in their culture. What we don't have is people coming back from a near-death state with any knowledge they couldn't have obtained in life. For example, nobody comes back from their conversation with "god" with the winning lottery numbers for next week or a Nobel prize worthy discovery in science.
Atheists either choose in faith to disbeleve the testimonies and the evidence, or choose to become atheists without referring to such.
No, we choose to apply the standards of evidence that would apply to other exceptional claims. Your so-called evidence is all garbage, none if it is persuasive at all unless you already believe in the Christian god and just want some clever sounding bits to reassure yourself that you're right. If anything the severely lacking state of the "evidence" for your god should be considered a really big red flag. If, after all the work people have put into trying to prove the existence of god, this is the best they can come up with then I think it's safe to say there isn't any god out there to find.
From a Christian point of view I have no problems with anyone saying there is no proof of God's existence. That is how He wants it.
This is an awfully convenient excuse, isn't it? No matter how weak the evidence is you're still going to believe, because the lack of evidence is all part of god's plan. IOW, your beliefs are immune to testing and can never be proven wrong. That should be a really big warning sign that your position is not reasonable.
I'm a firm believer in sleeping in on Sundays. My mom would always drag into church late when I was a child. Every. Single. Sunday. Without fail. It made the whole church experience even more painful. I married a Hindu that doesn't make me go anywhere. Religion never did anything but inconvenience me. I don't care if others are into it. Live and let live.
Orlanth wrote: For a start if three witnesses see you commit a crime and there was no other evidence for or against that might will be enough to send you to prison. Testimony is evidence, in fact its the original source of evidence. Testimony need only be credible and corroborated. Amongst the Christian witness both can be found. Note that testimony is evidence it is not of itself proof. However what I a seeing a lot of shifting of goalposts by dishonest atheists who demand proofs as the only acceptable evidence, and when presented with no proofs pull a fast one and claim there is no evidence.
It might be enough to send you to prison. But note that eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable kind of evidence, and a good lawyer is going to tear apart the accounts of those witnesses. With the so-called testimony for god we can look at it and see that the supposed witnesses aren't credible at all, they have a level of faith in their beliefs far out of proportion to the evidence they have. It doesn't matter how many witnesses you have if all of their accounts are unreliable at best, a lot of garbage does not add up to compelling evidence just because there's a lot of it.
Ever hear of the placebo effect? I'll give a counter-example: your spouse is cheating on you. You decide that you're going to ignore any evidence or speculation otherwise and believe, with all your heart, that they are faithful to you. And so, instead of ending in divorce, your marriage continues on successfully until death do you part. Clearly the belief in your faithful spouse contributed to a desirable outcome, but that doesn't mean the belief was true.
Many NDE experience testimonies are from atheists and believers of other faiths. People who have no vested interest in suddenly becoming Christian.
No vested interest, until they almost died. Fear of death is a persuasive thing after all, and it's not surprising that a person who just had a powerful reminder of their mortality would cling to any hope of an afterlife.
What confirmation bias can you claim when the book of Daniel written two and a half thousand years ago predicts Israel will be restored after a specific portion of time. This first occurred when the Jews returned to restore the Temple, then again when the sevenfold curse is applied the rest of Israel is restored. Both events occurred on the correct day.
Well, we can start from the fact that historians don't even agree on the exact reference point for day zero, year zero in our modern calendar. Add or subtract a day and suddenly your "on the correct day" is no longer true.
From a Christian point of view I have no problems with anyone saying there is no proof of God's existence. That is how He wants it.
This is an awfully convenient excuse, isn't it? No matter how weak the evidence is you're still going to believe, because the lack of evidence is all part of god's plan. IOW, your beliefs are immune to testing and can never be proven wrong. That should be a really big warning sign that your position is not reasonable.
I agree with most of what you've been saying, but for this one, I believe, well, that's the foundation of faith. This isn't the problem. The problem is, when this isn't enough. Because people come around and say "I don't believe you," and then people feel faith needs to get backed up with evidence to legitimate it... at which point it's contradictory, because you've got people attempting to simultaneously claim that a lack of evidence (proof) is good as the basis of faith, but that the presence of evidence is also good because it's what proves your faith is justified. It covers all the bases, but, when put together, contradicts itself.
feeder wrote: I understand that agnosticism is a bit of a cop out. But I have seen no compelling evidence either way.
You do understand that what you say is absurd in light of what you are talking about, don't you?
I am an atheist. And by that I mean that nothing in this world makes me think that there was an omnipotent, good-willed super-being with an interest in humanity (or at least the believing parts of humanity).
For a long time, I like Spinozas arguments for a pantheistic god - but since that eliminiates proper theism, it is only one philosophical position away from atheism.
An atheist is not necessarily an anti-theist. Lots of people are not convinced that there is a god, and they have serious doubts on what organized religion tries to sell as "truth".
However they have no problems with religous people, nor religion per se, and they would never say "I know there is no god". They will say "it is very unlikely that there is a god in a religious sense (so for the time being I refuse to live my life according to religious rules)."
Atheism is not "the other truth". It is a position of not-believing non-discriminating. (So instead of not believing in all gods except one, they go one god further.)
- This does not mean that there are not a lot of atheists who are also anti-theists (although the better term would be "anti-religious"), or that some people could claim that position less out of a scientific outlook onto the world and more as a personal belief in anti-religious terms.
But atheism in itself only means "I do not believe, and everything religous people have brought forward to the case has not convinced me".
As such, the unicorn example is very valid. Because it does not compare a christian god to a unicorn, I think the OP did not understand that. Of course there is a huge difference between an omnipotent being guiding/supervising everyone's life or a fable animal.
All it does is making a point about the subjective exclusivity of most religious believers.
The difference between someone claiming "the christian god is true", "the muslim god is true" and "unicorn exists" is primarily one of social acceptance (how many believe it for how long and how accepted is that belief in society), not one of rationality.
All christian evidence of god, as Orlanth has so graciously shown, is in fact evidence of peoples's faith. Which is a bit circular.
Gitzbitah wrote: If you don't like theism because of the whole all powerful deity concept, why try something a little less exclusive?
Monotheism is generally the set of religions that believe in an all powerful god or goddess. Polytheism answers many of those age old explanations of why plagues break out, hurricanes destroy orphanages, and yet people inexplicably survive where they should not have and miraculously recover. There are many gods and goddesses at play, of varying degrees of power and compassion for humans. I'd imagine that's why most early religions went with polytheism.
Funny, as a polytheist myself, I was going to post this. Most arguments about the existence of the divine in western society focus exclusively on monotheism (thus such arguments as Pascal's wager and the existence of evil). Many dieties with differing interests and levels of power make a lot more sense in the world.
Does it? There has never been a culture with set levels of power. They're always erasing other gods and growing in power (a la Ra in Egypt). How does that make more sense than Monotheism?
That is how our world works, is it not? Dinosaurs were the massively powerful rulers of the world- now we burn their bones to chase pokemon. Rome rose, Rome fell. A static set of deities would be starkly against the natural order. Power rises and falls. I am also polytheistic, and view the deities to wax and wane in power and influence with the seasons.
I'd say most classically polytheistic religions definitely have tiers of gods and goddesses, and some even reference the rise and fall of various deities. Look at the Norse pantheon, arguably the most human pantheon. The Aesir and frost giants are both incredibly powerful deities, and Loki depending on the day, is a villain or a savior. Thor is probably off hunting a serpent, or possibly cross dressing and fake marrying a giant to get his hammer back. Any intelligent beings we know of, and most of the non-sentient ones we know, are territorial and bicker and fight. The best documented group we have, the Greeks and Romans, had springs, caves and groves of trees dedicated to certain gods or goddesses, and festivals and seasons in times when they were at their most potent. Polytheistic gods are very very rarely viewed as constant stable forces. Their very capriciousness makes them more likely to intervene in our mortal affairs.
I'm agnostic. Agnosticism is not necessarily a cop out. A Theist believes in God/Gods. An Atheist believes there is/are no God/Gods. An Agnostic doubts that God/Gods exist, and acknowledges that belief is inconsequential in pursuit of a logical understanding. Only knowledge is valuable. I come to Agnosticism in a means that I believe to be rational. I hope to provide a cut-down, relatable anecdote here.
I can't see sub-atomic particles, because they're beyond my ability to experience. I have no personal reason to disbelieve that these sub-atomic particles exist, I happen to believe that people more involved with that world determined reliable ways to detect them. But I don't live my life worried about them. They're there. They're NOT there, it doesn't matter to me. I live my life the way I choose whether or not sub-atomic particles exist.
To put into perspective, an Imaginary Theist might believe that sub-atomic particles exist through faith. Although they can not detect the ever smaller sub-atomic particles, they believe they're there. They're comforted by the idea that ever-smaller particles exist and they believe that there's no end to the smallness of particles. We could forever find smaller particles. The joy and wonder of an infinite universe. "Theism" presumes correctness, in the faith that things go on forever. An Agnostic might view this as hopeful, or maybe naïve.
By comparison, an Imaginary Atheist might say, "There's no evidence that sub-atomic particles below a given size exist... so they don't exist." They say there's no evidence. We're unable to detect or extrapolate particles smaller than a given size. So once we find that smallest particle, that's it. End of the line. There can be no smaller particle. It's over. "Atheism" presumes correctness, and mastery of being able to see the smallest possibilities / finite nature of existence. An Agnostic might view this as pragmatic, or maybe a big bad case of the hubris.
Agnosticism isn't a cop-out. It's not about not-taking a side. Agnosticism says, "I have no reason to believe that a Deity/Deities exist, but I also recognize that I'm not omniscient, and just because I can't perceive it doesn't mean it is impossible." Nothing is impossible, given sufficient time and resources. "Agnosticism" assumes fallibility, and thus decides to make the best decisions based on available information, while ready to assimilate new information as it becomes available. We live with the "belief" that ever smaller particles are possible, though we believe that we will eventually find an end to the smallness. We don't know for sure, so we are open to the possibility that a next-smallest particle could be found.
redleger wrote: Believing in the divine requires faith, of which there is no proof but decide to just accept it. No evidence needed.
That argument requires this kind of idea where people make up their mind independent of their life experiences. Which of course isn't true - what people experience and what they learn will combine to give them an idea about the supernatural.
Of course, the kind of evidence people use isn't going to be strong, it is mostly going to be intuition based and conjecture based on very limited observations. But that is not the same thing as 'faith', which is generally just explained as guessing.
An atheist is going to come to a conclusion based on evidence or scientific method.
Atheists claiming science is as boring as theists claiming morality. And I say that as an atheist.
Atheist raised in a Xtian household here... And I've had this argument with many people and there are a few bits of "evidence" that I routinely see trotted out by Theists (particularly Christians)...
1. The Holy Book/text of said religion is divine and cannot be wrong. Despite numerous contradictions.
I have a huge problem with this, particularly from Evangelical Christians, who believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing as well as the bible being the literal words spoken to people. IF that were true, then why are there so many translations of the texts? We can look at the history of various translations (particularly the KJV, RSV, and NIV) and see glaring issues politically and socially that would lead to a politicized and/or altered translation being worked from.
Aside from translation issues (which I would consider as evidence counter to what most religious folks do), there are the aforementioned contradictions.
Just a couple of glaring highlights: The creation story in Genesis cannot get the order of events straight from one chapter to the next. Later, with the advent of Christ, the writers couldn't keep the hour of his death straight.
Also... whether or not his own words amount to anything is questioned apparently by this character (John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." and John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.") It should be noted here that in every place I have seen this contradiction brought up, they make mention of the fact that "record" and "witness" are translated from a single Greek word.
2. A holy book cannot and should not be capable of upholding arguments for opposing sides of an argument. If we, again, look to history, we can find mountains of evidence showing that Southern Americans used the bible to prop up their arguments for holding and owning human beings. Northern Americans used the same book to argue against the ownership of humans. Which one is it?
This same "holy" book has been used to argue pacifism as well as warmongering.
3. The argument that "my book" got it right, and all others are wrong, I think have been adequately covered ITT, but it's yet another common attempt at arguing I've seen.
Edit: 4. Due to my bringing up the bible, I was just reminded of another argument that has been presented to me, especially in regards to contradictions: "You're taking the verse(s) out of context." This, along with a couple other forms of mental gymnastics bugs the gak out of me. If you're a Christian and believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-doing deity... There should literally be no way to take anything out of context. The context should be clear as day and stand on it's own. This goes in line with the Quran's "Sword Verse" that gets trotted out there by Christians as "proof" of Islam's evil nature. If you read it in context, it completely changes the nature of that one, cherry-picked verse (and I'll admit, I've fallen victim to it in the Quran's case, but now that I've read the full section, see what's going on)
Orlanth wrote: For a start if three witnesses see you commit a crime and there was no other evidence for or against that might will be enough to send you to prison. Testimony is evidence, in fact its the original source of evidence. Testimony need only be credible and corroborated. Amongst the Christian witness both can be found. Note that testimony is evidence it is not of itself proof. However what I a seeing a lot of shifting of goalposts by dishonest atheists who demand proofs as the only acceptable evidence, and when presented with no proofs pull a fast one and claim there is no evidence.
It isn't shifting goalposts... that's a term I think is needlessly combative in this discussion so far. I think there is a limited understanding of evidence by some atheists, who tend to think 'no scientific proof, therefore no evidence'.
But to continue your example - consider if there were 3 individuals who testified that they saw something, they gave consistent descriptions and were credible witnesses. That's pretty good evidence. But then consider that there were a billion other people who saw nothing. That's pretty good evidence that the three people saw a very unusual but not necessarily supernatural thing. That would be the counter-evidence, the case for atheism.
Which side you find more compelling is, of course, up to the individual.
Peregrine wrote: Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color.
Ha!
Fallacious quotes migh amuse, but dont necessarily add up to any logical point.
Now if the quote was a bit more honest it could read 'Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair style.'
Besides nobody is saying atheism is a religion. Instead myself and those others who follow this viewpoint are saying atheism is a faith choice, which is not quite the same thing. Atheism also includes the negative social conditions that are found in he worst of religion, and therefore should not be looked at in separation to other faith choices. As that perpetuates the dangerous fallacy that atheism is a 'solution' to religion, when in fact it is just another faith system and is a vector for fanaticism and fundamentalism no less than and oftimes more than other faith systems.
Religion is founded on faith- a presence of belief, despite a lack of evidence.
Again the dogma rears its head, the flat denial that there is any evidence. Whereas many many religious people including myself believe and have evidence to backup the belief.
And here we have Peregrine proving my point. (edited for brevity).
IOW vague handwaving about "there are signs", not evidence.
So numerous testimonies of signs and wonders are handwaved away as vague, and not evidence. Why?
This category includes such phenomena as tongues, prophesy (including verifyable accurate prophesy), miracles.
Let me find just one example, it took an internet search out about tn seconds o find (an no I didnt know this case, I just know that reports like these are not uncommon and so it was aeasy to choose the search criteria).
Two African women diagnosed with HIV who no longer have HIV. This cannot happen with current medical science.
This is a) evidence, and b) anything but vague.
IOW creatively interpreting vague statements of "prophecy" after the "predicted" events have happened. Meanwhile over and over again Christians claim that the "end times" are happening any day now, and every time they're wrong. I would bet a lot of money that your "September 2017" prediction ends up just as much of a non-event as every other failed prediction.
Ok. First it is not my prediction that September 2017 is the beginning of the tribulation. Second we have been in the End Times scripturally since 33AD. Third a lot of numerological prophesy is revealed post event, its purpose is to show that God is in control, not as a guide for future action. There are exceptions to this. Fourth the millenial sects predicting end of world on a revolving timetable are very rarely Christian.
IOW "because I said so and I really want my god to be real".
Ok. Now I have to raise a challenge. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a relationship claimed by many credible people. This is not a case of wishful thinking in something distant and aloof, it is present and indwelling. Nor is it something claimed by a handful of fringe church cultists, it is mainstream.
Now you can choose to disbelieve in the Holy Spirit, but its exceptionally rude and unnecessary to assume, without anything to back up your comment, that it is an empty wish. The most you can say is that you don't know as you haven't experienced this, you have no standing whatsoever to categorically say its untrue.
IOW not evidence at all. NDEs are not very credible in the first place,
Well its is evidence because it is a frequent phenomenon, and many people who experience NDE's change their lives dramatically, often overturning their own prior held belief systems suddenly. Which would not be consistent if the phenomena was a delusion, especially as the vast majority persist with their new beliefs.
and it's not at all surprising that people would interpret their experiences in the context of the most common religious ideas in their culture.
You are making a flat and false assumption easily dispelled by the evidence. No wonder you want to flatly deny the evidence plainly available.
NDE's are a common enough phenomenon, and many people who experience them do not experience the common religious ideas of their culture, despite your flat claim that the do. Take for examle some of the numerous atheists who have had NDE's, they could expect to see nothing if the brain was interpreting their beliefs, yet many see God, or hell or similar. I will leave it to you to see examples, YouTube and Google both link several testimonies of atheists with NDE's and subsequent conversions.
What we don't have is people coming back from a near-death state with any knowledge they couldn't have obtained in life.
If you actually read some of the NDE testimonies you will find that people learn things from conversation with God that they didn't know a priori and were later verified. Normally this is concerning relationships and things others knew but the survivor did not.
For example, nobody comes back from their conversation with "god" with the winning lottery numbers for next week or a Nobel prize worthy discovery in science.
As it happens there are rather a lot of people who claim they were given lottery numbers by God. A quick search found several pages of links to different cases. Nevertheless there is some debate in some churches as to whether Christians should buy lottery tickets at all.
As for lottery number and NDE's. For someone who has died and gone to heaven and met God, lottery numbers are usually not the first thing on their minds. Many such people have a new perspective on material wealth and are focused on other things.
"The most overwhelming aspect of their experience is that NDErs feel they are immersed in the most wonderful feeling of peace, acceptance and unconditional love. Especially the unconditional nature of the love they feel is something that leaves a lasting impression on the NDEr, because just think of what it means."
It is also easy to understand that those who claim to have NDE experiences of hell are also too distracted to consider lottery numbers. Understandably they want out.
As for imparted scientific advances. Some scientists claimed that their discoveries were assisted by revelation from God, George Washington Carver comes to mind here, though none that I know of are related to NDE's. This is not to say it hasn't happened, I don't know.
No, we choose to apply the standards of evidence that would apply to other exceptional claims.
Actually that involves looking at them with a fair reasoning, rather than just handwaving them away.
Also the claims are not exceptional, because they are commonplace. None of the categories I listed are linked to isolated events, except the Biblical numerology
Says you. Someone who never misses the opportunity to trash talk about God on these threads.
To be frank you are not in any way a fair judge, so it is just as well that it is not up to you to arbitrarily decide as to whether spiritual evidence is valid or not. Except for your own consumption, as is your right, and in that you are clearly expressing a faith choice not to believe.
Sorry to break the news to you, but frankly you have more blind faith than most here. You post a lot on religion/atheism threads, yet while you are frequently hostile and dismissive of opposed viewpoints, usually without addressing the arguments presented to you honestly; yet you have never managed to actually mount a positive rational case for atheism. Others have, but not you.
You should try to correct that.
If anything the severely lacking state of the "evidence" for your god should be considered a really big red flag. If, after all the work people have put into trying to prove the existence of god, this is the best they can come up with then I think it's safe to say there isn't any god out there to find.
- Prophesy written into a two and a half thousand year old text being specifically fulfilled on the correct day millenia later.
- Evidence of people being healed by faith of diseases science cannot cure, backed up by medical tests.
- Testimonies of people who had NDE's/resurrections after being clinically dead long enough to guarantee brain damage, meeting God and waking up with no ill effects from having no pulse or oxygen to their brain for an extended period.
- Evidence of religious prison revivals that change lives to the extend that the officially documented rebabilitation rate shifts from approx 50% to over 90%, a rate of rehabilitation unheard of in the secular prison rehabilitation programs. This so convinced the secular government of the country concerned they gave increased access for the church ministries in the prison system.
- Evidence of extreme yet well documented cases of divine providence that defies odds. The ministries of David Wilkerson comes to mind here as an example.
Thats rather a lot to dismiss as not-evidence, and that is only a slender fraction of the documented evidence out there of the work of God in peoples lives.
From a Christian point of view I have no problems with anyone saying there is no proof of God's existence. That is how He wants it.
This is an awfully convenient excuse, isn't it? No matter how weak the evidence is you're still going to believe, because the lack of evidence is all part of god's plan. IOW, your beliefs are immune to testing and can never be proven wrong. That should be a really big warning sign that your position is not reasonable.
It is convenient, but its not an excuse.
Also you misquote me deliberately.
because the lack of evidence is all part of god's plan.
Actually the lack of proof is part of Gods plan, there is no lack of evidence of Gods plan. The evidence is all around you, and has been presented with links.
Also proof is promised, in Christian eschatology this is the primary purpose of the Second Coming.
IOW, your beliefs are immune to testing and can never be proven wrong. That should be a really big warning sign that your position is not reasonable.
Meanwhile you have it backward. Because only the absolute proof is deliberately withheld, but the evidence remains it can be explored and explained. There are actual scriptures instructing me to review the evidence, I quoted one earlier on the thread.
So your vacuous claim that my beliefs are 'immune to testing' and 'cannot be proven wrong' is not actually scriptural, which it would need to be if you were to purport it to be the Christian viewpoint.
What I am seeing here is a desperate attempt not to rationalise your position but to reword what you insist my, and other Christians position is, in order to misrepresent it as something that is easier for you to critique. That is a very dishonest way of making argument.
Orlanth wrote: For a start if three witnesses see you commit a crime and there was no other evidence for or against that might will be enough to send you to prison. Testimony is evidence, in fact its the original source of evidence. Testimony need only be credible and corroborated. Amongst the Christian witness both can be found. Note that testimony is evidence it is not of itself proof. However what I a seeing a lot of shifting of goalposts by dishonest atheists who demand proofs as the only acceptable evidence, and when presented with no proofs pull a fast one and claim there is no evidence.
It isn't shifting goalposts... that's a term I think is needlessly combative in this discussion so far. I think there is a limited understanding of evidence by some atheists, who tend to think 'no scientific proof, therefore no evidence'.
I can accept that correction. However I do believe hat many chose to mistake lack of proof for lack of evidence deliberately.
But to continue your example - consider if there were 3 individuals who testified that they saw something, they gave consistent descriptions and were credible witnesses. That's pretty good evidence. But then consider that there were a billion other people who saw nothing. That's pretty good evidence that the three people saw a very unusual but not necessarily supernatural thing. That would be the counter-evidence, the case for atheism.
Which side you find more compelling is, of course, up to the individual.
I accept that also, atheists can point to the lack of spirituality in the lives of the majority as a point of evidence in their favour. It could be argued by an atheist that if spirituality was a real factor in human life it would be universal.
Then again Christianity, and most other religions, especially selective religions like Sikhism and Judaism, claim that their faith is a minority viewpoint.
An example for you:
Mathew 7:13
"You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way."
As with most spiritual concepts there are fair rationales that could be applied either way.
Nothing I have said is intended to 'disprove' atheism, it is a pointless goal, and unscriptural. Many religions have an expected universal revelatory event in their theology.
Orlanth wrote: I can accept that correction. However I do believe hat many chose to mistake lack of proof for lack of evidence deliberately.
That's fair. Just don't lump all of us in with the ones that do like to claim scientific superiority just because they're atheists.
I accept that also, atheists can point to the lack of spirituality in the lives of the majority as a point of evidence in their favour. It could be argued by an atheist that if spirituality was a real factor in human life it would be universal.
Then again Christianity, and most other religions, especially selective religions like Sikhism and Judaism, claim that their faith is a minority viewpoint.
That's a fair argument.
As with most spiritual concepts there are fair rationales that could be applied either way.
Nothing I have said is intended to 'disprove' atheism, it is a pointless goal, and unscriptural.
Yeah, I think there are reasonable rationales for most concepts of spirituality (not all people have such reasoned positions, but that's another thing entirely ).
That's why I've long said that hearing about other people's religious ideas is endlessly fascinating to me, but hearing people talk about why other's people religious ideas are wrong is just a wasteland.
Orlanth wrote: I can accept that correction. However I do believe hat many chose to mistake lack of proof for lack of evidence deliberately.
That's fair. Just don't lump all of us in with the ones that do like to claim scientific superiority just because they're atheists.
Certainly not do so. Besides it s helpful to highlight the difference in methodology between atheists. It indicates clearly why I take the trouble to explain why atheism should be treated as if it were a religion.
Some atheists prosthelytize their well intentioned beliefs gently and rationally, with others its like talking to a charlatan or deranged cultist, often with a hate agenda.
Kilkrazy wrote: Based on your scripture knowledge and faith, what tests would you suggest that someone could carry out to test the theory?
If this is addressed to me can you rephrase the question please. I dont quite understand, sorry.
As far as I understand your theory, it says that because there is evidence for the existence of God, the fact there is no proof is proof. I am wondering how this theory could be tested.
Orlanth wrote: Certainly not do so. Besides it s helpful to highlight the difference in methodology between atheists. It indicates clearly why I take the trouble to explain why atheism should be treated as if it were a religion.
Some atheists prosthelytize their well intentioned beliefs gently and rationally, with others its like talking to a charlatan or deranged cultist, often with a hate agenda.
That's all fair and true I think. Especially the part about the hate agenda. Part of the reason I don't like claims that atheism is a religion is because even among militant atheists there's actually very little religion. There's no worldbuilding or codes of morality, just long lists of things don't like about religion (which almost always means Christianity).
For people who get fully in to liberal humanism and stuff like that, there's probably enough there to start calling it equivalent to a religion, but there's so few people who actually do that it hardly seems worth it.
Orlanth wrote: Flat denial of the evidence presented. Sorry but testimony is evidence. Denial does not an argument make. Please try harder.
Testimony is evidence that people believe in god. It is not evidence that they are correct.
Two African women diagnosed with HIV who no longer have HIV. This cannot happen with current medical science.
This is a) evidence, and b) anything but vague.
Alternatively, it's evidence that the initial diagnosis was incorrect. And honestly, I don't think you want to claim this one because if it's evidence for god then it's evidence for the sadistic version of god who picks who lives and who dies on a whim. This "god" decided to cure two random women, while leaving countless other people to die of the same disease? Granted, "god is a " isn't evidence against the existence of god, but it sure does make you wonder what kind of person would worship such a morally horrible being.
Ok. First it is not my prediction that September 2017 is the beginning of the tribulation. Second we have been in the End Times scripturally since 33AD. Third a lot of numerological prophesy is revealed post event, its purpose is to show that God is in control, not as a guide for future action. There are exceptions to this. Fourth the millenial sects predicting end of world on a revolving timetable are very rarely Christian.
1) You endorsed it, it's your prediction.
2) This is a pretty hilariously broad definition of "end times". When we've been in the "end times" for a significant percentage of recorded history then maybe you should question just what "end times" actually means?
3) Of course it's revealed post-event, because it's nothing more than taking an event and looking back in the bible to see if you can find a "prediction" for it to match. This is why it's garbage as evidence.
4) Ah yes, the classic no true Scotsman fallacy. They declare themselves to be Christians, they believe in the same things as other Christians, they're Christians. You don't get to declare them to be non-Christians just because they don't agree with your particular brand of Christianity.
Now you can choose to disbelieve in the Holy Spirit, but its exceptionally rude and unnecessary to assume, without anything to back up your comment, that it is an empty wish.
Ok, it's not an empty wish? Prove it.
Well its is evidence because it is a frequent phenomenon, and many people who experience NDE's change their lives dramatically, often overturning their own prior held belief systems suddenly. Which would not be consistent if the phenomena was a delusion, especially as the vast majority persist with their new beliefs.
It is evidence that nearly dying is a powerful experience that can make you rethink your life. It is not evidence that your particular god exists.
Take for examle some of the numerous atheists who have had NDE's, they could expect to see nothing if the brain was interpreting their beliefs, yet many see God, or hell or similar.
Do you not understand the difference between "their beliefs" and "beliefs that are common in their culture"? An atheist in the US might not believe in the Christian god, but US culture is full of Christian images, references to Christian symbolism, etc. When you want to have a cheesy near-death experience in a movie what is the default? A white light, Jesus walking out of it to meet the dying person, etc. It's not at all a surprise that an atheist who is constantly presented with those images would interpret their own experience in a similar way.
Also the claims are not exceptional, because they are commonplace.
No, you're just misunderstanding here. Religious claims may be common in some absolute sense, but the existence of an all-powerful being is a really big claim to make. The standard for proof should be a little higher than for asking "what did you eat for breakfast this morning", yet you keep bringing up "evidence" that wouldn't even be persuasive in a criminal trial.
To be frank you are not in any way a fair judge
Why, because I'm not impressed by your argument? Because I've considered the evidence for your side and found it severely lacking?
You post a lot on religion/atheism threads, yet while you are frequently hostile and dismissive of opposed viewpoints, usually without addressing the arguments presented to you honestly; yet you have never managed to actually mount a positive rational case for atheism.
Of course I'm dismissive of opposing viewpoints, those viewpoints are wrong.
As for a "positive rational case for atheism" that's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that one or more gods exist, failure to meet the burden of proof means that the only reasonable belief is continued atheism. Asking for a "positive rational case" is like demanding proof that the invisible unicorn in your room doesn't exist. It's a complete misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works.
Kilkrazy wrote: Based on your scripture knowledge and faith, what tests would you suggest that someone could carry out to test the theory?
If this is addressed to me can you rephrase the question please. I dont quite understand, sorry.
As far as I understand your theory, it says that because there is evidence for the existence of God, the fact there is no proof is proof. I am wondering how this theory could be tested.
OK. This isn't what I am saying.
The fact there is no proof intentionally has a rationale for it, but isn't of itself 'evidence' as it relies on other evidence being assumed to be true a priori, which kind of defeats the point. aka Why look for signs if in ones paradigm the signs are all false.
As for the lack o proof being actual proof, that would directly contradict the point of there not being proof so no, that wouldn't make any sense.
So here is no theory there to test, sorry.
All I can do is more clearly explain the theology, from a Christian perspective. I cannot give a general theistic perspective here, best I can do is to link to Islamic eschatology and say it follows a very similar pattern. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_eschatology The eschatology of most other major religions is very different, and in most cases is not indicated to end anytime soon.
Why is it claimed that there is no proof of God intentionally?
It is an extrapolation from scripture, notably this verse.
Mathew 24: 23-26
23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Lets look at this passage as a logical chain.
- In the last days some people will believe in Jesus enough to be looking for him.
- Some of those people will be deceived by incorrect end times teaching and timelines (one good reason to hold any end times information very lightly).
- The Second Coming itself however will be unmistakable and unfakable. i.e. You will know when you see it.
- Therefore there is a universal revelation coming. The Second Coming is a promised 'proof' event.
- If there is a universal revelation coming, there logically isn't one before, or belief will be universal.
- This revelation has been kept back, so there must be a reason to do so.
- There is no direct scripture saying why God is deliberately holding back revelation.
- However Faith pleases God.
Orlanth wrote: Flat denial of the evidence presented. Sorry but testimony is evidence. Denial does not an argument make. Please try harder.
Testimony is evidence that people believe in god. It is not evidence that they are correct.
If the evidence showed those who believe in God were definitively correct it would be proof. So far I have been persistent on the point that proof is intentionally not forthcoming.
Instead the purpose of the evidence is to indicate that a choice to believe in God can have merit and isn't random.
Two African women diagnosed with HIV who no longer have HIV. This cannot happen with current medical science.
This is a) evidence, and b) anything but vague.
Alternatively, it's evidence that the initial diagnosis was incorrect.
Tests on HIV are very thorough and double checked. It a common ploy in blind faith based atheism to try and dismiss he unwanted evidence by handwving it away as erroneous. It you were to aplly that logic to actual science little could even be achieved.
Thinking 'I dont like the findings therefore the findings must be a result of procedural error' is a sign of a pseudo-scientific mind.
And honestly, I don't think you want to claim this one because if it's evidence for god then it's evidence for the sadistic version of god who picks who lives and who dies on a whim. This "god" decided to cure two random women, while leaving countless other people to die of the same disease? Granted, "god is a " isn't evidence against the existence of god, but it sure does make you wonder what kind of person would worship such a morally horrible being.
That is a very twisted theology. God wishes all people to be healed, but Man will not walk in faith to claim the prize. All miracles are in conjunction with faith. No faith, no miracle.
I said that if the scriptural signs occur in September 2017 then the schedule will have merit. I have sufficient interest that I will watch for those signs. This is scriptural to do, God tells us to watch for the signs of end times, but not to rush to assume specific timelines are accurate. Covered that in my last post before this one, so I wont repeat it here.
2) This is a pretty hilariously broad definition of "end times". When we've been in the "end times" for a significant percentage of recorded history then maybe you should question just what "end times" actually means?
Ok. The broadest definition of End Times is the time between the first Pentecost and the Second Coming. We may, or may not be getting close to the Tribulation, which mean the last few years before the coming of Christ,typicaly a seven year calender in which the anti-Christ comes into power, We don't even know what an anti-Christ is hough, it might not be a literal person but a movement or organisation.
3) Of course it's revealed post-event, because it's nothing more than taking an event and looking back in the bible to see if you can find a "prediction" for it to match. This is why it's garbage as evidence.
It doesn't work that way. Bible prophesy is sealed. That is to say it is hidden in plain sight,but understood only at the correct time. The significance of th 70 biblical weeks was only recently understood even though it relates to events in 1948.
I had mentioned that Biblical prophesy is not intended as a guide to action, but an indicator that God is in control and has made promises that He will keep.
4) Ah yes, the classic no true Scotsman fallacy. They declare themselves to be Christians, they believe in the same things as other Christians, they're Christians. You don't get to declare them to be non-Christians just because they don't agree with your particular brand of Christianity.
Actually there are many fake denominations. It is not a matter of whether they find my 'brand' of Christianity. I am a charismatic Protestant, a Catholic is my brother, a Christian Scientist however is not.
The fake denominations are identifiable by their doctrines. However even so there is common ground on some issues.
You aren't paying attention. I am not here to prove Christianity, I don't believe that it is possible before the appointed time, when Jesus proves Christianity.
Do you not understand the difference between "their beliefs" and "beliefs that are common in their culture"? An atheist in the US might not believe in the Christian god, but US culture is full of Christian images, references to Christian symbolism, etc. When you want to have a cheesy near-death experience in a movie what is the default? A white light, Jesus walking out of it to meet the dying person, etc. It's not at all a surprise that an atheist who is constantly presented with those images would interpret their own experience in a similar way.
Why would an atheist who doest necessarily socialise with Christians, and doesnt attend any church or associate with those who do, and possible intensely dislikes Christianity visualise a Christian God just because a larger % of he national population are nominal Christians.
Also many of the testimonies I have seen omit the white light entirely.
No, you're just misunderstanding here. Religious claims may be common in some absolute sense, but the existence of an all-powerful being is a really big claim to make. The standard for proof should be a little higher than for asking "what did you eat for breakfast this morning", yet you keep bringing up "evidence" that wouldn't even be persuasive in a criminal trial.
Big claim, small claim, it's all the same. Evidence is evidence. You have to apply the same weighting in order to be fair.
As for a "positive rational case for atheism" that's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that one or more gods exist, failure to meet the burden of proof means that the only reasonable belief is continued atheism. Asking for a "positive rational case" is like demanding proof that the invisible unicorn in your room doesn't exist. It's a complete misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works.
Actually this is not true because atheism is not a de facto default position. It is your personal choice as a default position. Atheism has no special logical status. Also atheism isn't necessarily rational or scientific, it can definitely be so, it can just as easily be irrational and a whimsical heart choice. Likewise a belief in a God may well be rational or not.
A reasonable fall back position is to say "I don't know".* This leads to agnosticism. From that point one makes a faith choice to believe or not believe in ones own time.
Atheism is an active choice to not believe though, we can tell this is true because atheism has an emotional investment similar to a religion. It is delusional to claim that continued atheism' is a fallback default position as atheists are evidently susceptible to dogmatic fundamentalism, like practitioners of ny other faith based choice.
It is plain as day that you have a personal investment in atheism. I do not critique that of itself. Some atheists like to say their belief is a "lack of belief rather than a belief of lack". However one cannot have a fervent lack of belief, yet fervent atheists are commonplace, they are right here on Dakka, and they have a fervent 'belief of lack'.
* Being neutral there. In Christian teaching I cant even say that, because:
Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Two African women diagnosed with HIV who no longer have HIV. This cannot happen with current medical science.
This is a) evidence, and b) anything but vague.
Alternatively, it's evidence that the initial diagnosis was incorrect.
Tests on HIV are very thorough and double checked. It a common ploy in blind faith based atheism to try and dismiss he unwanted evidence by handwving it away as erroneous. It you were to aplly that logic to actual science little could even be achieved.
Thinking 'I dont like the findings therefore the findings must be a result of procedural error' is a sign of a pseudo-scientific mind.
If they double check then that means false positives are possible. Two consecutive false positives isn't surprising.
Orlanth wrote: If the evidence showed those who believe in God were definitively correct it would be proof. So far I have been persistent on the point that proof is intentionally not forthcoming.
Instead the purpose of the evidence is to indicate that a choice to believe in God can have merit and isn't random.
The point is that your "evidence" isn't anywhere near proof. You'd have a point if you were talking about evidence that reached the "this is pretty compelling, even if it's not 100% undeniable", but you're posting the equivalent of "SDIOIOWEJIOWE$JIOJWERIOGMJLWERKJGLKWERJOIGFIOWERG THEREFORE GOD". Your "evidence" doesn't support the claim at all, and it's only going to be even remotely persuasive if you're already a Christian and looking for clever things to post on a forum in defense of your faith.
Tests on HIV are very thorough and double checked. It a common ploy in blind faith based atheism to try and dismiss he unwanted evidence by handwving it away as erroneous. It you were to aplly that logic to actual science little could even be achieved.
Thinking 'I dont like the findings therefore the findings must be a result of procedural error' is a sign of a pseudo-scientific mind.
So, which is more likely:
1) The test was wrong, as you can inevitably expect to happen occasionally in a large enough sample size given the fact that no test is absolutely 100% accurate.
or
2) God stepped in and healed them, unlike every other case of people with the same disease praying to be healed. And this god did so without leaving any evidence of its intervention that could be observed by other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that testing error is the vastly more likely explanation.
That is a very twisted theology. God wishes all people to be healed, but Man will not walk in faith to claim the prize. All miracles are in conjunction with faith. No faith, no miracle.
I see. So of all those billions of Christians praying for miracles only a tiny, tiny handful of them are actually faithful? Let me guess, being faithful enough to receive healing miracles is strongly correlated with being a member of your particular branch of Christianity?
I said that if the scriptural signs occur in September 2017 then the schedule will have merit. I have sufficient interest that I will watch for those signs. This is scriptural to do, God tells us to watch for the signs of end times, but not to rush to assume specific timelines are accurate. Covered that in my last post before this one, so I wont repeat it here.
What exactly makes the September 2017 prophecy any more believable than any of the countless other end times prophecies which did not happen? What could possibly justify your "sufficient interest" after such a long and well-established history of utter failure?
Ok. The broadest definition of End Times is the time between the first Pentecost and the Second Coming. We may, or may not be getting close to the Tribulation, which mean the last few years before the coming of Christ,typicaly a seven year calender in which the anti-Christ comes into power, We don't even know what an anti-Christ is hough, it might not be a literal person but a movement or organisation.
IOW, "any day now, even if it takes 10,000 years longer". Which of course conveniently excuses any failed end times prophecies. Didn't get the date right this time? Doesn't mean anything, we're still in the end times and it's still coming.
It doesn't work that way. Bible prophesy is sealed. That is to say it is hidden in plain sight,but understood only at the correct time. The significance of th 70 biblical weeks was only recently understood even though it relates to events in 1948.
I had mentioned that Biblical prophesy is not intended as a guide to action, but an indicator that God is in control and has made promises that He will keep.
IOW, exactly what I said. The bible contains a vast amount of text, and if you look at it with a generous enough definition of "accurate prophecy" you'll probably be able to find something that matches. Or you'll be able to find something that matches a different event. The point is that it's always much, much easier to have a "prophecy" after the events have already happened. Biblical prophecy would be an interesting idea if it made specific testable predictions in advance of the predicted event, and believes in biblical prophecy were willing to consider failures of those predictions to be evidence that their beliefs are wrong. But that's not what we have.
Actually there are many fake denominations. It is not a matter of whether they find my 'brand' of Christianity. I am a charismatic Protestant, a Catholic is my brother, a Christian Scientist however is not.
The fake denominations are identifiable by their doctrines. However even so there is common ground on some issues.
Yep, no true Scotsman it is.
You aren't paying attention. I am not here to prove Christianity, I don't believe that it is possible before the appointed time, when Jesus proves Christianity.
So you admit that your evidence falls well short of the burden of proof, and there is no rational justification for belief in Christianity.
But when the powerful experience that causes people to rethink their lives is a 1 to 1 with a particular God....
It isn't a one-to-one match with your particular god. For example, here are some from an entirely different religion being used in support of their beliefs: http://www.near-death.com/religion/hinduism.html
Why would an atheist who doest necessarily socialise with Christians, and doesnt attend any church or associate with those who do, and possible intensely dislikes Christianity visualise a Christian God just because a larger % of he national population are nominal Christians.
Because said atheist lives in a Christian-majority society where Christian images are everywhere? Do you honestly not understand how even an atheist's images of death/heaven/etc can be influenced by the culture they live in? I mean, I'm as strong an atheist as you can get but if you said "draw god" I'd probably give you something that looks like common Christian images of god.
Big claim, small claim, it's all the same. Evidence is evidence. You have to apply the same weighting in order to be fair.
No, you absolutely don't apply the same weighting. If I say "I had cereal for breakfast today" the standard of proof required to believe in that statement is going to be very different from the standard of proof required to believe "Orlanth is a murderer". You're addressing a question on the "Orlanth is a murderer" level of seriousness with the standard of proof appropriate for a discussion about this morning's breakfast.
Actually this is not true because atheism is not a de facto default position.
Yes it is, just like the default in every question of whether or not something exists is "no". The burden of proof is on the side claiming that the thing exists. If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it", and to not believe in the unicorn until I meet that demand for proof. And when I inevitably fail to do so the appropriate belief is "there is no unicorn". If I responded with "but 'no unicorn' isn't the default position" you'd just laugh at me and continue holding the only reasonable belief: that there is no unicorn. The only reason we don't treat your god the same way as the unicorn is that there are a lot of religious people who really want their beliefs to be true and demand special treatment for them.
To Orlanth and Peregrine (but of course all and any of you who is really interested in this subject) - please, both of you, do some reading on where the current academic discussion on whether god (a god, not only the Christian God) exist trully lies at the moment. Because all of your arguments are very, very far from actual scientific/theology discussion.
This book is ideal because of several reasons: first of all, Heller is both a prized, leading edge astrophysicist AND a catholic priest at the same time, specialising in philosophy of science. This book is a "popular science" book, but beware - it may require a whole lot more reading to trully comperhend a science discussed in it. And he deals with all major "god existence proofs" throughout written history, confronting them with philosophy and science developements. Leading to some interesting conlcusions, which both of you may find interesting and challenging.
And to Orlanth - you believie, that the universe is an omnipotent God driven place, yet all of the evidence shows, that it is in fact Mathematically and not magically driven. All material universe is strictly bound by mathematics and physics, and the scale of imbalance between proofs of "bound to mathematics" and "miracle driven" is trully vast. Science is able to influence world in ways many times more astounding than doubtfull HIV healing miracles (we can actually LOOK into WORKING brains through fMRI scans, which are machines working DIRECTLY on Quantuum Mechanics principles). And all of your religious evidence is always anchored in human psychology, intuitive reasoning, interpretation and, well, circular belief. All those are purely human traits and not observable, quantifiable nor reproducible facts. And to be perfectly clear: I do not want to undermine your faith - if it suits you and fills a meaningfull space in your life, then I'm perfectly fine with it. Heck, I might just handed you the "motherload" proof that you will ever find or require, that you may be in fact (almost) right in your faith. But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…
Two African women diagnosed with HIV who no longer have HIV. This cannot happen with current medical science. This is a) evidence, and b) anything but vague.
Alternatively, it's evidence that the initial diagnosis was incorrect.
Tests on HIV are very thorough and double checked. It a common ploy in blind faith based atheism to try and dismiss he unwanted evidence by handwaving it away as erroneous. It you were to aplly that logic to actual science little could even be achieved. Thinking 'I dont like the findings therefore the findings must be a result of procedural error' is a sign of a pseudo-scientific mind.
If they double check then that means false positives are possible. Two consecutive false positives isn't surprising.
diseases such as cancer go into remission or disappear. Magic Johnson is HIV free now. Its not unheard of, and its definitely not supernatural. Sometimes people's bodies work for them sometimes against.When cancer goes away, its a great day, but not a day that is owed to anyone but a physician. Next time you thank god someone turns out healthy, try turning around and shaking the doctors hand. He did a hell of a lot more to help your loved one than god did.
Now in Africa since treatments are probably few and far between, it is plausible then, and most likely the case that the tests were a false positive.
Much as I want to put my faith in the Malawian health system, those reports could have been written by anyone, they're each signed off by one person without any indication of the credentials or quality of testing, they also happen to be different people on the different findings. What this amounts to is someone being found to have something, getting a second opinion and being told they don't. It doesn't mean they were cured of anything.
Further, people do occasionally get better. Cancer does go into remission. People oberwhelmingly die of AIDS rather than getting better, but it's only proof of them getting better. There's no evidence for it being God. You've got an unusual circumstance that you're desperate to attribute to God, there's no evidence that leads to God as a conclusion. On the same basis of evidence, you could attribute it to aliens or fairies.
The evidence here is evidence of something unusual happening. Nothing more, you can't extend it to draw the conclusion that God exists. Science is full of the unexplained, especially when you have an incomplete set of facts and data. Not every unidentified light in the sky is aliens. And just because you don't know the cause of a certain phenomena, that doesn't constitute evidence in itself of divine intervention.
Actually this is not true because atheism is not a de facto default position.
Yes it is, just like the default in every question of whether or not something exists is "no". The burden of proof is on the side claiming that the thing exists. If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it", and to not believe in the unicorn until I meet that demand for proof. And when I inevitably fail to do so the appropriate belief is "there is no unicorn". If I responded with "but 'no unicorn' isn't the default position" you'd just laugh at me and continue holding the only reasonable belief: that there is no unicorn. The only reason we don't treat your god the same way as the unicorn is that there are a lot of religious people who really want their beliefs to be true and demand special treatment for them.
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
Actually this is not true because atheism is not a de facto default position.
Yes it is, just like the default in every question of whether or not something exists is "no". The burden of proof is on the side claiming that the thing exists. If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it", and to not believe in the unicorn until I meet that demand for proof. And when I inevitably fail to do so the appropriate belief is "there is no unicorn". If I responded with "but 'no unicorn' isn't the default position" you'd just laugh at me and continue holding the only reasonable belief: that there is no unicorn. The only reason we don't treat your god the same way as the unicorn is that there are a lot of religious people who really want their beliefs to be true and demand special treatment for them.
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
I went to Sunday school, etc., church stuff as a kid. My parents didn't. It wasn't forced on me. I wanted to go. But I started asking questions and getting answers that weren't actually answers. The other kids didn't understand how those answers didn't make sense to me. I realized at a very young age that we were being conditioned into these beliefs, and my skepticism of "the truth" was actually negatively impacting how my peers viewed me. Innocent, real questions getting handwaving answers or straight up "are you stupid" answers wasn't good enough for me.
Edit here: My grandma was actually the reason I did those things. She used to tell me about being a Christian and their God and everything, and she inspired me to check it out.
On the "people getting better" points. Why those people in your anecdotes? What do they matter in the scheme of things? Why do you believe a certain mother can take the sickness from their child, but another is forced to watch her child die a slow, painful, agonizing death? Is one mother a better person? Is it just because she believes harder? I've never understood how people point to adults getting healthier suddenly and saying it's evidence of a deity while ignoring completely the fact that the same deity is ignoring children starving to death or dying of incredibly ugly diseases. Who knows, maybe they deserve it for being born in the wrong country. Unless you want to say that both are evidence of a deity. Which I would respond to by saying that it's no deity that deserves any kind of worship.
I honestly believe polytheism has a lot more merit than monotheism, because then at least it can be that one deity is killing children while another is running around curing adults that go on to do nothing more significant than anyone else with their lives.
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
Well, unfortunately that is not entirely and uconditionally true. If you are born in a modern society, then yes, newborn has no religious beliefs and can be made to believe in any God, gods or Santa Claus. Sometimes intentionally by parents, sometimes by cultural surroundings which answer some questions before they're even asked. But… If you are somehow born in the wild, without proper schooling or cultural influence, then you will develop some form of primitive animism. This is how our brains are dealing with unexplainable events in the world - we make up explanations based on our experience. Because the most important thing our brain is capable to do, and does it better than any other animal on earth, is finding patterns. To a point, where it finds pattern where there are none ("critical paranoia" is one example of how this mechanics works). It simply allowed us to survive in changing enviroment. We didn't evolve to dispute God's existence, we evolved so we were not eaten by stronger animals but instead hunt them using tools. Our ability to dispute God's existence is just an emergent property of level of complication of our brains needed to form societies and use tool and there is clear historical record on how we invented more complex religious beliefs to meet needs of more complex societies.
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
This is the most compelling argument against organized religion out there.
But as any parent knows, asking questions and wondering "why is the world the way it is? how did we all get here?" is asked by every child about ten minutes after they first fully understand that everyone is a unique individual.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
This is the most compelling argument against organized religion out there.
But as any parent knows, asking questions and wondering "why is the world the way it is? how did we all get here?" is asked by every child about ten minutes after they first fully understand that everyone is a unique individual.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
I take that one step further by thinking that it's more depressing if something created us.
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
This is the most compelling argument against organized religion out there.
But as any parent knows, asking questions and wondering "why is the world the way it is? how did we all get here?" is asked by every child about ten minutes after they first fully understand that everyone is a unique individual.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
I take that one step further by thinking that it's more depressing if something created us.
i dont know i think its certainly more depressing if there was nothing else out there in the universe
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
This is the most compelling argument against organized religion out there.
But as any parent knows, asking questions and wondering "why is the world the way it is? how did we all get here?" is asked by every child about ten minutes after they first fully understand that everyone is a unique individual.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
I take that one step further by thinking that it's more depressing if something created us.
You take that back! I've heard nothing but good things about your mom.
The point is that your "evidence" isn't anywhere near proof. You'd have a point if you were talking about evidence that reached the "this is pretty compelling, even if it's not 100% undeniable", but you're posting the equivalent of "SDIOIOWEJIOWE$JIOJWERIOGMJLWERKJGLKWERJOIGFIOWERG THEREFORE GOD". Your "evidence" doesn't support the claim at all, and it's only going to be even remotely persuasive if you're already a Christian and looking for clever things to post on a forum in defense of your faith.
However the evidence is frequently persuasive for many or they wouldnt become Christians on account of it. any mny people become Christians n account of the varied evidence, which is a good reason why it could be called evidence, it need not convince you to remain evidence. Not all of them see the evidenced as their preferred viewpoint, but are convinced by it anyway, as C.S. Lews attests:
“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words “compelle intrare,” compel them to come in, have been so abused be wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.”
― C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life
1) The test was wrong, as you can inevitably expect to happen occasionally in a large enough sample size given the fact that no test is absolutely 100% accurate.
or
2) God stepped in and healed them, unlike every other case of people with the same disease praying to be healed. And this god did so without leaving any evidence of its intervention that could be observed by other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that testing error is the vastly more likely explanation.
However you say that the first option is definitely what happened. the women themselves believe the second and are closer to the story than you and I are.
'Which is more likely' and 'which is possible' are to different questions. I need only demonstrate the latter to have reasonable room for faith. Divine healings are recorded enough by medical science, I picked one YoueTube video at random.
That is a very twisted theology. God wishes all people to be healed, but Man will not walk in faith to claim the prize. All miracles are in conjunction with faith. No faith, no miracle.
I see. So of all those billions of Christians praying for miracles only a tiny, tiny handful of them are actually faithful?
Miracles are not uncommon, major miracles that attract attention are much rarer. Miraculous faith is rare in a sceptical world, that doesn't mean the rest of Christanity is faithless. It is also more common in some areas than others. In the passage below Jesus himself was partly shutdown by the unbelief of the area of Nazareth:
Mark 6:3-6
3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.
Let me guess, being faithful enough to receive healing miracles is strongly correlated with being a member of your particular branch of Christianity?
There are miracle testmonies for many demoninations (branches) of Christianity. Catholics believe in healing occurances at Lourdes, I don't know enough about Lourdes to comment more, and an generally sceptical of bleeding statues of the Virgin Mary for multiple reasons, but I have nothing to suggest it isnt a means for God to attract the attention of mainstream Catholics.
I said that if the scriptural signs occur in September 2017 then the schedule will have merit. I have sufficient interest that I will watch for those signs. This is scriptural to do, God tells us to watch for the signs of end times, but not to rush to assume specific timelines are accurate. Covered that in my last post before this one, so I wont repeat it here.
What exactly makes the September 2017 prophecy any more believable than any of the countless other end times prophecies which did not happen? What could possibly justify your "sufficient interest" after such a long and well-established history of utter failure?
For a start its not a 'well-established history of utter failure' because Jesus himself predicted accurately that this phenomenon would occur. I like the irony.
If you go onto YouTube the world is ending in 2012 videos, of which there were many can still be found, though most quietly disppeared. 2012 was common end of world date, but you ould see similar for 2013, 2014 etc etc and so on and so forth. Even better look for the identity of the anti-Christ. It was/is <insert name of US president>, so it was Clinton, then Bush, then Obama - a lot on Obama, now Clinton again. There are videos, quite a few saying Prince Harry is the anti-Christ with a lot of convoluted stretched to fit the signs evidence for this. For example of the latter case are several numerological calculations that add up to 666, many of them patently unfair. Like 'King Harry'.
Now the September 2017 prediction is already in part accurate., it is the end of the religious Jubilee, which happens once every fifty years on the Jewish religious calender, starting this September. There is separate evidence that it is the seventieth in the religious calender. That of itself is fair. What that means is up for debate. The 70th jubilee numerology could mean various things and has already been hijacked
IOW, exactly what I said. The bible contains a vast amount of text, and if you look at it with a generous enough definition of "accurate prophecy" you'll probably be able to find something that matches.
No that isn't fair. Some people do that, hence the 'Obama is the anti-Christ/Beast/False Prophet rants.' However just checking the Jewish religious calender and seeing that pivotal events are marked at precise repeated timing for each other is different. It isn't massaging the data at all.
Again a twisted point of view. There is a coordinated agreement as to what makes a genuine Christian denomination, as agreed by the Evangelical Alliance. While the denominations have many differences there is core scriptural agreement on what salvation is. Those organisations which teach the Bible and a gospel that according the the words of Jesus is sufficient to teach salvation can be called churches, those that do not are denied as cults. The delimitation is clear cut, quite unlike a 'true Sotsman', so for example Methodists, Baptists, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics all agree and comply, even if they have many differences. Christian Science, Jehovahs Witnesses, and Mormons etc fall outside the category.
You aren't paying attention. I am not here to prove Christianity, I don't believe that it is possible before the appointed time, when Jesus proves Christianity.
So you admit that your evidence falls well short of the burden of proof, and there is no rational justification for belief in Christianity.
Not at all. I am saying that the evidence is there and is plausible and is real, it just escapes being demonstably conclusive to all, because God reveals himself to those He wills.
God proved himself to Paul, he proves himself to those who know the Holy Spirit, by sending his Holy Spirit, though the faith has to come fist, then the 'internal proof' appears.
Universal proof however is still lacking, for now.
Evidence on the other hand, enough evidence that people can rationally choose to become Christians, even if they would prefer to believe something else in some cases, does exist.
But when the powerful experience that causes people to rethink their lives is a 1 to 1 with a particular God....
It isn't a one-to-one match with your particular god. For example, here are some from an entirely different religion being used in support of their beliefs: http://www.near-death.com/religion/hinduism.html
Which is why I wrote what I wrote. People can and do claim to have NDE's and see Buddha/Shiva/Mohammed etc.
Why would an atheist who doest necessarily socialise with Christians, and doesnt attend any church or associate with those who do, and possible intensely dislikes Christianity visualise a Christian God just because a larger % of he national population are nominal Christians.
Because said atheist lives in a Christian-majority society where Christian images are everywhere? Do you honestly not understand how even an atheist's images of death/heaven/etc can be influenced by the culture they live in? I mean, I'm as strong an atheist as you can get but if you said "draw god" I'd probably give you something that looks like common Christian images of god.
Big claim, small claim, it's all the same. Evidence is evidence. You have to apply the same weighting in order to be fair.
No, you absolutely don't apply the same weighting. If I say "I had cereal for breakfast today" the standard of proof required to believe in that statement is going to be very different from the standard of proof required to believe "Orlanth is a murderer". You're addressing a question on the "Orlanth is a murderer" level of seriousness with the standard of proof appropriate for a discussion about this morning's breakfast.
The burden of proof is on the side claiming that the thing exists. If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it",
It is acceptible to ask for proof, the conclusion to this process is to say, If the deity is unproven then it is unproven. There is no standpoint to say it does not exist.
Invisible unicorn might be incredulous to th point that many would choose to dismiss the evidence, but then where are the holy texts to proclaim the invisible unicorn, where are the followers with changed lives, where at those who claim to have been healed or guided by it. Show me those and there is room to believe in the invisible unicorn.
Some cross the line and state in faith that God is not real, and ironically become alike to religious followers of a cult of no-God.
You do what actual science does not. There are many things we cannot see and for a long term could not discern. Black holes for instance. We can see evidence f them now an believe the evidence, astronomers believed they existed before the breakthroughs occurred that allowed us to indirectly detect them. There was never a case when the scientific body could turn around ad say, 'we don't detect black holes therefore they don't exist'. It is not the default position in actual science.
If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it", and to not believe in the unicorn until I meet that demand for proof. And when I inevitably fail to do so the appropriate belief is "there is no unicorn". If I responded with "but 'no unicorn' isn't the default position" you'd just laugh at me and continue holding the only reasonable belief: that there is no unicorn. The only reason we don't treat your god the same way as the unicorn is that there are a lot of religious people who really want their beliefs to be true and demand special treatment for them.
i dont know i think its certainly more depressing if there was nothing else out there in the universe
but thats just imho
I mean if something actually created us as we are, it's depressing to me, because that implies we're working as intended, and that's so far beyond fethed up. Plus, believing we have no creator is not the same as believing there's nothing else in the universe. The stars won't align everywhere (to begin life), so to speak, but I would be surprised if they only aligned once in an ever-expanding universe.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
Psh, we just haven't met our new alien overlords yet!
nou wrote: To Orlanth and Peregrine (but of course all and any of you who is really interested in this subject) - please, both of you, do some reading on where the current academic discussion on whether god (a god, not only the Christian God) exist trully lies at the moment. Because all of your arguments are very, very far from actual scientific/theology discussion.
There are many criteria to this discussion. If you want to open up that line of theology go ahead, the floor is yours. I might comment on it.
And to Orlanth - you believie, that the universe is an omnipotent God driven place, yet all of the evidence shows, that it is in fact Mathematically and not magically driven.
I don't see those two comments as being mutually exclusive. Why cant a magical God exist in a mathematical universe. The former is the intervention state the latter the default state. So for example I believe that God can cause earthquakes, because earthquakes were recorded at the crucifixion and were recorded by witnesses as a sign of God's anger. That doesn't mean I believe that God holds the earth in is hand an every now and then gives it a shake, earthquakes occur by naturally occurring scientifically understood methods.
As to the workings of God I do not know Him well enough to understand, nobody does, according to Jesus nobody can because mortal minds cannot fathom an infinite God. However from our limited understanding the earthquake that occurred possibly because God 'cast an x level Earthquake divine spell', but possibly because God calculated the exact timing of the events, knew when the crucifixion would occur and arranged events geologically perhaps over a vast period of time so that the quake would occur. Both ways show an awesome God, I will even agree the latter sounds more awesome, but I cannot logically presume to know the insist of God's mind, all I know about that is that God is too big for human understanding, and I accept that as flat truth without concern, even though I am an imaginative man and like to stretch my mind, as I assume are most people on a fantasy forum.
And all of your religious evidence is always anchored in human psychology, intuitive reasoning, interpretation and, well, circular belief. All those are purely human traits and not observable, quantifiable nor reproducible facts.
That was what was needed as evidence IMHO. My standpoint is that there is rational evidence for God, taken in general but specifically from a Christian perspective (I will leave it to someone else to provide evidence for other deities). The point is that there is enough rational evidence provided that someone can make the choice to believe in God with some logical foundation for doing so.
I could look at an infinite architect God in an infinite universe, but when contemplating Gods position in the multiverse the very scale works against us. God has always been a personal God. "I Am the God o Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" proclaims the Lord from a high hill. What does it mean to anyone if He said "I Am the God of VY Canis Majoris, VV Cephei and NML Cygni" though the latter would be a more impressive claim.
Most important of all salvation is a spiritual event of itself, I have kept this aspect off the thread beyond stating that after someone is born again they can receive the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit can and likely will become indwelling ongoing evidence for the existence of God.
Heck, I might just handed you the "motherload" proof that you will ever find or require, that you may be in fact (almost) right in your faith. But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
A big claim from a small man who is also a big God.
I am all up for your 'motherload' though. Post a synopsis if you would, please.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
Psh, we just haven't met our new alien overlords yet!
Oh man. I hope Smith and Goldblum are still with it enough when that day comes.
Following that line of thought, if this scenario is true, does that make the alien race gods?
diseases such as cancer go into remission or disappear. Magic Johnson is HIV free now. Its not unheard of, and its definitely not supernatural. Sometimes people's bodies work for them sometimes against.When cancer goes away, its a great day, but not a day that is owed to anyone but a physician. Next time you thank god someone turns out healthy, try turning around and shaking the doctors hand. He did a hell of a lot more to help your loved one than god did.
As for spontaneous cancer remission, honest doctors cant take credit for that. Chemotherapy is not spontaneous remission.
Also a belief in a healing God should not involve a contempt for medicine, we are agreed on that.
Further, people do occasionally get better. Cancer does go into remission. People oberwhelmingly die of AIDS rather than getting better, but it's only proof of them getting better. There's no evidence for it being God. You've got an unusual circumstance that you're desperate to attribute to God, there's no evidence that leads to God as a conclusion. On the same basis of evidence, you could attribute it to aliens or fairies.
I will accept your standpoints on the grounds that you claim spontaneous remission occurs, and thus refine the comment that the remission of AIDS is impossible in medical science, to say that it cannot currently be caused by human intervention.
It still happens though by your own admission.
In this case it allegedly happened to two women as a response to their prayer and petition of God. Leaving it open to comment that the events are connected, a viewpoint the two women certainly share. It would be unfair to handwave that away as impossible.
The evidence here is evidence of something unusual happening. Nothing more, you can't extend it to draw the conclusion that God exists.
Something unusual happened, if we look for a 'smoking gun' we ave the two women asking God for healing.
It is evidence enough to claim a connection is plausible. You can chose to do so, or not to do so.
Remember this is one case taken at random, there are many more. More than enough for reasonable people to put hand on heart and say they they can believe there is a healing God at work in the world today.
Peregrine wrote: And honestly, I don't think you want to claim this one because if it's evidence for god then it's evidence for the sadistic version of god who picks who lives and who dies on a whim. This "god" decided to cure two random women, while leaving countless other people to die of the same disease? Granted, "god is a " isn't evidence against the existence of god, but it sure does make you wonder what kind of person would worship such a morally horrible being.
This is a big part of why I'm atheistic. A more memorable quote for me on the subject--
"If God is good, He is not God. If God is God, He is not good. Take, the even, take the odd."
nou wrote: But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…
Assuming you are referring to the Christian Bible, the Christian Bible is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books written and collected over a 1,500 year period by 40 different credited authors (likely more unaccredited) from all walks of life, e.g. shepherds, farmers, merchants, physicians, fishermen, priests, philosophers, judges, various government officials including a tax collector , generals, princes, and kings with the backdrop of many of the events being the most advanced and sophisticated cities and societies for their time, e.g. Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome and in such cities as Thebes, Nineveh, Jerusalem, Corinth, Damascus, Corinth, and Rome.
Doesn't seem consistent with the summary of a, "single book written by desert wandering nomads" does it?
For a post that seemed to start from a perspective that one should strive to seek diverse and different sources of information and authorship to avoid becoming bigoted this was a disappointing sentiment for you to close with. Consequently, you should probably take your own advice as you seem to be uninformed about the religious texts, their historical context, and their authorship. I to once had this attitude and flippantly disregarded religious texts, being influenced by select books and authors I was "forced" to read in my youth.
Of course you sound like an intelligent person who probably knew that already, so why write something so inaccurate?
In the meantime, thank you for the reading suggestion. I will have to look into getting a copy.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Assuming you are referring to the Christian Bible, the Christian Bible is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books written and collected over a 1,500 year period by 40 different credited authors (likely more unaccredited) from all walks of life,
To expand on this and further emphasize the complexity of the Bible's origins; the Bible is 66 books out of hundreds (if not thousands) of known texts written in a roughly 1000 year period (600 BCE to 3-400 CE) by numerous authors* and canonized in 1546 at the Council of Trent (prior to which the Church had operated in more of a "common Bible" concept). *Many of these authors are virtually unknown, as critical examination has generally discounted the commonly accepted beliefs of authorship for many books, and shown most to have had multiple authors who are not credited in any text.
TBH, religion to me, is geographical. You believe what you are taught based on where you are brought up, and when you were brought up.
8000 years ago, you'd have believed in whatever god, gods, spirits or whatever you were taught to by your elders.
However, there have always been atheists, even if they were secret ones who didn't fancy getting strung up by the larger of their goolies by admitting it. Every culture has people who just don't believe in the supernatural, and even before science, there were probably people who didn't believe in whatever the local priest, druid or shaman was blathering on about.
The diversity and confusion of religion throughout known history, and even what probably passed for religion in prehistory is proof enough to me that it is all bunkum.
Agnosticism is just not wanting to offend anyone, and hedging your bets. That won't work btw, if other people can see straight through your moral ambiguity, a deity is going to give you very short shrift indeed.
I don't believe God exists, for a long time I wanted it to exist, but I decided that it was just wishful thinking.
However, If you want to believe in whatever, crack on, just feel free to keep that to yourself.
Something unusual happened, if we look for a 'smoking gun' we ave the two women asking God for healing.
It is evidence enough to claim a connection is plausible. You can chose to do so, or not to do so..
That's not how evidence works. Correlation is not causation.
You could as easily claim that since both women have feet, their possession of feet was what cured them. But then you start looking at how many other women have feet and who weren't spontaneously and mysteriously cured... and when you find that number to be vastly larger than your original sample group, you're forced to consider that your hypothesis is wrong and there must have been some other cause.
Something unusual happened, if we look for a 'smoking gun' we ave the two women asking God for healing.
It is evidence enough to claim a connection is plausible. You can chose to do so, or not to do so..
That's not how evidence works. Correlation is not causation.
You could as easily claim that since both women have feet, their possession of feet was what cured them. But then you start looking at how many other women have feet and who weren't spontaneously and mysteriously cured... and when you find that number to be vastly larger than your original sample group, you're forced to consider that your hypothesis is wrong and there must have been some other cause.
Er no. There was no prior will to be healed by the power of possessing feet. There was a prior will to be healed by God, and when subsequent healing occurred it is not illogical to attribute the healing to God.
If there was no intercession before the healing and the women had just found out that they no longer had HIV then you would have a point.
The correlation is indicative of causation, and evidence of such.
Orlanth wrote: There was a prior will to be healed by God, and when subsequent healing occurred it is not illogical to attribute the healing to God.
Only if you take that specific example in isolation.
When you consider the number of people who asked to be healed and weren't, it becomes a much less likely explanation.
If there was no intercession before the healing and the women had just found out that they no longer had HIV then you would have a point.
No, the point remains. The women had feet prior to their healing. You could insert any other thing that occurred to the women prior to being healed (they had breakfast, they dyed their hair, they owned cats, they saw a robin) and the result would be the same... you've taken one specific thing that happened prior to the women being healed and assumed, with no actual evidence to back up that assumption and while completely ignoring any contrary examples) that this particular thing is the most likely cause of the healing.
What is it exactly that makes 'I asked God to heal me' a more likely explanation than 'Having feet magically cures you of illness'?
I don't buy that argument even a little. Atheism isn't an eternal concept but a fairly recent ideology, comparatively. That isn't to say it is right or wrong, just that it isn't an idea as old as humanity itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Active vs passive participation, probably.
Well I am sort of healthy and I have feet so the idea pans out.
Ahtman, human civilization is a very small part of our past, and an even smaller part of the universe's history. We've been here a very short time.
Asking any of our past ancestors in the evolutionary tree what deity they subscribed to would surely get you an answer of "nothing".
There have always been atheists. It's religion that is a very recent invention. And it continually complexifies and renames itself based on the knowledge of the time, so it can at least keep some supporters in face of evidence it's incorrect. No one still believes in Zeus.
I've stayed out of this until now, but I just can't let you think atheism is "recent". It's the default state of a mind. Religion is something that must be invented and then taught. This isn't even possible before complex communication is a thing. What do you think all the current species of apes are, Zoroastrianists?
Not to mention I think it's a bit absurd to suppose that there were NO individuals who didn't believe in the past religious times, even if you disregard what I said above.
Once a mind begins to be complex enough in structure to ask questions it can't answer, it decides on answers that allow it to make some sense out of events, and goes with them until they fail or even further than that as we're seeing in today's times. Hence the naturalistic tendencies of past pantheons... those gods were invented to help people come to terms with events they could not understand. They're quite poetic and artistic answers as well. But correct? No.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Ahtman, human civilization is a very small part of our past, and an even smaller part of the universe's history. We've been here a very short time.
Asking any of our past ancestors in the evolutionary tree what deity they subscribed to would surely get you an answer of "nothing".
There have always been atheists. It's religion that is a very recent invention. And it continually complexifies and renames itself based on the knowledge of the time, so it can at least keep some supporters in face of evidence it's incorrect. No one still believes in Zeus.
I've stayed out of this until now, but I just can't let you think atheism is "recent". It's the default state of a mind. Religion is something that must be invented and then taught. This isn't even possible before complex communication is a thing. What do you think all the current species of apes are, Zoroastrianists?
Not to mention I think it's a bit absurd to suppose that there were NO individuals who didn't believe in the past religious times, even if you disregard what I said above.
Once a mind begins to be complex enough in structure to ask questions it can't answer, it decides on answers that allow it to make some sense out of events, and goes with them until they fail or even further than that as we're seeing in today's times. Hence the naturalistic tendencies of past pantheons... those gods were invented to help people come to terms with events they could not understand. They're quite poetic and artistic answers as well. But correct? No.
If you count animism, paganism, shamanism, etc as religion, then I suspect you'd find religion at all points of human existence.
I think you are conflating current idea of atheism with people questioning the thinking of their time, which is not the same thing.
Or you are going back so far to when there was no real thinking and we really just ran on instinct. At that point one might as well say that any animal is an atheist, which is a senseless and useless concept.
Tabula Rasa is considered the 'default', if we are going to pretend that there is one way of thinking about human development. Nothingness is not the same as atheism or theism as both are things. They aren't both religions, but they are still ideas, which is not, again, the same as no idea at all. Pretending that people all start as atheists is an incredible oversimplification of a situation that is incredibly complex.
Why does it need to even be pointed out that religion is as old as humanity? I mean, come on. We weren't always big on this whole science thing. If I didn't have the scientific method, I'd probably assume lightning was some big guy in the sky who was pissed I didn't share my oranges.
LordofHats wrote: Why does it need to even be pointed out that religion is as old as humanity? I mean, come on. We weren't always big on this whole science thing. If I didn't have the scientific method, I'd probably assume lightning was some big guy in the sky who was pissed I didn't share my oranges.
LordofHats wrote: Why does it need to even be pointed out that religion is as old as humanity? I mean, come on. We weren't always big on this whole science thing. If I didn't have the scientific method, I'd probably assume lightning was some big guy in the sky who was pissed I didn't share my oranges.
LordofHats wrote: Why does it need to even be pointed out that religion is as old as humanity? I mean, come on. We weren't always big on this whole science thing. If I didn't have the scientific method, I'd probably assume lightning was some big guy in the sky who was pissed I didn't share my oranges.
Hey, I like oranges. You should have shared.
pft. You and what lightning throwing deity?
I believe that's Thor. Oranges are scarce up north. Double lightning penalty!
nou wrote: But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…
Assuming you are referring to the Christian Bible, the Christian Bible is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books written and collected over a 1,500 year period by 40 different credited authors (likely more unaccredited) from all walks of life, e.g. shepherds, farmers, merchants, physicians, fishermen, priests, philosophers, judges, various government officials including a tax collector , generals, princes, and kings with the backdrop of many of the events being the most advanced and sophisticated cities and societies for their time, e.g. Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome and in such cities as Thebes, Nineveh, Jerusalem, Corinth, Damascus, Corinth, and Rome.
Doesn't seem consistent with the summary of a, "single book written by desert wandering nomads" does it?
For a post that seemed to start from a perspective that one should strive to seek diverse and different sources of information and authorship to avoid becoming bigoted this was a disappointing sentiment for you to close with. Consequently, you should probably take your own advice as you seem to be uninformed about the religious texts, their historical context, and their authorship. I to once had this attitude and flippantly disregarded religious texts, being influenced by select books and authors I was "forced" to read in my youth.
Of course you sound like an intelligent person who probably knew that already, so why write something so inaccurate?
In the meantime, thank you for the reading suggestion. I will have to look into getting a copy.
Well, this of course was a (minor) simplification on my part, but read my posts again and you will see where that simplification comes from: scientific method has produced vast amount of knowledge in the last 300 years alone, and when you compare those 66 books of a Christian Bible to even the single discipline of natural science, then it is, for all practical means and purposes, a single book (same as a collection of short stories is in comparison to a long series of thousand page novels). And, for your information, yes, I have read large parts of it (mostly Old Testament but some excerpts from New Testament as well) and have been raised as a Christian, but it is at least 20 yeas now since I have made my decision to first leave the Church, and after a brief wandering to pursuit the path of scientific knowledge, because teachings of faith had no actual answers for my questions. Science had, and has more with every passing year and with (almost) every finished book.
At this moment, religious texts are "merely" a historical sources for me and material for comparative religious studies, but I see no aplicable knowledge about the universe and (the current state of) humanity in them. They are a great insight into past and into some parts of human psychology and sociology developement, but not in terms of actual knowledge written in them, but on the meta analysis level.
And as for "nomads" - this is in fact where I am guilty of using a pejorative term, as a typical graduate of modern natural sciences has more knowledge than Newton or Gauss ever had in their entire lives. Greek philosophers were brilliant at their point in history, but we teach Pythagorean theorem or Archimedean principle to our children! Why does anyone assume, that a couple of thousands years old chronicles of long fallen kings have deeper insight in human nature and destination of our civilisation than modern science has is what puzzles me deeply… And to be clear - for me, this argument stands against any and all religious beliefs out there (including such abominations as Scientology and various modern New Age philosophies).
But - and this is what may sound strange - I do think, that religious beliefs and practices are necessary to humanity existence and I do not think, that there is any way we could make an exlusively atheist culture prevail… We, as a species, are just not "hardwired" for it. This is why I do not "preach" atheism in any way and have not identified my personal "standing" on the matter within this thread, as I am a strong advocate of choosing a personal, informed path in this regard. This is why I did proposed ks.Heller book and not any other of great titles I could have, but which are often written from explicitly atheist or deist perspectives.
Heck, I might just handed you the "motherload" proof that you will ever find or require, that you may be in fact (almost) right in your faith. But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
A big claim from a small man who is also a big God.
I am all up for your 'motherload' though. Post a synopsis if you would, please.
It is realy an impossible task to write a synopsis of a book, which is itself a "synopsis" of huge parts of history of philosophy, physics, mathemathics and theology. In the abolute shortest way: it is a book about how developing science has been shrinking the place in which we can fit a god in. But I must honestly say, that from reading all your posts in this thread and your last reply - you seem to have an awfull lot of catching up to do to really comprehend science (and science history, and science philosophy) touched by this book...
No, the point remains. The women had feet prior to their healing. You could insert any other thing that occurred to the women prior to being healed (they had breakfast, they dyed their hair, they owned cats, they saw a robin) and the result would be the same... you've taken one specific thing that happened prior to the women being healed and assumed, with no actual evidence to back up that assumption and while completely ignoring any contrary examples) that this particular thing is the most likely cause of the healing.
If the women claimed to have dyed their hair/owned cats/saw a robin to be healed and were they to claim to attribute it to that.
Instead they relied on divine ministry.
What is it exactly that makes 'I asked God to heal me' a more likely explanation than 'Having feet magically cures you of illness'?
Testimony - From those who claimed it has happened.
Common sense - Does having feet magically cure you of illness? No. Because there is no reason for it to do so. We know what feet are and what their purpose is, we understand that feet arent there to cure AIDS. Faith in God on the other hand sometimes produces results, it is clearly explained that is what faith is there to do.
You had feet the last time you got onto a bus does it mean that you should attribute your feet for managing to travel at 30mph?
Orlanth wrote: Faith in God on the other hand sometimes produces results,...
No, faith in God sometimes seemingly produces results. But that appearance of results doesn't actually hold up to any level of scrutiny... because there is nothing to actually tie the result to that faith.
If my daughter wakes up and asks me for it to snow today, and it just happens to snow today, would it be reasonable to assume that I was responsible for that snow? Or would it be more logical to instead assume that there was some other explanation for some rather peculiar weather hitting this part of the country than that I have supernatural powers?
My being responsible for it is an explanation for it... but it's not a reasonable explanation for it, because there is no evidence that the original request and the result were actually linked beyond some coincidental timing. Coincidental timing that becomes even shakier when you factor in the previous thousand requests for snow from my daughter, and the innumerable requests from around the world through my blog (AskInsaniakForImprobableThingsInTheHopeThatThisTimeHeWon'tIgnoreYou.com) that have also previously gone unfulfilled...
I don't buy that argument even a little. Atheism isn't an eternal concept but a fairly recent ideology, comparatively. That isn't to say it is right or wrong, just that it isn't an idea as old as humanity itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Active vs passive participation, probably.
Well I am sort of healthy and I have feet so the idea pans out.
According to Wikipedia's History of Atheism article, the earliest known historical atheist was in 500 BC. Even if he was the very first ever, rather than the first to be recorded by history, it is still old enough to say that atheism isn't s recent ideology. It has become much more prevalent in the past 500 years due to the success of science in explaining many phenomena that used to be ascribed to deities. IMO.
As for "everyone is born an atheist" in fact everyone is born as a tabula rasa with the purpose of growing and developing. Newborn babies can't even focus their eyes, let alone start to develop concepts of where the universe came from. Religion is learned from your parents and culture. That is why religions cluster. Almost no-one outside Japan is Shinto, but some are Zen Buddhist, because people can learn and change their religion later in life. Most people don't, because most people aren't actually very religious in the sense of questioning spirituality and looking at alternatives.
Kilkrazy wrote: it is still old enough to say that atheism isn't s recent ideology.
Thus the qualification of it being 'comparatively' new. It is not new if compared to the Iphone 6+, but it is a relatively new superstructure if compared to religion in general, and especially the current form of atheism. One can find outliers for lots of things, but that doesn't make them not outliers.
Kilkrazy wrote: As for "everyone is born an atheist" in fact everyone is born as a tabula rasa with the purpose of growing and developing.
Kilkrazy wrote: it is still old enough to say that atheism isn't s recent ideology.
Thus the qualification of it being 'comparatively' new. It is not new if compared to the Iphone 6+, but it is a relatively new superstructure if compared to religion in general, and especially the current form of atheism. One can find outliers for lots of things, but that doesn't make them not outliers.
It's almost a delicious irony to be able to turn an argument used to defend god against a theist, can you prove that there weren't atheists before?
However, in reality it is highly likely that since human beings evolved in their current form, there have been atheists. Simply people who do not believe in any God's. They may have performed the rites and habits of the local spirituality in order to conform, but they probably thought it was a load of Hooie too.
There are more atheists now, or in fact there maybe the same amount, it's just that now people admit it more freely, and have platforms of discussion. That, and as our understanding of the universe grows, it pushes previous supernatural theories away. Globalisation has made us aware of the diversity and incompatibility of spirituality between nations, which leads many to question how can so many different ideas be right? Such questions provoke thought more regularly than in the past, where the source of all your knowledge may have been just the priest and no one else.
Why do you think religions were, and in some parts of the world still are, so keen to provide schooling? It's not about providing knowledge to the masses, but about controlling that knowledge to the masses. They needed to make sure that nothing contradicts the current faith. Unfortunately it only works in the short term, by which I mean over a period of hundreds of years.
'Jesus promised to get rid of the sinners, Thor promised to get rid of the Frost Giants. I don't see any Frost Giants!'
Clearly, Thor is the true God.
This is exactly the sort of thing that makes not want to identify as "Atheist". There's this gross undercurrent of anti-theism running among so many that identity that way. Honestly atheist might be a fair description of my views, as I've honestly reached a point where I've excluded god and the supernatural in general anything probable enough to be worth seriously considering. However, that's just my view and I don't deny I could be wrong. I generally like the concept of religion and kind of wish I could be religious myself. When friends and family have invited me to their religious services or events, I've always enjoyed them and the people there. I've never felt like making a point of my non-belief to believers.]
Yet I see so many people going around comparing the active and deeply held beliefs of others to the long dead and abandoned practices of the ancients. Rolling their eyes at some perceived foolishness on the part of religious people, and openly mocking the symbols of people's faith. So many go out of their way to blame issues stemming from complex problems on the religious context in which some of the actors in those problems choose to frame it.
So, I generally stick to "Agnostic" or 'Non-religious" because I'll be damned if I want to be lumped in with the wolf shirted fedora-tippers that constantly post crap like that.
Ah, but Chongara, the Asatru faith very much believe that Thor is alive and well. That meme is certainly antagonistic, but there are fervent believers in the Norse gods and goddesses out there. You'd be hard pressed to find a deity without some worshipers.
And believe it or not, there's a meme made for this very situation.
Spoiler:
For the Christians, the atheists, and those who believe in Thor.
'Jesus promised to get rid of the sinners, Thor promised to get rid of the Frost Giants. I don't see any Frost Giants!'
Clearly, Thor is the true God.
This is exactly the sort of thing that makes not want to identify as "Atheist". There's this gross undercurrent of anti-theism running among so many that identity that way. Honestly atheist might be a fair description of my views, as I've honestly reached a point where I've excluded god and the supernatural in general anything probable enough to be worth seriously considering. However, that's just my view and I don't deny I could be wrong. I generally like the concept of religion and kind of wish I could be religious myself. When friends and family have invited me to their religious services or events, I've always enjoyed them and the people there. I've never felt like making a point of my non-belief to believers.]
Yet I see so many people going around comparing the active and deeply held beliefs of others to the long dead and abandoned practices of the ancients. Rolling their eyes at some perceived foolishness on the part of religious people, and openly mocking the symbols of people's faith. So many go out of their way to blame issues stemming from complex problems on the religious context in which some of the actors in those problems choose to frame it.
So, I generally stick to "Agnostic" or 'Non-religious" because I'll be damned if I want to be lumped in with the wolf shirted fedora-tippers that constantly post crap like that.
This is the thing, you see atheists as that sort of horrible man-child because there are a very few who are obnoxious about it, but there has been a long and concerted campaign to make people think of that as the norm. Even among Gnostic Athiests it is rare, because others simply don't talk about their belief.
The problem now is that, just like with yourself, people feel embarrassed to be associated with the word becuause of this skewed picture people have of it. The next problem you have is that if non-believers actually talk about this and try to undo that skewed idea, well they're "those annoying Athiests who preach their non-beliefs", thus proving the point you would try to disprove... Really a no win situation. The truth is though that it's the technically correct term for anyone who doesn't follow a god, religion or spiritual belief, including "non-religious" and a fair few Agnostics (you can be an Agnostic Athiest as well, as I am). Personally I say don't shy away from using the correct term where appropriate, or worry about what prejudice others have for the term.
Doesn't bother me being called an atheist, it has no stigma in the UK.
However, in the military we're encouraged to put something on our ID discs, as many of our opponents don't like atheists, and will kill them first if captured. I go with CofE, it's practically atheism anyway.
Hatred of atheism is long standing in virtually all religions, it's the only thing they truly fear, apart from death.
'Jesus promised to get rid of the sinners, Thor promised to get rid of the Frost Giants. I don't see any Frost Giants!'
Clearly, Thor is the true God.
This is exactly the sort of thing that makes not want to identify as "Atheist". There's this gross undercurrent of anti-theism running among so many that identity that way. Honestly atheist might be a fair description of my views, as I've honestly reached a point where I've excluded god and the supernatural in general anything probable enough to be worth seriously considering. However, that's just my view and I don't deny I could be wrong. I generally like the concept of religion and kind of wish I could be religious myself. When friends and family have invited me to their religious services or events, I've always enjoyed them and the people there. I've never felt like making a point of my non-belief to believers.]
Yet I see so many people going around comparing the active and deeply held beliefs of others to the long dead and abandoned practices of the ancients. Rolling their eyes at some perceived foolishness on the part of religious people, and openly mocking the symbols of people's faith. So many go out of their way to blame issues stemming from complex problems on the religious context in which some of the actors in those problems choose to frame it.
So, I generally stick to "Agnostic" or 'Non-religious" because I'll be damned if I want to be lumped in with the wolf shirted fedora-tippers that constantly post crap like that.
This is the thing, you see atheists as that sort of horrible man-child because there are a very few who are obnoxious about it, but there has been a long and concerted campaign to make people think of that as the norm. Even among Gnostic Athiests it is rare, because others simply don't talk about their belief.
The problem now is that, just like with yourself, people feel embarrassed to be associated with the word becuause of this skewed picture people have of it. The next problem you have is that if non-believers actually talk about this and try to undo that skewed idea, well they're "those annoying Athiests who preach their non-beliefs", thus proving the point you would try to disprove... Really a no win situation. The truth is though that it's the technically correct term for anyone who doesn't follow a god, religion or spiritual belief, including "non-religious" and a fair few Agnostics (you can be an Agnostic Athiest as well, as I am). Personally I say don't shy away from using the correct term where appropriate, or worry about what prejudice others have for the term.
That's true of all religions. The loud whackjobs (Like Robertson et al an ISIS) are seen as representing all of a religion to outsiders. It's a case of being loud and negative experiences/threats being easier to remember.
When I'm thinking of a Christian, he's not the first one that comes to mind. Rather what comes to mind are the people that are very vocal about being Christian and if you don't agree with them they don't act very Christ-like.
Dope Pope is best Pope (but no seriously, after having a guy who invited way to many comparisons to Palpatine for a couple years, Francis has been a huge PR improvement).
Kilkrazy wrote: The Pope is a fairly prominent Christian but he probably doesn't bang on about making you agree with him.
That depends on the pope in question. The one who's boss right now seems rather relaxed when it comes to some of the stuff he's supposed to be strict about. I think he even said something nice about accepting atheists once.
feeder wrote: In another (now closed) thread, this subject was raised. I find these three concepts very interesting. In interests of full disclosure, I strongly identify as agnostic.
Atheism and theism are, I believe, different sides of the same coin, with each belief system requiring a leap of faith in the face of a total lack of evidence to arrive at such a firm conviction.
Please share your thoughts, and keep Rule #1 in mind.
I think both are absolutely fine, in most experiences with both atheists and theists I don't have any problems. However, I have had run ins with crazies on both sides of that fence. I have been yelled at by an atheist for saying bless you when they sneezed, and I have been lectured by a baptist about how my own beliefs are wrong and therefore I should convert or go to hell. So just like most groups, it is the extremists that ruin it for everyone.
Orlanth wrote: Faith in God on the other hand sometimes produces results,...
No, faith in God sometimes seemingly produces results. But that appearance of results doesn't actually hold up to any level of scrutiny... because there is nothing to actually tie the result to that faith.
You say that the results don't hold up to any level of scrutiny. That is a bold statement, there are many cases of healing miracles reported, including resurrections. Are you going to try and find excuse handwave each of them away. Good luck with that,
It isn't uncommon though. One sad example, there was a case of a man in the 50's who had cancer tumours throughout his torso who was healed at a ministry by IIRC Kathleen Kuhlman, Now this man had a long and established medical history and his personal doctor was a good friend of many years. When the man was healed he went to see his doctor, told him he had been healed by God. The doctor examined him and saw no sign of the cancer, which was too established to likely go into full remission and couldn't clear up that quickly anyway even if it did. The doctors conclusion was to claim that this was therefore a differet person, even though his patient was a personal friend of many years standing, and refused point blank to have anything to do with him.
Still this is not as odd as the group of eleven blind men who were healed by Jesus, of which only one of the eleven believed in him. If someone doesn't want to believe they wont, and any excuse not to is good enough.
You had feet the last time you got onto a bus does it mean that you should attribute your feet for managing to travel at 30mph?
No. Which is, you know, kind of my point...
Your point appears to be belief in healing feet is the same as faith in a healing God. They are not the same. There is no historicity for feet worship, no doctrine, no revelation etc etc.
I used the bus analogy to show the faith in feet doesn't have a mundane equivalent,
Orlanth wrote: Faith in God on the other hand sometimes produces results,...
No, faith in God sometimes seemingly produces results. But that appearance of results doesn't actually hold up to any level of scrutiny... because there is nothing to actually tie the result to that faith.
You say that the results don't hold up to any level of scrutiny. That is a bold statement, there are many cases of healing miracles reported, including resurrections. Are you going to try and find excuse handwave each of them away. Good luck with that,
The way I interpret what Insaniak said is that a person's faith will tie things that appear to be miracles with being acts of God. Being an agnostic person myself: If I see a miracle (e.g. unexplained and/or seemingly impossible resurrections, mysterious disappearance of cancer, etc.), I can't argue that that's a miracle, but as an agnostic person I have no reason to attribute that to a God (or Gods) and nor do I have any reason to believe that it's proof (and/or evidence) of a God (or Gods).
What I'm saying is that: A Christian (for example) will likely see a miracle and attribute it to God, where as an Agnostic person such as myself will see it and might say "It's a miracle, but I can't explain it."
EDIT: Then you can consider the following:
In ages past, humanity has used Religion, Gods, and Faith to explain a number of things that we can now explain. Take, for example, the Sun: Our ancestors could not explain the Sun, so they attributed it to a Sun God who rode across the sky on a Golden Chariot. I personally don't see the attributing of miracles to a God or set of Gods any differently.
Yes, we have no explanation of miraculous disappearance of cancer, what people experience during NDE's, seemingly impossible resurrections, etc etc etc, but attributing them to a deity or set of deities only tells me that we (humanity) lack the knowledge and/or understanding to explain such things.
In the case of things like NDE's (and possibly a lot of other things), I'm not denying that there can be a strong spiritual element on a subjective basis which can lead to people changing Religions or taking up a Religion, but that's still not evidence or proof to me that a God or Gods exist. To me, all that says is that situation and/or experience can either not be explained, had such a profound effect on the individual that they take up a Religion, or both. Just because it can't be explained and/or brings someone into the embrace of a Religion doesn't mean that it is evidence/proof that a God or set of Gods exist.
You say that the results don't hold up to any level of scrutiny. That is a bold statement, there are many cases of healing miracles reported, including resurrections. Are you going to try and find excuse handwave each of them away. Good luck with that,
There is no need to 'handwave' them away. The fact that something happened and nobody knew why doesn't mean 'God did it'. It just means that something happened for a reason that wasn't known at the time.
The reason I say that miracle healings don't hold up to scrutiny is because they don't. The fact that someone prayed to be healed and subsequently got better doesn't mean that the prayer healed them, any more than my choice to hop on one foot before checking the weather forecast will result in a sunny day. It just means that someone did something before something else happened.
Or, once again - Correlation is not causation.
If prayer consistently achieved measurable results, it would be a different story... but it doesn't. For every religious person who prays for something awesome to happen and has their prayer 'answered', there are countless others who prayed and got nothing. And other non-religious people who didn't pray ... and had something awesome happen anyway.
Still this is not as odd as the group of eleven blind men who were healed by Jesus, of which only one of the eleven believed in him.
Which brings us to a related point - If prayer gets you results, but only when God feels like it, and not praying also gets you results when God feels like it, it seems that prayer isn't actually a required part of the equation. Either there's a God out there who's just healing people at whim regardless of whether or not they pray for it... or there's no God, and people are occasionally getting better for some unknown reason that has nothing to do with prayer...
Your point appears to be belief in healing feet is the same as faith in a healing God.
No, my point is that correlation is not causation.
There is no more evidence that belief in the Christian God is any more likely to result in spontaneous healing than having feet is likely to result in that same healing.
feeder wrote: In interests of full disclosure, I strongly identify as agnostic.
Atheism and theism are, I believe, different sides of the same coin, with each belief system requiring a leap of faith in the face of a total lack of evidence to arrive at such a firm conviction.
I strongly identify as an atheist. While I agree with you that there is (on some level) a "leap of faith", I disagree that all leaps of faith are equal. For example, if I put a chocolate bar in my fridge and close the door, I don't really know if it still exists. I just have to have faith that reality is consistent, and the chocolate is still there. There are entire branches of philosophy that dwell on this kind of issue. It's incredibly difficult to prove that things exist when you're not observing them in some way, and it's not really certain that anything exists even when we are observing it... "I think therefore I am" (hopefully).
Believing in the Christian god (for example), requires a huge leap of faith... you need to gloss over a whole bunch of stuff about dinosaurs, evolution, heliocentrism, historical inaccuracy, absence of corroborating sources, Christian interpolation, and a whole bunch of things about "god" that don't stand up to fairly casual scrutiny: Why did he only ever reveal himself to one obscure nomadic tribe 3000 years ago? Why did he leave that fruit in the garden of Eden to entrap us? Why did he give us foreskins and bacon if he doesn't want us to have them? What was the point of dying for our sins, when he could have just forgiven us? Why is god's country, Israel, named after the pagan god El? Why would god (an eternal spiritual being) resemble us (an evolved creature with food processing orifices)? etc... etc...
I believe that the Christian god (just like the Roman gods, and every other god myth), was made up by people to try and explain something they didn't understand. Philosophically speaking: I don't know 100% that the story is false, because you can't know anything 100%, just like I can't know 100% if something still exists inside my fridge when I close the door. However, in a practical sense: I'm confident enough to say that I know for a fact that the god described in the bible does not exist (because it is for all intents and purposes a fact). I know it with the same degree of certainty that I know things do not stop existing when I close my fridge door. It doesn't require much "faith", nor is it arrogance. It's just very obviously not consistent with reality, and not true.
I think it's possible that there might be a higher power in the universe, but if there is, it's probably nothing like the god "guessed at" by Earthly religions. I doubt it cares about us, if it even knows we exist... On the scale of the universe, we are just some brief bacteria on a speck of dust, on a speck of dust. The real arrogance is believing that we're important, and that a universe 90+ billion light-years across, was supposedly created "for us", even though we can't inhabit roughly 100% of it.
I guess I might be agnostic about such a being, but I don't see it (him) as any more plausible than a million other theories that can't be proven, so I don't tend to pay it any serious consideration: certainly not enough to categorise myself as an agnostic.
insaniak wrote: If prayer consistently achieved measurable results, it would be a different story... but it doesn't. For every religious person who prays for something awesome to happen and has their prayer 'answered', there are countless others who prayed and got nothing. And other non-religious people who didn't pray ... and had something awesome happen anyway.
Exactly. The common theme of healing miracles is that's a list of isolated one-time events out of a vast number of people praying for miracles, not any consistent trend of prayer accomplishing the impossible. And that makes it much more likely that religious people are attaching "god must have done it" explanations to the rare cases where someone does better than expected than any real supernatural events.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: Yet I see so many people going around comparing the active and deeply held beliefs of others to the long dead and abandoned practices of the ancients.
Yes, and those beliefs and practices are entirely comparable. The only reason anyone objects to the comparison is that "everyone knows" that those old myths are false, and religious people don't want to hear any criticism of their beliefs. The fact that people are uncomfortable about how close their beliefs are to thinks they consider false and absurd does not mean that we have any obligation to stop making the comparison.
One of the things that frequently puzzles me about this type of debate is that sometimes it get posited that God requires faith without proof, and it is then directed to the various holy books as being the word of god. But if said books are the words of god, isn't that then concrete proof of the existence?
The bible is not the word of god, it is the work of a collection of authors, edited by man, translated by man, and used by man to advance mans cause. With a track record of corruption within the church why is it such a leap to say that there can be no god as that described by the church when the church acts so much against what it preaches?
It is fair to say that on the question of god, my answer is that I have insufficient evidence, on the church? I have no faith in any organised religion.
While I was (sort of) joking above, it is pretty much the same thing as what a lot of Christians say.
"This woman was dying and happened turned to Christ, and her cancer was healed!"
"There aren't any Frost Giants, therefore Thor is real!"
I personally am agnostic. Mostly because it's a little bit to far for me to outright say that there is no Gods, since I can't provide hard proof there isn't. However, I also can't believe in something without hard proof that it exists, therefore, religion and Gods don't hold any interest for me.
Even if I was tempted to be faithful to a religion, however, I remember some of the crazy things that my father and the Jehovah's Witnesses have to do/deal with. Such as not being allowed to watch Star Wars because of it's pseudo religion, or not allowed to play World of Warcraft/Warhammer because there are Demons in it. In the end, it makes me just shake my head and go back to not being interested.
My mother personally doesn't identify with any religions, and simply calls herself spiritual. Of course, she also believes things like tarot cards and spirits of the dead telling us things from beyond the grave, but some of that is more believable to me then what is printed in some of these religious texts.
Everyone should be able to believe what they want. Just keep your religion out of my face and out of politics, and we all should have no problems!
insaniak wrote: If prayer consistently achieved measurable results, it would be a different story... but it doesn't. For every religious person who prays for something awesome to happen and has their prayer 'answered', there are countless others who prayed and got nothing. And other non-religious people who didn't pray ... and had something awesome happen anyway.
Exactly. The common theme of healing miracles is that's a list of isolated one-time events out of a vast number of people praying for miracles, not any consistent trend of prayer accomplishing the impossible. And that makes it much more likely that religious people are attaching "god must have done it" explanations to the rare cases where someone does better than expected than any real supernatural events.
It is also, at least in my view, a bit of a Stockholm Syndrome going on with many/most religious people. Pray for miracle healing, gets healed: "praise the lord for rewarding my faith!" Prays for miracle healing, isn't healed: "Well, the lord must surely have something even better planned." or, "The lord works in mysterious ways."
The Stockholm bit really comes in to play when you consider that a supposedly loving god loves you... but if you don't live him back in the proscribed manner, you're gonna be literally, or figuratively (depending on your views) tormented for pretty much all of eternity. ... Sounds pretty fething Ike and Tina Turner to me.
If prayer consistently achieved measurable results, it would be a different story... but it doesn't. For every religious person who prays for something awesome to happen and has their prayer 'answered', there are countless others who prayed and got nothing. And other non-religious people who didn't pray ... and had something awesome happen anyway.
When put to some scientific testing, the power of prayer is pretty patchy. Focusing on singular examples of healing by people who prayed and then calling it proof of God skip several steps in logic and fair testing, before conclusions are drawn from anecdote and singular examples of people apparently feeling. In cases where people have apparently been cured of AIDS, have they undergone a full scientific and medical examination by experts? Is this available?
When scientific surveys are attempted, correlations are not consistently found to support prayer in healing. I would have thought placebo effect and positive thinking would have had a greater effect, but perhaps not.
I remember the argument against this from when I attended Sunday school as a child. You should not test your god.
God knows you are trying to test him, and will not participate, as faith is the most important thing.
You literally cannot argue with anyone who believes that logic.
Which is handy, as I do remember being instructed to avoid arguments with non-believers, spread the "good news" by all means, but don't engage in any arguments with non-believers.
A handy way to make sure the young and impressionable don't encounter any thought-crime.
"m not religious. In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch. If it works all matches must therefore end in a draw." – Johan Cruyff
The best response to people who claim their god heals is simply to ask 'Why does your god hate amputees?' Oddly enough amputees are never, ever healed. Every amputee must be a bastard or something.
Mario wrote: Regarding the effectiveness of praying:
"m not religious. In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch. If it works all matches must therefore end in a draw." – Johan Cruyff
Perhaps one must account for what one is praying for, if prayer is to matter?
This argument is valid when leveled at someone making The Secret's argument for prayer, but usually, in most Western religious settings, prayer will not be used towards simple empirical gains with no relations to spiritual health. To the old Catholic me, that would be the very definition of invoking the Lord's name in vain.
Mario wrote: Regarding the effectiveness of praying:
"m not religious. In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch. If it works all matches must therefore end in a draw." – Johan Cruyff
Perhaps one must account for what one is praying for, if prayer is to matter?
This argument is valid when leveled at someone making The Secret's argument for prayer, but usually, in most Western religious settings, prayer will not be used towards simple empirical gains with no relations to spiritual health. To the old Catholic me, that would be the very definition of invoking the Lord's name in vain.
Mario wrote: Regarding the effectiveness of praying:
"m not religious. In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch. If it works all matches must therefore end in a draw." – Johan Cruyff
Perhaps one must account for what one is praying for, if prayer is to matter?
This argument is valid when leveled at someone making The Secret's argument for prayer, but usually, in most Western religious settings, prayer will not be used towards simple empirical gains with no relations to spiritual health. To the old Catholic me, that would be the very definition of invoking the Lord's name in vain.
Kojiro wrote: The best response to people who claim their god heals is simply to ask 'Why does your god hate amputees?' Oddly enough amputees are never, ever healed. Every amputee must be a bastard or something.
You echo my thoughts from years gone by with that statement. I would ask how it was that in spite of prayer, someone suffered from misfortune of varying degrees without relief while others seemingly had their prayers answered in a positive way. I had some especially
rough times and losses that left me bitter for several years, wondering what purpose there was to praying if I was going to be ignored. Over time I have come to the understanding first of all that our Heavenly Father is not a servent subject to our beck and call. If that were the case, there would be chaos with the natural order for our own learning and growth upset and useless since our every wish, whether it contributed to our spiritual growth and understanding or not, were granted.
When this planet was created, certain laws were put into place to keep order. Death, for instance, is a neccesary part of this existance that allows room for new generations, and the return of older generations of creatures, plants, and humans to our Creator and Father.
It would be chaos if just by the act of praying that everyone or everything prayed for were either spared or destroyed because someone asked for it.
I believe we are watched over and loved as children are by a parent with perfect understanding of our long term needs and we will get answers to those prayers, be they yes, no, or wait based on those needs. Many times we are encouraged to find the answers ourselves so that we may more fully gain wisdom and experience in order to best grow and reach the purpose we are in this Earthly existance to attain. Prayer with faith and honest intent, along with scripture study and living as best we can, will more fully put us in tune with our Heavenly Father. Just as a motor needs all of it's parts to function properly, so prayer is with the other gifts Heavenly Father has provided us with to live and learn in mortality.
I know this is probably an unsatisfactory answer, but this is what I have come to learn for myself.
r_squared wrote: I remember the argument against this from when I attended Sunday school as a child. You should not test your god.
God knows you are trying to test him, and will not participate, as faith is the most important thing.
I mean no offense to anyone by saying this, but to me, such a thing sounds like a cop-out. To me, that's only the same level of idiocy as saying "You should not test a student. A student knows you're testing them, and will not participate in the exam. Faith that they know the material is the most important thing."
For the sake of all non-Christians in this following point - let's assume that the Christian God is real. Now, testing him/her/it/other for the sake of testing them is a bit of a silly thing to do, but testing them in order to have a basis for your faith is not (at least to my mind). So why would I have to take a leap of faith in order to kick-start my faith (if that makes sense)? Why can't God "earn" my faith via being tested?
r_squared wrote: A handy way to make sure the young and impressionable don't encounter any thought-crime.
I always thought it was entertainingly silly/stupid that it was ever even called a crime haha
This is also something that comes to mind when thinking about the efficacy of prayer. It's only short, 2 mins or so and worth a look.
There is a serious flaw in this man's position in that he presents only two reasons why all these children die. By the premise of his stand, he asserts God exists, but is either ineffectual or uncaring. I say both of his conclusions are wrong. In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
The rest of my answer is already in my earlier post just above yours.
This is also something that comes to mind when thinking about the efficacy of prayer. It's only short, 2 mins or so and worth a look.
There is a serious flaw in this man's position in that he presents only two reasons why all these children die. By the premise of his stand, he asserts God exists, but is either ineffectual or uncaring. I say both of his conclusions are wrong. In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
The rest of my answer is already in my earlier post just above yours.
Long answer short : Sam Harris is a dolt.
And I say this as someone who, in God debates, almost assuredly root for the atheist.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
Kovnik Obama wrote: What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
You're right in the sense that, ultimately, it's not going to matter, but I don't see the point. Take the following example:
I give you a physical gift (it could be a computer, a toy, a book; it doesn't matter) and say that you can use it for one day. Then, after half an hour, I punch you in the face so that I can take it back from you, then destroy the gift and take the pieces away when I leave. In this example, one of two questions can be asked: (1) What was the point of me doing that to you? Why couldn't I have let you enjoy the gift? -- OR -- (2) What was the point of giving you the gift if I planned to break the gift after a short time?
I take the same view on the whole people dying (sometimes, if not often, badly) before they even reach their 5th Birthday. Based on the assumption that this was God's plan or God's will, what was the point? Why put someone on this world and make spend a vast majority of it suffering and/or kill them before they're 5? What sort of plan/will is that? What type of being does that make God?
Kovnik Obama wrote: What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?
We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence. Jesus is the ultimate example of someone enduring suffering since he experienced the pain of every one who either had or would exist in order to help us through his personal understanding of our own suffering.
Relapse wrote: We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence. Jesus is the ultimate example of someone enduring suffering since he experienced the pain of every one who either had or would exist in order to help us through his personal understanding of our own suffering.
Then shouldn't we feel that all the dead children are an enormous tragedy that god does nothing to stop? You can't simultaneously say that the mortal life is important and valuable and that children dying is ok because they're innocent and going straight to god.
Relapse wrote: We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence.
In addition to my directly preceding post, how much learning and how many experiences can a 4-year-old who dies at 5 gain? How can they prepare for an immortal existence? EDIT: I also echo Peregrine's post directly above this one.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Add a word or two, replace another, and you have the classical bandwagon fallacy to support belief into the immortality of the soul.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
You're right in the sense that, ultimately, it's not going to matter, but I don't see the point. Take the following example:
I give you a physical gift (it could be a computer, a toy, a book; it doesn't matter) and say that you can use it for one day. Then, after half an hour, I punch you in the face so that I can take it back from you, then destroy the gift and take the pieces away when I leave. In this example, one of two questions can be asked: (1) What was the point of me doing that to you? Why couldn't I have let you enjoy the gift? -- OR -- (2) What was the point of giving you the gift if I planned to break the gift after a short time?
I take the same view on the whole people dying (sometimes, if not often, badly) before they even reach their 5th Birthday. Based on the assumption that this was God's plan or God's will, what was the point? Why put someone on this world and make spend a vast majority of it suffering and/or kill them before they're 5? What sort of plan/will is that? What type of being does that make God?
The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.
Relapse wrote: The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.
So let's assume that you're right (identifying as agnostic, I feel this is a necessary assumption), then I'll echo my previous post: How much can a person who died at the age of 5 learn that will prepare them in any way for Eternal Life? In addition: If they do learn anything, how much of it is material they didn't already have prior to being put on Earth?
Relapse wrote: We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence. Jesus is the ultimate example of someone enduring suffering since he experienced the pain of every one who either had or would exist in order to help us through his personal understanding of our own suffering.
Then shouldn't we feel that all the dead children are an enormous tragedy that god does nothing to stop? You can't simultaneously say that the mortal life is important and valuable and that children dying is ok because they're innocent and going straight to god.
Mortal life is important, but death and suffering has been with us since almost the beginning. I'm not saying to have a celebration when people of whatever age die, since it is a tragedy for those of us who go on living. We should also do what we can to alleviate suffering and make the world a better place for others because this is how we grow our capacity for love and compassion.
We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence.
If the Christian god is all knowing and all powerful, he could have imbued them with with this knowledge and experience from the get-go. There wouldn't be any need to 'test' them. Heck, theoretically he knows the answer to the test so why bother in the first place?
That leads to several possible conclusions.
a) That the Christian god is not real
b) That the Christian god is actually not all powerful
c) That the Christian god is actually not all knowing
d) That the Christian god is actually very cruel and petty. (Granted, that is pretty evident from if you take the theology of fundie Christians at face value).
Relapse wrote: The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.
So let's assume that you're right (identifying as agnostic, I feel this is a necessary assumption), then I'll echo my previous post: How much can a person who died at the age of 5 learn that will prepare them in any way for Eternal Life? In addition: If they do learn anything, how much of it is material they didn't already have prior to being put on Earth?
You might not agree with this, but my religion, LDS, teaches us that we existed before coming to Earth as literal children of God. We were offered a chance to be born into mortality in order to receive a physical body and add whatever knowledge we needed to gain here, whatever that might be, to further our eternal progression when we leave this life.
We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence.
If the Christian god is all knowing and all powerful, he could have imbued them with with this knowledge and experience from the get-go. There wouldn't be any need to 'test' them. Heck, theoretically he knows the answer to the test so why bother in the first place?
That leads to several possible conclusions.
a) That the Christian god is not real
b) That the Christian god is actually not all powerful
c) That the Christian god is actually not all knowing
d) That the Christian god is actually very cruel and petty. (Granted, that is pretty evident from if you take the theology of fundie Christians at face value).
How much do you retain if someone tells you something versus learning an answer or subject by helping you study it out, analyze it, and work with it? I teach job instruction and can tell you there is a huge difference between giving someone an answer and leaving it at that compared to working with them to solidify their knowledge.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children ... are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
So the maintaining of their innocence and the fact that they achieve salvation is supposed is supposed to make up for the fact that they don't even get to reach their 5th Birthday and also (in many cases) die pretty badly? How can this be justified as God's plan? How is this fair on these children? Also, if life is supposed to be a gift from God, why would he choose to end it so prematurely and in such a way?
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
You're right in the sense that, ultimately, it's not going to matter, but I don't see the point. Take the following example:
I give you a physical gift (it could be a computer, a toy, a book; it doesn't matter) and say that you can use it for one day. Then, after half an hour, I punch you in the face so that I can take it back from you, then destroy the gift and take the pieces away when I leave. In this example, one of two questions can be asked: (1) What was the point of me doing that to you? Why couldn't I have let you enjoy the gift? -- OR -- (2) What was the point of giving you the gift if I planned to break the gift after a short time?
I take the same view on the whole people dying (sometimes, if not often, badly) before they even reach their 5th Birthday. Based on the assumption that this was God's plan or God's will, what was the point? Why put someone on this world and make spend a vast majority of it suffering and/or kill them before they're 5? What sort of plan/will is that? What type of being does that make God?
Disclaimer : I'm not a theist anymore. I never had much skill in believing-as-faith, for me believing was always a bet, something that came at a cost, at a risk. I grew dissatisfied with Catholicism very quickly, had a discussion with my father a few weeks before my confirmation, explaining that I felt it was an almost entirely pointless ritual, and he dropped me of the course. I think he was actually kind of proud, I remember him smiling when I told him that. Weird, considering he was himself a choir boy, was a strong believer that at some point even considered taking the robes.
Later on, in philosophy, I was introduced to the aristotelian concept of the Prime Mover, the metaphysical Creator, so to speak. I found the idea of speaking of God in non-subjective terms much more interesting. Little was lost in terms of evocative power : the Prime Mover induces mouvement by inciting love of itself in all other things in the universe by attraction. Still, what was gained in intelligibility was, I think, lost in the relation with the "Creator". But that stopped there. The idea was coopted by D'Aquinas, allowing for many to see Plato and Aristotle as the most Christians of all Pagans to have ever lived. The study of God as an ontological concept as we modern would understand it was generally ignored in favour for the exegesis of the divine texts. The Gnostic are perhaps an exception, and are intestesting, if only in the same way as an acid trip can be interesting.
In the last two years, after calling myself an atheist for the better of the decade, I've become accustomed to think in term of apatheism. I simply don't think the term and concept of God is capable of helping me. I don't want to take the hypermodernist approach yet, that we humans are absolutely terrible at judging the relevance of concepts, and constantly integrate ideas who'se "best before date" has long since past. But its tempting. I've already thrown out the idea of a subjective God. And throwing out seems to me at least different from disbelieving. I don't care to prove you wrong, or prove myself right in a context where I can simply ignore the question, and I think that,may be the more important aspect here, over and above any other factor of the debate, the value of those empirical questions about kids dying at 5 or Pascal's Wager, that in the end, this is the context in which we find ourselves, one where we can leave the question to the deepest of personal privacy. Then again, I've always found the idea of "group spirituality" to be entirely paradoxical, so I guess I was doomed to this judgement from the start.
edit reason : sorry, got cut short by the end of my shift.
Relapse wrote: We were put into this life with mortal bodies and trials in order to learn and gain experience in preparation for our immortal existence.
In addition to my directly preceding post, how much learning and how many experiences can a 4-year-old who dies at 5 gain? How can they prepare for an immortal existence? EDIT: I also echo Peregrine's post directly above this one.
May I offer this in answer to some of your questions? There are several links contained that should give you a better idea of what my beliefs are concerning our pre mortal, mortal, and post mortal existence.
Relapse wrote: The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.
So let's assume that you're right (identifying as agnostic, I feel this is a necessary assumption), then I'll echo my previous post: How much can a person who died at the age of 5 learn that will prepare them in any way for Eternal Life? In addition: If they do learn anything, how much of it is material they didn't already have prior to being put on Earth?
You might not agree with this, but my religion, LDS, teaches us that we existed before coming to Earth as literal children of God. We were offered a chance to be born into mortality in order to receive a physical body and add whatever knowledge we needed to gain here, whatever that might be, to further our eternal progression when we leave this life.
To me, that still doesn't justify why people dying at 5 via things like disease, hunger, etc. is accepted or even happens. It also doesn't justify why God (assuming he/ she / it / other exists) lets it happen. IMHO, such suffering and death has about as much place in this world has about as much place as the cane does in a classroom, which is to say that it doesn't. And if this God (or any other God(s) on the assumption that it or they exist) let's this happen, then I seriously question whether or not this/these God/Gods truly are the God(s) we think them to be.
On the point of being offered and then subsequently choosing to be sent to Earth in order to learn is a noble concept, but given the current state of the world, it's a flawed one at best if you ask me.
Relapse wrote: The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.
So let's assume that you're right (identifying as agnostic, I feel this is a necessary assumption), then I'll echo my previous post: How much can a person who died at the age of 5 learn that will prepare them in any way for Eternal Life? In addition: If they do learn anything, how much of it is material they didn't already have prior to being put on Earth?
You might not agree with this, but my religion, LDS, teaches us that we existed before coming to Earth as literal children of God. We were offered a chance to be born into mortality in order to receive a physical body and add whatever knowledge we needed to gain here, whatever that might be, to further our eternal progression when we leave this life.
To me, that still doesn't justify why people dying at 5 via things like disease, hunger, etc. is accepted or even happens. It also doesn't justify why God (assuming he/ she / it / other exists) lets it happen. IMHO, such suffering and death has about as much place in this world has about as much place as the cane does in a classroom, which is to say that it doesn't. And if this God (or any other God(s) on the assumption that it or they exist) let's this happen, then I seriously question whether or not this/these God/Gods truly are the God(s) we think them to be.
On the point of being offered and then subsequently choosing to be sent to Earth in order to learn is a noble concept, but given the current state of the world, it's a flawed one at best if you ask me.
Check out the link I posted near the bottom of the last page and the links it takes you to. That covers the basics of what I believe concerning the purpose of our life on this Earth.
May I offer this in answer to some of your questions? There are several links contained that should give you a better idea of what my beliefs are concerning our pre mortal, mortal, and post mortal existence.
May I offer this in answer to some of your questions? There are several links contained that should give you a better idea of what my beliefs are concerning our pre mortal, mortal, and post mortal existence.
Kovnik Obama wrote: What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Again twisting a reasonable comment. This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation. In which case there is still and investment in this singular life before moving onto the next.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.
From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural. Giving up ones life is seen as highly sacrificial, giving up something valuable, not just in the case of Jesus but for anyone, even within the concept of having eternal life, and sometimes directly referencing both concepts in tandem.
Matthew 16:25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Revelations 12:11
And they loved not their lives unto the death - They did not so love their lives that they were unwilling to die as martyrs.
Human mortal life is still valuable, and not just as currency for martyrdom, but as and of itself.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?
The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.
Atheism does not mean you have a belief, a faith or say anything about what exists or not. It's simply a lack of belief in gods and godesses.
I know there' strong forces among non-atheists to change this into being a positive statement, a faith comparable to theism. There is a clear motivation for this.
Kovnik Obama wrote: What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Again twisting a reasonable comment. This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation. In which case there is still and investment in this singular life before moving onto the next.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.
From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural. Giving up ones life is seen as highly sacrificial, giving up something valuable, not just in the case of Jesus but for anyone, even within the concept of having eternal life, and sometimes directly referencing both concepts in tandem.
Matthew 16:25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Revelations 12:11
And they loved not their lives unto the death - They did not so love their lives that they were unwilling to die as martyrs.
Human mortal life is still valuable, and not just as currency for martyrdom, but as and of itself.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?
The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.
It seems to me that these points are valid only if you already believe in God and the afterlife. In other words, they cannot of themselves be valid reasons for belief in God and afterlife because that would be a circular argument. In your case of course you have been convinced by the evidence of scripture.
A Humanist would say that life is valuable and should be lived well (ethically, etc.) without the need to do so because you think God wants you to and because you expect a reward in Heaven.
Kovnik Obama wrote: What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Again twisting a reasonable comment. This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation. In which case there is still and investment in this singular life before moving onto the next.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.
From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural. Giving up ones life is seen as highly sacrificial, giving up something valuable, not just in the case of Jesus but for anyone, even within the concept of having eternal life, and sometimes directly referencing both concepts in tandem.
Matthew 16:25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Revelations 12:11
And they loved not their lives unto the death - They did not so love their lives that they were unwilling to die as martyrs.
Human mortal life is still valuable, and not just as currency for martyrdom, but as and of itself.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?
The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.
It seems to me that these points are valid only if you already believe in God and the afterlife. In other words, they cannot of themselves be valid reasons for belief in God and afterlife because that would be a circular argument. In your case of course you have been convinced by the evidence of scripture.
A Humanist would say that life is valuable and should be lived well (ethically, etc.) without the need to do so because you think God wants you to and because you expect a reward in Heaven.
Another funny thing about this logic is that we have to assume your god is evil if it exists.
Orlanth wrote: This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation.
Are you suggesting that ones theology changes the reality of what actually happens after death? Like "I believe I'll come back" so I do?
If I therefore make up a BS religion, and I indoctrinate children into it for a few generations, until it is thier deeply and zealously held belief -- a belief that the indoctrinated live and die by (not to mention have furious internet arguments about). Are you suggesting that when believers do die, will they really go to whatever BS afterlife I made up for them (because they believe they will)? Or will it still just be some nonsense that I made up, which they were just foolish to believe in for so long?
If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.
Kovnik Obama wrote: What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?
The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.
And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.
Again twisting a reasonable comment. This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation. In which case there is still and investment in this singular life before moving onto the next.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.
From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural. Giving up ones life is seen as highly sacrificial, giving up something valuable, not just in the case of Jesus but for anyone, even within the concept of having eternal life, and sometimes directly referencing both concepts in tandem.
Matthew 16:25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Revelations 12:11
And they loved not their lives unto the death - They did not so love their lives that they were unwilling to die as martyrs.
Human mortal life is still valuable, and not just as currency for martyrdom, but as and of itself.
Relapse wrote: In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.
IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?
The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.
It seems to me that these points are valid only if you already believe in God and the afterlife. In other words, they cannot of themselves be valid reasons for belief in God and afterlife because that would be a circular argument. In your case of course you have been convinced by the evidence of scripture.
A Humanist would say that life is valuable and should be lived well (ethically, etc.) without the need to do so because you think God wants you to and because you expect a reward in Heaven.
In all fairness, most Christians I know are kind and caring people to begin with. YMMV
Niffenator wrote: If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.
Allthough I agree with your main point, atheism includes more than just rejection. It also includes simple absence, which requires not statement or opposition of any kind.
Niffenator wrote: If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.
I feel that Atheism is a bit more complicated than that, bur if nothing else: This is definitely a solid basis on which the theorem of Atheism is formed.
Dont get me wrong: I agree with you in the sense that if religion can make claims that those outside their religion struggle to or can't accept because they find it hard to beleive, then so can atheists. But... I always felt there was an ever-so-little bit more to it.
For example, I feel that (even though I'm Agnostic) there has always been a burden on Aheists to prove that any God (or any set of Gods) doesnt exist purely because - to my mind - Athiesm is founded on the idea of scientific proof and that (based on reasonable scientific extrapolation) there is no reason to believe that a God (or set of Gods) exists. In other words: The basis of Atheism as I understand it requires a bit more proof than Religion because Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith.
This is part of why I consider myself to fall into the class of Agnosticism: Because regardless of whether or not there is a God or set of Gods, Agnostics are not burdened by the requirement to prove either case.
The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.
It seems to me that these points are valid only if you already believe in God and the afterlife. In other words, they cannot of themselves be valid reasons for belief in God and afterlife because that would be a circular argument. In your case of course you have been convinced by the evidence of scripture.
A Humanist would say that life is valuable and should be lived well (ethically, etc.) without the need to do so because you think God wants you to and because you expect a reward in Heaven.
In all fairness, most Christians I know are kind and caring people to begin with. YMMV
I don't deny it. Humans tend to have a capacity for kindness and cooperation. Many religions inspire their adherents to this sort of behaviour. I think Christianity is especially strong in this respect due to Jesus having made it a key part of his message.
Niffenator wrote: If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.
I don't think of atheism as a rejection of anything.
It is the default position. I tend to also believe that probably everyone is an atheist. Faith and routine reinforcement are methods to suppress what everyone understands, even if only subconsciously...there are no supernatural powers at play in the universe. If people really believed what they profess to believe in terms of supernatural powers, entities, etc , there would be no need of faith anymore then there is a need to have faith in gravity, or a need to attend regular meetings to reinforce their "belief" in gravity.
The extend to which people can actually believe something with no evidence is interesting. I suspect the people who put on outward shows of faith are the people who believe in their religion the least (and maybe even Jesus had a couple things to say about this).
Niffenator wrote: If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.
I don't think of atheism as a rejection of anything.
It is the default position. I tend to also believe that probably everyone is an atheist. Faith and routine reinforcement are methods to suppress what everyone understands, even if only subconsciously...there are no supernatural powers at play in the universe. If people really believed what they profess to believe in terms of supernatural powers, entities, etc , there would be no need of faith anymore then there is a need to have faith in gravity, or a need to attend regular meetings to reinforce their "belief" in gravity.
The extend to which people can actually believe something with no evidence is interesting. I suspect the people who put on outward shows of faith are the people who believe in their religion the least (and maybe even Jesus had a couple things to say about this).
I figure the default position is the i dont know anything and am a empty vessel for knowledge position. you are not really born thinking that a thing doesn't exist, you learn pretty much everything and compile it to make sense of the world. you are told about the monsters in the closet and until you confront it, its there had has power over you. same with religion, science, whatever.
But as we simply interact with our surroundings, we realize that in truth, there are no supernatural forces at play in the world. And even if we pretend that there are such forces at play, most if not all of us know somewhere basic in our brain that it's all a fantasy.
jasper76 wrote: Blank slate might be the default for an infant.
But as we simply interact with our surroundings, we realize that in truth, there are no supernatural forces at play in the world. And even if we pretend that there are such forces at play, most if not all of us know somewhere basic in our brain that it's all a fantasy.
Ah, the good ol' elitism dude, this is why people hate saying they're atheists. Others come out with such a slap in the face that it makes us look like asshats.
Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"
Niffenator wrote: If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.
I don't think of atheism as a rejection of anything.
It is the default position. I tend to also believe that probably everyone is an atheist. Faith and routine reinforcement are methods to suppress what everyone understands, even if only subconsciously...there are no supernatural powers at play in the universe. If people really believed what they profess to believe in terms of supernatural powers, entities, etc , there would be no need of faith anymore then there is a need to have faith in gravity, or a need to attend regular meetings to reinforce their "belief" in gravity.
The extend to which people can actually believe something with no evidence is interesting. I suspect the people who put on outward shows of faith are the people who believe in their religion the least (and maybe even Jesus had a couple things to say about this).
I figure the default position is the i dont know anything and am a empty vessel for knowledge position.
you are not really born thinking that a thing doesn't exist, you learn pretty much everything and compile it to make sense of the world. you are told about the monsters in the closet and until you confront it, its there had has power over you. same with religion, science, whatever.
How? Most children are born with an innate fear of the dark without any adults telling them about the Boogeyman.
jreilly89 wrote: Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"
So, question: is it ok to go around shouting "I believe in god and you should too", like many religious people do and various religions command their followers to do?
I think anybody who believes/doesn't believe in something and spends their time telling the person who doesn't believe/believes in something how wrong they are is a donkey cave. I'm fine with people asking about your belief in a general small-talk manner, and expanding on that if the other person is interested. To me there isn't that much difference in protocol when asking "what church do you go to" and "what's your NFL team". Both are fine questions to ask when talking to someone, and when the reply is "I don't care for religion" or "NFL sucks, hockey is the real sport" then you drop the subject.
jasper76 wrote: Blank slate might be the default for an infant.
But as we simply interact with our surroundings, we realize that in truth, there are no supernatural forces at play in the world. And even if we pretend that there are such forces at play, most if not all of us know somewhere basic in our brain that it's all a fantasy.
Ah, the good ol' elitism dude, this is why people hate saying they're atheists. Others come out with such a slap in the face that it makes us look like asshats.
Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"
I never said people should or should not believe in God. I just asserted that probably everyone won the planet is fundamentally an atheist, because it may not even be possible to fundamentally believe in things, such as supernatural forces, for which the actual world provides no evidence and cannot provide a model.
FWIW, I don't think people should base their lives around things with no evidence, and this viewpoint extends beyond religion to pretty much any subject matter I can think of. And I have no qualms whatsoever about expressing this opinion, especially in a society where people commonly threaten others with torture for not playing along with the crowd.
jasper76 wrote: Blank slate might be the default for an infant.
But as we simply interact with our surroundings, we realize that in truth, there are no supernatural forces at play in the world. And even if we pretend that there are such forces at play, most if not all of us know somewhere basic in our brain that it's all a fantasy.
Ah, the good ol' elitism dude, this is why people hate saying they're atheists. Others come out with such a slap in the face that it makes us look like asshats.
Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"
I never said people should or should not believe in God. I just asserted that probably everyone won the planet is fundamentally an atheist, because it may not even be possible to fundamentally believe in things, such as supernatural forces, for which the actual world provides no evidence and cannot provide a model.
....based on? That's a pretty big assumption, and like the doctrine you so proclaim, I'd like to see evidence of it. Also, how is it not possible to believe in things for which the world provides no evidence? Plenty of people believe in ghosts, and that has shaky evidence at best.
FWIW, I don't think people should base their lives around things with no evidence, and this viewpoint extends beyond religion to pretty much any subject matter I can think of. And I have no qualms whatsoever about expressing this opinion, especially in a society where people commonly threaten others with torture for not playing along with the crowd.
Then you should have no problem with people going around and telling you you should believe in a higher power. Freedom of speech and being a decent person works both ways.
jreilly89 wrote: Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"
So, question: is it ok to go around shouting "I believe in god and you should too", like many religious people do and various religions command their followers to do?
No, I think being a douchebag and trying to command others, no matter your religion, is wrong. But nice try, Perry.
I don't care that people tell other people they believe in a higher power. It's the threat of torture, that sometimes goes along with it that I have a problem with.
"I believe in God," is much different than "I believe in God, and if you don't, you will burn forever.". One is a statement, the other is a threat made to coerce another individual into adopting the same worldview or be subjected to unimaginable violence.
My advice not to base your life around things for which there is no evidence does not come with a threat of eternal hell fire, or a threat of any kind whatsoever.
As to the assumption I made, please just file it away as speculation. If I pretended to have knowledge that I don't have, I apologize. As I said in my first post on the subject, I think the extent to which people can actually believe things for which the world provides no evidence is an interesting subject.
jasper76 wrote: I don't care that people tell other people they believe in a higher power. It's the threat of torture, that sometimes goes along with it that I have a problem with.
"I believe in God," is much different than "I believe in God, and if you don't, you will burn forever.". One is a statement, the other is a threat made to coerce another individual into adopting the same worldview or be subjected to unimaginable violence.
My advice not to base your life around things for which there is no evidence does not come with a threat of eternal hell fire, or a threat of any kind whatsoever.
As to the assumption I made, please just file it away as speculation. If I pretended to have knowledge that I don't have, I apologize. As I said in my first post on the subject, I think the extent to which people can actually believe things for which the world provides no evidence is an interesting subject.
I dont know. constantly having people tell other people that their belief system is wrong and you should feel bad seems very mentally torturous.
also people telling you are wrong because of what a small minority of people that are not you have done in the past or recently.
Im fine with calling out anyone who insists bible study be a subject in any publicly funded school. Creationism or any non-fact based subject which is wholly disproven and innacurate. Like I said before, Noah's ark should not be publicly funded, nor anyone who would play off as fact, that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. This is the rage most Athiests have, not the fact that you are living your life happy, and spending your Sundays in a church. That is your decision to make. When your preacher starts saying the world is only 6-8k years old, and says carbon dating is the devils work to lead you away from the bible, even the most chaste should probably start thinking there is something fishy going on.
Edit:
Oh and lets not forget the proposed government funded gay conversion therapy from Mike Pence. This is why Athiests have to form foundations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Presumably, decent educational standards would be a non-sectarian issue.
It seems the religious fringe is always trying to "protect" people from any information that contradicts or might be interpreted to contradict the Christian religion.
But left-wingers should not be smug about education. They are pretty much solely responsible for the Puritanical streak ripping through higher education, pumping out a generation of over-protected, constantly offended, entitled clones.
For example, I feel that (even though I'm Agnostic) there has always been a burden on Aheists to prove that any God (or any set of Gods) doesnt exist purely because - to my mind - Athiesm is founded on the idea of scientific proof and that (based on reasonable scientific extrapolation) there is no reason to believe that a God (or set of Gods) exists. In other words: The basis of Atheism as I understand it requires a bit more proof than Religion because Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith.
You have that backwards. Scientific method can't prove that something doesn't exist. It relies on proof to show what does exist.
So science won't tell us that there is definitely no God. At best it will tell us that there is no evidence that there is a God.
Atheists doesn't have to 'prove' that there is no God, any more than religion has to 'prove' that there is*. Some people need proof in order to believe something, but proving it to anyone else is only necessary if you're going to insist that they share your belief. I don't believe there is a God, because I've seen no evidence of such a being. I don't much care if you believe something different... that's entirely up to you.
*Disclaimer - I do draw the line at religious belief being taught as fact with no evidence to back it up. Not because of religion, but for the same reason that I disagree with anything being taught as fact with no evidence to back it up. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
jasper76 wrote: I'd bet most atheists would say that the question of deity comes down to a matter of probabilities, and not certainties.
More or less. I'm happy to entertain the idea that there might be a god (because I can't prove that there isn't one) but I think it's extremely improbable.
And having spent some time with the Bible, if the Christian God does exist, he's not a being I want anything to do with, frankly, because his sales material really doesn't paint him in a particularly rosy light.
jasper76 wrote: I'd bet most atheists would say that the question of deity comes down to a matter of probabilities, and not certainties.
More or less. I'm happy to entertain the idea that there might be a god (because I can't prove that there isn't one) but I think it's extremely improbable.
And having spent some time with the Bible, if the Christian God does exist, he's not a being I want anything to do with, frankly, because his sales material really doesn't paint him in a particularly rosy light.
I believe its incredibly improbable that there is a divine intelligence responsible for the creation of the universe. Then when you start mixing in the details of this or that religion (virgin births, people flying, horses flying, the great blue eye of Makumba, etc.), the improbability of the proposition at hand becomes multiplied with each detail.
That's why I've often thought that of all the theist positions I've encountered, the deist position always seemed to me the most plausible of the bunch. While it rests on the "clockmaker" assumption, it typically does not posit many details about the clockmaker, so it does not compound on the original improbability.
In all fairness, most Christians I know are kind and caring people to begin with. YMMV
Turns out that being an ass is pretty difficult.
My own experience is quite the opposite of Relapse... the majority of Xtians I know are highly judgemental, oftentimes bigoted, occasionally racist, and absolutely NONE of the ones I personally know do much or any charity work, much less giving money. And those that do give money to charities do so much research that it makes my SF 86 clearance checks look relaxed. They absolutely positively want to make sure that not one dime will go to some heathen devil-worshipper who is hellbound.
Most are what I'd consider to be "surface nice"... They smile and shake your hand, say please and thank you, and are polite as can be to your face, but in private are some truly ugly individuals.
jasper76 wrote: Presumably, decent educational standards would be a non-sectarian issue.
It seems the religious fringe is always trying to "protect" people from any information that contradicts or might be interpreted to contradict the Christian religion.
But left-wingers should not be smug about education. They are pretty much solely responsible for the Puritanical streak ripping through higher education, pumping out a generation of over-protected, constantly offended, entitled clones.
right and left do not directly equate to theist and atheist. those entitled clones are social justice warriors, and could fall anywhere in the spectrum of theist/atheist. As you yourself call them puritanical that implies their on the right and therefore could not be atheists. By trying to equate the two, you're really just comparing apples to oranges.
For example, I feel that (even though I'm Agnostic) there has always been a burden on Aheists to prove that any God (or any set of Gods) doesnt exist purely because - to my mind - Athiesm is founded on the idea of scientific proof and that (based on reasonable scientific extrapolation) there is no reason to believe that a God (or set of Gods) exists. In other words: The basis of Atheism as I understand it requires a bit more proof than Religion because Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith.
You have that backwards. Scientific method can't prove that something doesn't exist. It relies on proof to show what does exist.
So science won't tell us that there is definitely no God. At best it will tell us that there is no evidence that there is a God.
Atheists doesn't have to 'prove' that there is no God, any more than religion has to 'prove' that there is*. Some people need proof in order to believe something, but proving it to anyone else is only necessary if you're going to insist that they share your belief. I don't believe there is a God, because I've seen no evidence of such a being. I don't much care if you believe something different... that's entirely up to you.
Maybe I should have worded myself better. Let me try again:
Let's assume that an Atheist who is also a scientist attempts to explore the idea that God or set of Gods exist exists. They search for proof/evidence but eventually end their search without ever finding proof/evidence of a God or set of Gods and/or finding proof that at least of the things a particular religion holds as fact to be impossible. Now, this isn't proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods doesn't exist, but it's more than good enough for this Atheist/Scientist to conclude that there likely is no God or set of Gods. This is what I mean when I say there's a Burden of Proof for Atheists. I'm not saying that scientific method can definitively prove that God/Gods don't exist, but it can bring us to the point where we can draw reasonable conclusions about their existence.
Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right. In light of this, I feel that the Burden of Proof for Theists (especially those who try to convince others of their beliefs) is higher because not only is this the point to which Atheism is the counter-claim, but any and every religion is a standalone claim in their own right which posits the existence of the supernatural (in one sense or another).
Out of Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism, I feel Agnosticism is the only one not burdened by the requirement for proof because - to my mind - Agnostics only claim that we cannot rationally explain the existence or otherwise of a God or Gods. Now, the reason I say that we (Agnostics) are not burdened by the requirement for proof is because of the following:
(1) If there was any definitive proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods, the position of Agnosticism (as it's currently described) wouldn't exist because we'd be able to rationally explain the existence of a God or set of Gods.
(2) As mentioned earlier, Scientific Method cannot definitively prove the absence of a God or set of Gods, ergo we still can't completely and rationally explain the absence of a God or set of Gods.
Let's assume that an Atheist who is also a scientist attempts to explore the idea that God or set of Gods exist exists. They search for proof/evidence but eventually end their search without ever finding proof/evidence of a God or set of Gods and/or finding proof that at least of the things a particular religion holds as fact to be impossible. Now, this isn't proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods doesn't exist, but it's more than good enough for this Atheist/Scientist to conclude that there likely is no God or set of Gods. This is what I mean when I say there's a Burden of Proof for Atheists. I'm not saying that scientific method can definitively prove that God/Gods don't exist, but it can bring us to the point where we can draw reasonable conclusions about their existence.
(1) If there was any definitive proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods, the position of Agnosticism (as it's currently described) wouldn't exist because we'd be able to rationally explain the existence of a God or set of Gods.
(2) As mentioned earlier, Scientific Method cannot definitively prove the absence of a God or set of Gods, ergo we still can't completely and rationally explain the absence of a God or set of Gods.
While I agree with your premise, I personally think that one can set out to disprove the existence of a particular deity/group of deities.
For instance, there's a meme on a few atheist FB pages that outline how some Western philosophies developed: For the Greeks, the gods lived on Olympus. A person managed to go up, and back down Olympus. Discovering that the gods were not there, religion moved god/gods to the next thing: the "heavens." having conquered flight (as well as one religion sort of swallowing most others in Europe whole), the gods weren't there... So now, we're left with gods being "metaphysical," or in "heaven," which is a realm that cannot be touched by mortals.
Using something of the scientific method, we can take the holy books/beliefs of religion and disprove individual deities, for those who were doubting or wavering in their beliefs. Obviously, there are some who cling on to their beliefs no matter the evidence and knowledge presented to them.
Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right.
And that, I think, is why you're getting the 'burden of proof' thing backwards.
If I'm going to claim that something is true, the burden of proof is on me, not the guy who doesn't believe me.
So if we're trying (for some reason) to establish who is 'right', it's up to the person who claims that God exists to prove that claim, not the person who doesn't believe them to disprove it.
Let's assume that an Atheist who is also a scientist attempts to explore the idea that God or set of Gods exist exists. They search for proof/evidence but eventually end their search without ever finding proof/evidence of a God or set of Gods and/or finding proof that at least of the things a particular religion holds as fact to be impossible. Now, this isn't proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods doesn't exist, but it's more than good enough for this Atheist/Scientist to conclude that there likely is no God or set of Gods. This is what I mean when I say there's a Burden of Proof for Atheists. I'm not saying that scientific method can definitively prove that God/Gods don't exist, but it can bring us to the point where we can draw reasonable conclusions about their existence.
(1) If there was any definitive proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods, the position of Agnosticism (as it's currently described) wouldn't exist because we'd be able to rationally explain the existence of a God or set of Gods.
(2) As mentioned earlier, Scientific Method cannot definitively prove the absence of a God or set of Gods, ergo we still can't completely and rationally explain the absence of a God or set of Gods.
While I agree with your premise, I personally think that one can set out to disprove the existence of a particular deity/group of deities.
For instance, there's a meme on a few atheist FB pages that outline how some Western philosophies developed: For the Greeks, the gods lived on Olympus. A person managed to go up, and back down Olympus. Discovering that the gods were not there, religion moved god/gods to the next thing: the "heavens." having conquered flight (as well as one religion sort of swallowing most others in Europe whole), the gods weren't there... So now, we're left with gods being "metaphysical," or in "heaven," which is a realm that cannot be touched by mortals.
Using something of the scientific method, we can take the holy books/beliefs of religion and disprove individual deities, for those who were doubting or wavering in their beliefs. Obviously, there are some who cling on to their beliefs no matter the evidence and knowledge presented to them.
I agree, but we can't do this for every possible God and religion. So in other words, for every religion and/or God/Set of Gods we disprove via such methods, there'll be more that we can't.
IllumiNini wrote: Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right.
And that, I think, is why you're getting the 'burden of proof' thing backwards.
If I'm going to claim that something is true, the burden of proof is on me, not the guy who doesn't believe me.
So if we're trying (for some reason) to establish who is 'right', it's up to the person who claims that God exists to prove that claim, not the person who doesn't believe them to disprove it.
Fair point. I will concede to this.
I will also say that it could still be argued that Atheists still bear a Burden of Proof since it wouldn't go amiss to have something that could trump the whole concept of the Leap of Faith which many religions/beliefs require, but that's a different ballgame to whether or not a God or Set of Gods exists.
Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right. In light of this, I feel that the Burden of Proof for Theists (especially those who try to convince others of their beliefs) is higher because not only is this the point to which Atheism is the counter-claim, but any and every religion is a standalone claim in their own right which posits the existence of the supernatural (in one sense or another).
What I often find strange is when someone claims one or the other but then also clings to a diametrically opposed idea. An example is Paul Ryan both strongly advocating (a specific form of) Christianity while also advocating Ayn Rand, going so far as to make some of her writings required reading.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Ahtman wrote: What I often find strange is when someone claims one or the other but then also clings to a diametrically opposed idea. An example is Paul Ryan both strongly advocating (a specific form of) Christianity while also advocating Ayn Rand, going so far as to make some of her writings required reading.
Honestly I think that is mostly explained by Paul Ryan being nowhere near as thoughtful as he pretends to be. But then of course I'd think that, I'm a virgo.
jasper76 wrote: I'd bet most atheists would say that the question of deity comes down to a matter of probabilities, and not certainties.
More or less. I'm happy to entertain the idea that there might be a god (because I can't prove that there isn't one) but I think it's extremely improbable.
And having spent some time with the Bible, if the Christian God does exist, he's not a being I want anything to do with, frankly, because his sales material really doesn't paint him in a particularly rosy light.
This is my feeling exactly. There could a God we aren't aware or taught of. If it exists it has no interests in our lives. I feel the Gods people worship are pretty terrible things. You know...hiding their existence - begging for attention by threatening your entire existence in torture? Pretty pathetic Gods.
Let's assume that an Atheist who is also a scientist attempts to explore the idea that God or set of Gods exist exists. They search for proof/evidence but eventually end their search without ever finding proof/evidence of a God or set of Gods and/or finding proof that at least of the things a particular religion holds as fact to be impossible. Now, this isn't proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods doesn't exist, but it's more than good enough for this Atheist/Scientist to conclude that there likely is no God or set of Gods. This is what I mean when I say there's a Burden of Proof for Atheists. I'm not saying that scientific method can definitively prove that God/Gods don't exist, but it can bring us to the point where we can draw reasonable conclusions about their existence.
(1) If there was any definitive proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods, the position of Agnosticism (as it's currently described) wouldn't exist because we'd be able to rationally explain the existence of a God or set of Gods.
(2) As mentioned earlier, Scientific Method cannot definitively prove the absence of a God or set of Gods, ergo we still can't completely and rationally explain the absence of a God or set of Gods.
While I agree with your premise, I personally think that one can set out to disprove the existence of a particular deity/group of deities.
For instance, there's a meme on a few atheist FB pages that outline how some Western philosophies developed: For the Greeks, the gods lived on Olympus. A person managed to go up, and back down Olympus. Discovering that the gods were not there, religion moved god/gods to the next thing: the "heavens." having conquered flight (as well as one religion sort of swallowing most others in Europe whole), the gods weren't there... So now, we're left with gods being "metaphysical," or in "heaven," which is a realm that cannot be touched by mortals.
Using something of the scientific method, we can take the holy books/beliefs of religion and disprove individual deities, for those who were doubting or wavering in their beliefs. Obviously, there are some who cling on to their beliefs no matter the evidence and knowledge presented to them.
I agree, but we can't do this for every possible God and religion. So in other words, for every religion and/or God/Set of Gods we disprove via such methods, there'll be more that we can't.
IllumiNini wrote: Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right.
And that, I think, is why you're getting the 'burden of proof' thing backwards.
If I'm going to claim that something is true, the burden of proof is on me, not the guy who doesn't believe me.
So if we're trying (for some reason) to establish who is 'right', it's up to the person who claims that God exists to prove that claim, not the person who doesn't believe them to disprove it.
Fair point. I will concede to this.
I will also say that it could still be argued that Atheists still bear a Burden of Proof since it wouldn't go amiss to have something that could trump the whole concept of the Leap of Faith which many religions/beliefs require, but that's a different ballgame to whether or not a God or Set of Gods exists.
It's fairly easy to prove false many of the events that are depicted in the bible/old testament/quran - whatever holy book. Doesn't matter for the most part to the believers - they consider these arguments tricks and tests to their faiths. This is where I become angry - when facts are ignored and noses go up into the air.
Ahtman wrote: What I often find strange is when someone claims one or the other but then also clings to a diametrically opposed idea. An example is Paul Ryan both strongly advocating (a specific form of) Christianity while also advocating Ayn Rand, going so far as to make some of her writings required reading.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Spoiler:
*I just randomly picked a constellation title.
Part of that I'd attribute to politicians having "sellable qualities", i.e. they adjust their views and opinions to match the voter base.
jasper76 wrote: Presumably, decent educational standards would be a non-sectarian issue.
It seems the religious fringe is always trying to "protect" people from any information that contradicts or might be interpreted to contradict the Christian religion.
But left-wingers should not be smug about education. They are pretty much solely responsible for the Puritanical streak ripping through higher education, pumping out a generation of over-protected, constantly offended, entitled clones.
Alas you are correct. You have to also weave in a bit of personal accountability. I see it every day. 18 year old comes in for whatever reason, thinks we will change for him. My organization does not bend, it bends you. Can't follow instructions, lie when they get caught, fail to have integrity with each other, and further more expect everything given without putting in the work. There definately has to be a middle ground between puritanical education, and sissification that seems to be going on. Lets teach our children the universe doesn't owe you shizzle, work for what you want/need and take accountability for your actions. Then maybe we will see things change a bit.
jasper76 wrote: Presumably, decent educational standards would be a non-sectarian issue.
It seems the religious fringe is always trying to "protect" people from any information that contradicts or might be interpreted to contradict the Christian religion.
But left-wingers should not be smug about education. They are pretty much solely responsible for the Puritanical streak ripping through higher education, pumping out a generation of over-protected, constantly offended, entitled clones.
Alas you are correct. You have to also weave in a bit of personal accountability. I see it every day. 18 year old comes in for whatever reason, thinks we will change for him. My organization does not bend, it bends you. Can't follow instructions, lie when they get caught, fail to have integrity with each other, and further more expect everything given without putting in the work. There definately has to be a middle ground between puritanical education, and sissification that seems to be going on. Lets teach our children the universe doesn't owe you shizzle, work for what you want/need and take accountability for your actions. Then maybe we will see things change a bit.
I think their isn't a scale that ranges from puritanical to what you are describing. I tend to notice that my most religious peers tend to be the most sheltered by their parents. Also religious conservatives don't expose their children to issues like LGBT issues and such, under the assumption that being exposed to things that aren't the norm are going to permanently scar them.
I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything, but I have failed to encounter anyone who is constantly offended on the left, and I volunteer with several democratic campaigns. What I HAVE encountered are the people above, who are offended by the world at large, offended by people having different viewpoints, sexual orientations, skin colors, and gender identity than theirs.
Honestly I think it is the boomers projecting, they had some great economic conditions and screwed things up for the following generations, and then the meme about my generation is just something fashionable to pass around. Although it just might be that I surround myself with good people.
On the perspective of being entitled, every generation that are children are entitled to things. Because they are children, and the government requires it. That being said, I think most people my age understand that they have to work really hard if they want something. Especially considering the growing wealth gap and economic conditions that we have had no part in.
I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.
jasper76 wrote: I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.
Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.
jasper76 wrote: I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.
Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.
Yes, in fact many of the professors I had in school were of this general stripe, most of whom still teach at the college I attended.
jasper76 wrote: I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.
Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.
Yes, in fact many of the professors I had in school were of this general stripe, most of whom still teach at the college I attended.
What was your degree in? Just curious, because I'm assuming most of those professors tend to be on the English/Vocational Arts side. My Engineering/math professors were all either right-wing or never discussed politics in the classroom.
jasper76 wrote: I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.
Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.
Yes, in fact many of the professors I had in school were of this general stripe, most of whom still teach at the college I attended.
What was your degree in? Just curious, because I'm assuming most of those professors tend to be on the English/Vocational Arts side. My Engineering/math professors were all either right-wing or never discussed politics in the classroom.
The few college professors I know outside of dual enrollment classes who teach science or math tend to be libertarian/classic liberals.
jasper76 wrote: I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.
Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.
Yes, in fact many of the professors I had in school were of this general stripe, most of whom still teach at the college I attended.
What was your degree in? Just curious, because I'm assuming most of those professors tend to be on the English/Vocational Arts side. My Engineering/math professors were all either right-wing or never discussed politics in the classroom.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
I think the connection being suggested there is that both are things that people believe in despite a lack of evidence proving their veracity.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
Yeah, I can see how astrology can be seen as analogous to religion, but not believing in gods doesn't mean you don't have superstitions- I mean, I consider myself a pretty rational guy and an atheist because of it (among other things). But that doesn't mean when I'm at the gaming table, I don't do silly stuff like sometimes take out new dice if I feel like my current ones have been rolling poorly, or whatever other silly routines. I know it's silly, but I'm also not a robot, so sometimes don't do the absolutely logical thing.
Regarding rationalism, you could make the (IMHO) pretty harsh and exaggerated argument that superstitions are somehow hypocritical in not being based on fact (though a lot are based on (supposed) correlation, so you could also make the argument that it's just not very rigorous).
Regarding atheism (without knowing why someone's atheist), there's no hypocrisy in them not believing in deities but believing in random juju.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
I think the connection being suggested there is that both are things that people believe in despite a lack of evidence proving their veracity.
That and it is/was a religion. Thinking that a cosmology needs a god-head to be a religion seems to show a lack of knowledge on non-Abrahamic religions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
spiralingcadaver wrote: there's no hypocrisy in them not believing in deities but believing in random juju.
I never accused anyone of being a hypocrite, just that there is an interesting dichotomy that pops up sometimes.
Atheism as a term is really only applicable to the question of deity.
You can be an atheist, and be religious. For example, many Bhuddists are atheists. And there are atheists who attend religious services for family reasons, for community reasons, because they like to meditate, nostalgia, etc. And there's the CoS with their rituals and such.
It's probably not the typical description of an atheist, but there are religious atheists, and religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
jasper76 wrote: Atheism as a term is really only applicable to the question of deity.
Well forgoing that an example that also used a theist was made, it just seems to be the thread to also discuss such things. It would be silly to start a different thread just to talk about what theism/athiesm aren't considering we already have a thread about athiesm/thiesm.
Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
feeder wrote: Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
Ahtman, IDK, contradiction's maybe a little less loaded?
jasper-
Regarding atheist buddhism, I personally think that it's some kind of ignorant appropriation that ignores a lot of history and culture, gutting it for the convenient bits of philosophy you enjoy- it's like saying you're an atheist catholic. I've actually studied buddhism a decent bit, and there's a lot of stuff I agree with on a conceptual level, but that sure doesn't make me a buddhist.
Regarding attending religious ceremonies more generally, that doesn't make you religious. I'll respect (some of) my extended family's religion/ceremonies enough to (rarely) participate in that community, but that doesn't mean I believe in it.
Personally, idea of religious atheists makes me think that they're lying to themselves about one thing or another.
feeder wrote: Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
Yes. People think all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons, and holding one unfounded belief doesn't strictly require cognitive dissonance to find another unfounded belief silly. Belief is belief. You feel it in your gut, and maybe sometimes other special places, not in your rationality.
Regarding atheist buddhism, I personally think that it's some kind of ignorant appropriation that ignores a lot of history and culture, gutting it for the convenient bits of philosophy you enjoy- it's like saying you're an atheist catholic. I've actually studied buddhism a decent bit, and there's a lot of stuff I agree with on a conceptual level, but that sure doesn't make me a buddhist.
Regarding attending religious ceremonies more generally, that doesn't make you religious. I'll respect (some of) my extended family's religion/ceremonies enough to (rarely) participate in that community, but that doesn't mean I believe in it.
Personally, idea of religious atheists makes me think that they're lying to themselves about one thing or another.
The Church of Satan throws a wrinkle in. They are both atheist and religious. Maybe not your cup of tea, and not mine, but I don't think you can say they are not religious, since many of them do attend religious ceremonies, there's some sort of magic rituals, etc.
And just because you're not an atheist Bhuddist, that doesn't make an atheist Bhuddist less atheist, if that makes any sense.
feeder wrote: Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
I could be wrong, but I would suspect that most people don't really believe that their 'lucky socks' actually make any difference... It's just a thing that you do, without really thinking about the legitimacy of it.
But that aside, people quite often believe all sorts of things without bothering to look at why they believe them. It's only when someone questions that belief that there's a push to go looking at whatever underpins it. Most people, at some point in their lives, find themselves questioning life, the universe and everything and as a result go looking (some more comprehensively than others, and with varying results) for explanations that make sense to them personally.
People are less likely, I would think, to go on an introspective quest to determine the legitimacy of their socks.
From a personal experience, I'm firmly convinced in the existence of a benevolent higher power. What form it takes I haven't a clue. What happens after we die? Something more than oblivion, but what precisely I haven't a clue.
I find dogma and specific religions claims on such matters to be futile attempts to make sense of something we should all just admit is beyond our comprehension. It's tiresome, particularly when those beliefs are in blatant conflict with what science is definitively telling us (case example being Creationism vs Fossil Evidence)
I find Atheism to be likewise tiresome, because individuals are choosing a bleak and mundane outlook, out of over-reliance on facts...when we are clearly not in possession of the entire facts of the universe, time, space and existence, if even a fraction of them.
I find Atheism to be likewise tiresome, because individuals are choosing a bleak and mundane outlook, out of over-reliance on facts...when we are clearly not in possession of the entire facts of the universe, time, space and existence, if even a fraction of them.
But hey, that's just what I think.
Yeah, the fact that you find a world without a benevolent higher power to be bleak and/or mundane might reveal a bit about you as an individual, but it doesn't really say anything about atheists or atheism.
Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
I find Atheism to be likewise tiresome, because individuals are choosing a bleak and mundane outlook, out of over-reliance on facts...when we are clearly not in possession of the entire facts of the universe, time, space and existence, if even a fraction of them.
But hey, that's just what I think.
Yeah, the fact that you find a world without a benevolent higher power to be bleak and/or mundane might reveal a bit about you as an individual, but it doesn't really say anything about atheists or atheism.
Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
Well until a higher power comes out of no where then blows your mind! assuming that happens or not.
I'd be more likely to think that a higher power coming out of nowhere and blowing my mind was an alien, or maybe Jimi Hendrix come back from the grave, before I thought it was a god.
jasper76 wrote: I'd be more likely to think that a higher power coming out of nowhere and blowing my mind was an alien, or maybe Jimi Hendrix come back from the grave, before I thought it was a god.
I find Atheism to be likewise tiresome, because individuals are choosing a bleak and mundane outlook, out of over-reliance on facts...when we are clearly not in possession of the entire facts of the universe, time, space and existence, if even a fraction of them.
But hey, that's just what I think.
Yeah, the fact that you find a world without a benevolent higher power to be bleak and/or mundane might reveal a bit about you as an individual, but it doesn't really say anything about atheists or atheism.
Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
But how much do any of us really know? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? If it was all just oblivion then how can nothing come out of oblivion? And what exactly was this state of oblivion. What is beyond the expanding borders of the universe? They've always been the biggest mysteries to me. Until they're answered I don't see how anything on the nature of existence can possibly be conclusive.
Probably not much in terms of what there is to know, but modern science has actually given us a pretty good understanding of how the physical world operates. The questions you're asking are pretty much at the border of current knowledge. Scientists are interested in these questions too, as are regular Joe Schmoe atheists like me. I hope science comes up with convincing answers to each of these questions. These types of questions are so interesting, I can't just answer them with "God" and be satisfied with that. I want to know the actual answer, not a surrender to ignorance or someone's made up fictional version.
thegreatchimp wrote: What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? If it was all just oblivion then how can nothing come out of oblivion? And what exactly was this state of oblivion. What is beyond the expanding borders of the universe? They've always been the biggest mysteries to me. Until they're answered I don't see how anything on the nature of existence can possibly be conclusive.
Incidentally, here is a video that might be interesting to you on at least one of the questions you're asking about. Whether or not you find Krauss's presentation to be persuasive, I'll leave up to you.
jasper76 wrote: Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
Well put.
On the church of satan, while it's a set of beliefs, I'm having a little trouble figuring out if I believe it fits the criteria of a religion. Frankly, it sounds far closer to religion than buddhist atheism. (So in response, no, that doesn't make sense to me: I don't understand how the religion of buddhism is reconcilable with not believing in the basis of it, which is fundamentally based in deities etc.- I totally get, that you can think something's smart and follow its philosophies without believing its basis, but then you're talking about philosophy, not religion.
...But, I also don't really understand why you'd follow any belief system without full conviction, so don't understand anyone who's casually religious- I disagree with religion, but think that there's far more merit in being very actively religious than believing in all that stuff but not really following through.
jasper76 wrote: Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
Well put.
On the church of satan, while it's a set of beliefs, I'm having a little trouble figuring out if I believe it fits the criteria of a religion. Frankly, it sounds far closer to religion than buddhist atheism. (So in response, no, that doesn't make sense to me: I don't understand how the religion of buddhism is reconcilable with not believing in the basis of it, which is fundamentally based in deities etc.- I totally get, that you can think something's smart and follow its philosophies without believing its basis, but then you're talking about philosophy, not religion.
...But, I also don't really understand why you'd follow any belief system without full conviction, so don't understand anyone who's casually religious- I disagree with religion, but think that there's far more merit in being very actively religious than believing in all that stuff but not really following through.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I am not even casually religious but I do understand the lure of things like churches, communities, and stuff like incense, music, candles, rituals, etc. I think rituals can be useful to individuals and/or groups to give special meaning to transitions in life, so I understand the allure of that because religion provides rituals beyond the secular rituals we all typically go through like graduations and so forth.
...But, I also don't really understand why you'd follow any belief system without full conviction, so don't understand anyone who's casually religious- I disagree with religion, but think that there's far more merit in being very actively religious than believing in all that stuff but not really following through.
For most people, whether or not they believe in God really has a minimal impact on their day to day life, so the 'casually religious' would be those who just haven't had sufficient incentive yet to drag out the beliefs that they've up to that point taken for granted and actually look at them.
There's a bit of a thing going on down here about that at the moment, as we have a national Census coming up. There's a bit of a push by one of the big 'Atheist' groups to try to get people who identify as religious but don't actually practice or participate in that religion to have a think about whether or not they really are religious, or whether they should be ticking the 'No Religion' box.
Last census (2011) showed us to be around 65% Christian of some flavour, and 20-ish% 'No Religion'... I'm rather curious to see how that stacks up this time around, but I suspect that there'll be some sort of swing towards 'No Religion'.
The questions you're asking are pretty much at the border of current knowledge.
I'll totally disagree with that. We haven't even been able to detect -what is it -80% of the mass of the universe? There's a high chance that the questions I listed are beyond our ability to truly comprehend, ever.
Interesting discussion though. Thanks for the link. I'll watch it, though I have absolute conviction in my albeit vague belief in a higher force because it stems from something which happened to me, not scientfic or religious theses.
I concede that some questions may be beyond our grasp in a practical sense.
Some questions we ask about the universe may not even be valid questions. For example, if I ask "how can our universe come from nothing?", it's an interesting question, but if our universe did not come from nothing, then the premise of the question is incorrect, so the question itself would become invalid.
There are things we don't know, and it's OK to just say "I don't know.". For my part, I don't know the answer to a single one of your questions.
As to the video, I don't think you'd find it too incredibly hostile to the idea of a higher power...there are probably some atheist jibes in there here and there, but mostly it's just a scientist trying to find a way to answer the "something from nothing" question.
There are things we don't know, and it's OK to just say "I don't know.". For my part, I don't know the answer to a single one of your questions.
As to the video, I don't think you'd find it too incredibly hostile to the idea of a higher power...there are probably some atheist jibes in there here and there, but mostly it's just a scientist trying to find a way to answer the "something from nothing" question.
I have given myself a sore head thinking about such things since I was about 10! Thanks again, should enjoy watching that.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
I think the connection being suggested there is that both are things that people believe in despite a lack of evidence proving their veracity.
That and it is/was a religion. Thinking that a cosmology needs a god-head to be a religion seems to show a lack of knowledge on non-Abrahamic religions.
Thinking that atheism can't include religious belief seems to show a lack of knowledge about non-theistic religions. There are many examples of atheists being religious and religions being atheistic. Theism is alot more than Abrahamic religions and atheism is alot more than non-religious.
thegreatchimp wrote: What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began?
There wasn't any such time as before time began, concepts like before and after are components of space-time, which only exists within the universe. At the beginning of the universe we calculate a singularity, where certain properties of the universe become infinite. The other place we see singularities is at the centre of black holes. There would be such a huge amount of time dilation, if we were to (hypothetically) approach one of these things, that you would probably never actually reach it, or see anything else reach it, time slows to a stop, or accelerates to the end of the universe (depending on your frame of reference). My suspicion is that these things are in many ways the same thing, and represent different vanishing points in space-time, which we perceive, respectively, as a time (the big bang) and a space (the position of a black hole). However, our perception of the universe has been extremely warped by our evolution, and what we perceive might just be a confusing shadow of what is really there.
I think colour perception is a good way of explaining this, if you can get your head around the analogy... We perceive light as three dimensions of colour (the primary colours), and one dimension of intensity (light to dark). If we arrange these colour dimensions perpendicular to each other, into a three dimensional graph, then every colour that we can see can be expressed on that graph. But what's strange is that every colour we can imagine can also be expressed on that graph. We can't imagine a spectrum with four primary colours, our brain just doesn't have the hardware... The colourwheel is our brains' model of how colours work, and it is a complete construction that closes back on itself, there is no room in the model for anything to exist outside of it. But that does not mean colours don't exist outside of it, in fact we know that they do... Many birds an insects appear to have four dimensional colour vision, and we know that the electro magnetic spectrum expands well beyond what is visible to us (x-rays, microwaves, etc).
By a happy coincidence, we also perceive space-time as three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time (which, given how space is expanding over time, could be "analogous" to a dimension of intensity). So we can make a very similar graph, placing all three spacial dimensions perpendicular to each other (which is also exactly how they look to us), and we can plot any position in space-time (the limits of spacial intensity would be from infinite mass at the singularity, to infinite space where particles are unable to form, or an infinite energy state). Our brain has trouble processing (or even imagining) anything outside of this model, such as "before time" or a five dimensional shape, to us it's a closed system much like the colourwheel. But again that does not necessarily mean things don't exist outside of it: many theories predict more spacial dimensions, and there are hypotheses such as the hologram universe which postulate that all the information in the universe can be expressed in two dimensions, which implies that the universe we can see, might actually be two dimensional.
Going back to Plato's shadows... you might also imagine if we flipped our colour graph around, and looked it at it differently, so that we had blue and red perpendicular to white, with the green dimension replacing intensity. We would end up with something that still 100% works, but it would be extremely confusing and unintuitive for us. I suspect that something like this is exactly what has happened with our perception of space-time. We perceive space as three infinite dimensions, expanding off forever; while we see gravity as a one-dimensional force, which appears to pull mass together into a fourth dimension, perpendicular to our space, until it collapses into a single point. I think if our brain was better able to comprehend how dimensions like space-energy and gravity-mass might actually interact, we might come up with a more intuitive model of the universe which doesn't incur problems like "before time" and "outside space".
feeder wrote: Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
Not at all. I was reading about the funny tape the Olympic athletes are wearing and why they wear it. There is no real evidence of any positive effect for wearing them, but there is the very real placebo effect. the athletes think they help them do better, and they reduce pain, so the tapes can do just that.
God is really just a massive placebo effect, people think it helps, and therefore it might help them.
but more on topic atheism/theism is really just the answer to one specific question.
Do you believe in a god?
yes=theist
no=atheist
and that is all that is all that can be concluded from those terms. That doesn't put them in a right/left political spectrum, the leftist in the video could very well be a creationist.
there are many reasons for answering no or being unable to answer yes.
you've never heard of this god thing before
you're to young to believe in anything let alone understand the concept of a god type person to believe in it.
you've seen the "evidence" the theists use, and don't buy it. As almost every claim in their holy books don't have any OQE that stand up to any scrutiny.
etc, etc
Until you can understand the idea of god, you can't answer yes in believing in it, to become a theist. #allbabiesareatheists
being an atheist requires no proof, it requires no evidence, they don't need to disproof your beliefs, they just have no reason to believe in the god myth you're selling. If you think they should, then let's see your evidence that you used to disprove santa calus and the easter bunny, the invisible pink unicorn and of course the flying speghetti monster.
sirlynchmob wrote: but more on topic atheism/theism is really just the answer to one specific question. Do you believe in a god? yes=theist no=atheist
It's also worth mentioning that believing and knowing are not exclusive. For example: "I don't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists, but I don't believe it does". So someone can actually be an atheist or theist, because of their belief, while still acknowledging that they don't definitively know (agnostic).
sirlynchmob wrote: but more on topic atheism/theism is really just the answer to one specific question.
Do you believe in a god?
yes=theist
no=atheist
It's also worth mentioning that believing and knowing are not exclusive. For example: "I don't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists, but I don't believe it does". So someone can actually be an atheist or theist, because of their belief, while still acknowledging that they don't definitively know (agnostic).
agnostics just don't want to answer the question so they answer a totally unrelated question.
the first question is "do you believe in god?" yes or no
the second and unrelated question is "do you know god exists?" yes or no
as no one on this planet actually knows if god exists or not, everyone on the planet is either an 'agnostic theist', or an 'agnostic atheist'. Those claiming agnostic to the question of belief are using a cop out to avoid the first question.
sirlynchmob wrote: Those claiming agnostic to the question of belief are using a cop out to avoid the first question.
Not exactly. If God exists, there is no need to 'believe' in God, any more than there is a need to believe in my feet... They exist regardless of whether or not anyone believes in them. If God doesn't exist, then again, belief is irrelevant.
So 'Do you believe God exists?' is an irrelevant question if you consider God's actual existence (or not) to be a more pertinent issue than whether or not anyone thinks a God exists. It's not a 'cop out' to not hold an opinion one way or the other in the absence of evidence either way... it's simply choosing to not form an opinion based on what you consider insufficient evidence.
sirlynchmob wrote: Those claiming agnostic to the question of belief are using a cop out to avoid the first question.
Not exactly. If God exists, there is no need to 'believe' in God, any more than there is a need to believe in my feet... They exist regardless of whether or not anyone believes in them. If God doesn't exist, then again, belief is irrelevant.
So 'Do you believe God exists?' is an irrelevant question if you consider God's actual existence (or not) to be a more pertinent issue than whether or not anyone thinks a God exists. It's not a 'cop out' to not hold an opinion one way or the other in the absence of evidence either way... it's simply choosing to not form an opinion based on what you consider insufficient evidence.
If you don't belief in a god, even through insufficient evidence, then you don't. Therefore you're an atheist. You just highlighted my point.
If you don't belief in a god, even through insufficient evidence, then you don't. Therefore you're an atheist. You just highlighted my point.
An Atheist doesn't believe there is a God.
An Agnostic doesn't know if there is a God.
Not the same thing. I don't know if there is somebody named 'Kevin' in the building next door. I have insufficient evidence to even make a guess as to whether there is or not.
The Atheist would believe that there is nobody named Kevin next door, as they have no evidence that there is.
The Agnostic would simply not have an opinion, due to insufficient evidence for either option.
If you don't belief in a god, even through insufficient evidence, then you don't. Therefore you're an atheist. You just highlighted my point.
An Atheist doesn't believe there is a God.
An Agnostic doesn't know if there is a God.
Not the same thing. I don't know if there is somebody named 'Kevin' in the building next door. I have insufficient evidence to even make a guess as to whether there is or not.
The Atheist would believe that there is nobody named Kevin next door, as they have no evidence that there is.
The Agnostic would simply not have an opinion, due to insufficient evidence for either option.
yes I'm familiar with the cop out. if you have no opinion about god, then most likely you don't believe in a god, ergo atheist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
sirlynchmob wrote: but more on topic atheism/theism is really just the answer to one specific question. Do you believe in a god? yes=theist no=atheist
It's also worth mentioning that believing and knowing are not exclusive. For example: "I don't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists, but I don't believe it does". So someone can actually be an atheist or theist, because of their belief, while still acknowledging that they don't definitively know (agnostic).
agnostics just don't want to answer the question so they answer a totally unrelated question.
the first question is "do you believe in god?" yes or no the second and unrelated question is "do you know god exists?" yes or no
as no one on this planet actually knows if god exists or not, everyone on the planet is either an 'agnostic theist', or an 'agnostic atheist'. Those claiming agnostic to the question of belief are using a cop out to avoid the first question.
I disagree with you on two things:
(1) I don't know where you get the idea that Agnostics wouldn't want to answer any question (especially these two). (2) I claim to be flat Agnostic and I'm not using it as a cop out to avoid answering each question.*
* I identify as 'Agnostic'. If you asked me "Do you believe in a God or Set of Gods?" (i.e. the first question), I would answer "No". I could answer "Yes" to this question and still be Agnostic, but I personally answer the question with "No". If you asked me "Do you know if a God or set of Gods exists"? (i.e. the second question), I can also answer "No".
The core concept of being Agnostic is that you think that the existence things such as a God or Gods are unknown and unknowable, so we will always answer the second question as "No". What makes me a flat Agnostic as opposed to an Agnostic Theist is that I answered the first question with "No". The more complicated version of my "No" answer is: "Because the existence of such things is unknowable and the knowledge of such things is unattainable, I cannot believe in any God or set of Gods. Also because of the aforementioned reasons, I still believe that there is the potential for them to exist."
So I'm not coping out of anything or avoiding any questions and yet I still identify as flat 'Agnostic'.
sirlynchmob wrote: ...I'm familiar with the cop out. if you have no opinion about god, then most likely you don't believe in a god, ergo atheist.
It's not a cop-out, it's another standpoint on this topic which is no less valid than Atheism. Also, that conclusion is flawed: We have no opinion on God(s) because we think that their existence and knowledge of them is unknowable.
sirlynchmob wrote: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back.
If this is your reasoning, I honestly suggest looking into Agnosticism a bit more.
(1) I don't know where you get the idea that Agnostics wouldn't want to answer any question (especially these two).
(2) I claim to be flat Agnostic and I'm not using it as a cop out to avoid answering each question.*
* I identify as 'Agnostic'. If you asked me "Do you believe in a God or Set of Gods?" (i.e. the first question), I would answer "No". I could answer "Yes" to this question and still be Agnostic, but I personally answer the question with "No". If you asked me "Do you know if a God or set of Gods exists"? (i.e. the second question), I can also answer "No".
The core concept of being Agnostic is that you think that the existence things such as a God or Gods are unknown and unknowable, so we will always answer the second question as "No". What makes me a flat Agnostic as opposed to an Agnostic Theist is that I answered the first question with "No". The more complicated version of my "No" answer is: "Because the existence of such things is unknowable and the knowledge of such things is unattainable, I cannot believe in any God or set of Gods. Also because of the aforementioned reasons, I still believe that there is the potential for them to exist."
so you admit there are 'agnostic theists' because they answered yes, than no. So why won't you claim to be an agnostic atheist? because you answered no & no?
like insanic said: "An Atheist doesn't believe there is a God." and you said you don't believe in god. So why drop the atheist part?
sirlynchmob wrote: so you admit there are 'agnostic theists' because they answered yes, than no.
Yes, because I see no problem with this concept. I don't know anyone who falls into this category, but it makes sense.
sirlynchmob wrote: So why won't you claim to be an agnostic atheist? because you answered no & no?
Because the answers to those questions are a lot more complicated than "No" and "No". The over-simplification of the answers leads to the misconception that I am an 'Agnostic Atheist' as opposed to a flat 'Agnostic'.
sirlynchmob wrote: like insanic said: "An Atheist doesn't believe there is a God." and you said you don't believe in god. So why drop the atheist part?
But I never said I do not believe in a God or Gods per se, but rather that I cannot believe in any God or Gods. There's a difference, which is to say that because I haven't ruled out the existence and possible nature of a God or set of Gods, I cannot rule out belief, but I also cannot conform to belief either.
sirlynchmob wrote: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
That's part of it, but there are people who are legitimately agnostic. An atheist believes that the god question is as settled as any question can be, an agnostic believes on principle that it's unknowable and both answers are possible. It's the difference between being 99% sure, and being 50/50.
sirlynchmob wrote: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
That's part of it, but there are people who are legitimately agnostic. An atheist believes that the god question is as settled as any question can be, an agnostic believes on principle that it's unknowable and both answers are possible. It's the difference between being 99% sure, and being 50/50.
You don't even need to know the question to be an atheist though. you don't need to make any choice, nor hold any opinions about god to be an atheist which is why babies are atheists. Until you can make the choice and decide "Yes I am a theist, I believe in god" then you are an atheist. we can see the gymnastics going on to avoid the word, but that's how it works. It's like if I ask you are you a racecar driver, if you say no, than your not a racecar driver, Just because at some future date you might decide to be a racecar driver doesn't make you one now, when I ask the question. It's how the words we originally used Etymologically, atheist - believes in a god, atheist - not a theist.
sirlynchmob wrote: I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
That's part of it, but there are people who are legitimately agnostic. An atheist believes that the god question is as settled as any question can be, an agnostic believes on principle that it's unknowable and both answers are possible. It's the difference between being 99% sure, and being 50/50.
You don't even need to know the question to be an atheist though. you don't need to make any choice, nor hold any opinions about god to be an atheist which is why babies are atheists. Until you can make the choice and decide "Yes I am a theist, I believe in god" then you are an atheist. we can see the gymnastics going on to avoid the word, but that's how it works. It's like if I ask you are you a racecar driver, if you say no, than your not a racecar driver, Just because at some future date you might decide to be a racecar driver doesn't make you one now, when I ask the question. It's how the words we originally used Etymologically, atheist - believes in a god, atheist - not a theist.
But I could also argue that children are Agnostic when they're born because the tick the two broad boxes of Agnosticism:
(1) They don't know anything about God or the Gods; and (2) They don't know whether or not they believe in God or the Gods.
But in the end, regardless of whether or not one of us is right, the one thing that is true is that a child who has just been born cannot possibly be a Theist. Whether they're Atheist, Agnostic, or other is something else entirely.
EDIT: As Peregrine said in the post directly after this post, they have a very good point about the meaningfulness of labeling as infant as something versus labeling an adult as something. They're also very right about the second bit on Agnosticism.
sirlynchmob wrote: You don't even need to know the question to be an atheist though. you don't need to make any choice, nor hold any opinions about god to be an atheist which is why babies are atheists. Until you can make the choice and decide "Yes I am a theist, I believe in god" then you are an atheist. we can see the gymnastics going on to avoid the word, but that's how it works. It's like if I ask you are you a racecar driver, if you say no, than your not a racecar driver, Just because at some future date you might decide to be a racecar driver doesn't make you one now, when I ask the question. It's how the words we originally used Etymologically, atheist - believes in a god, atheist - not a theist.
This is strictly true by the dictionary definition of the word "atheist", but it isn't a very useful concept. There's a clear difference between a baby who has no concept of "is there a god?" and an adult who has considered the question and concluded "no", and that makes the label "atheist" much more meaningful in the second case than in the first.
Also, I think you're missing the point of what I said about people who identify as agnostic. They aren't just saying "I don't believe in god now but that might change", they're stating that, as a matter of belief, the question can not be answered. That, no matter how much you look for an answer, it will always be "who knows, both are equally likely". That goes way beyond temporarily declining to commit and into coming to "no comment" as a final answer and defining their religious identity by it.
Human life is not inherently important, not even to the individuals who possess that life. Resurrection only comes into the question after religious belief is established.
dogma wrote: Resurrection only comes into the question after religious belief is established.
I think the idea of Resurrection doesn't even have to find basis in religion at all. All it needs is for a person to believe the idea that there's something after you die (i.e. the continued existence of the "Soul"). To my mind: Religion (with respect to resurrection) only paints a picture of what happens and possibly provides incentive to do something (i.e. the ideas of heaven vs hell), but religion doesn't form the basis for the idea of resurrection.
sirlynchmob wrote: as no one on this planet actually knows if god exists or not, everyone on the planet is either an 'agnostic theist', or an 'agnostic atheist'.
On the contrary, there are things I'm less certain about than the existence of god, which I would contend to "know".
If I were forced to concede that I don't know with 100% certainty whether god exists, I would also have to concede all the other things I don't know with 100% certainty, like whether France exists, or whether I myself exist, and other absurd things. Perhaps it is because of the gravity of the question that people stop short of saying they "know", or perhaps it is to politely humour the billions of believers, who don't like to be told that their deeply held beliefs are just made up stories with zero divine input... "sure, there might be a god, who knows right?" ... But the reality is that I do "know": god doesn't exist, I'm certain of it. For it to be otherwise would require god to be actively fething with us, which is even more absurd than the possibility he exists.
Human life is not inherently important, not even to the individuals who possess that life. Resurrection only comes into the question after religious belief is established.
You didn't comment on the importance (or not) of human life, you took a line out of my post isolating it from its context and made snide remarks that disparaged my ability.
Explain your 'logic' behind your personal attack or man up and apologise. Lets try again:
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.
You should never be a suicide counselor.
Explain yourself, and if you want to critique what I wrote as evidence take it in the context of the post it was written and not as a snip. You have a bad habit for creative editing.
feeder wrote: You contend there is no position where one may neither believe nor disbelieve?
correct, if you don't believe, than you don't believe. Until you say "I believe" you're not a theist, and therefore an atheist.
Don't get caught on the semantics please. An 'a-theist' is a 'non-theist', hence the origin of the word. However the practical and current definition of atheist differs from that
Lets take another example to show how outdated semantics as forced definitions tends to not-work . 'Gay' means happy, 'queer' means unwell or odd. Those are facts. If you read old books you will find the earlier classification used for both words. Tolkien uses the word queer alot in Lord of the Rings, queer was also a negative term used to label homosexuals, just as gay was originally a self identification term. Both are now mainstream labels to the extent that their original usage has largely died out beyond preserved media.
Nobody would say they are feeling gay today, but are entirely heterosexual, they would use another word. Nor could it be implied that because they were happy by definition they would be gay, which would be true, and therefore by definition they are homosexual.
You are applying similar spurious logic here. If someone is an agnostic and is not a theist, but if you claim they are an atheist due to the enforced application of outdated semantics; you must be consistent and apply the same logic to believe that the same person changes their sexual orientation depending on how happy or well they are at the time. Unless of course they are formally defined in separation as homosexual, in which case, no change.
You cant have it both ways, your call.
I get why people claim agnosticism though, it keeps the religious nut jobs off your back. christians have made such a huge 'us vs them' fight against atheists, that to claim to be one opens you up to all their petty jibs and insults. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
That is highly loaded.
1. Not everyone with concerns about atheism is a 'religious nutjob'.
- For example, Maoist atheism and its 'religion is poison' dogma, heavily persecutes people of faiths often to death.
- A large number of atheists want to abolish religion actively. How do such moves to abolish a worldview pan out historically.
2. Its not (just) Christians who have made an 'us vs them'.
- Jews and Moslems express concerns also. Though in America those two faiths are more difficult to criticise for different reasons and Christians are an easier target.
- It is arguable that Christians are the injured party. Atheists made an 'us vs them' fight by targeting Christians exclusively with regards to their battle against religion; as nobody wants to be seen targeting Jews, and they are collectively litigious if you do, and targeting Moslems is outright dangerous. The fact that Christians are on the firing line indicate where the shots are coming from, it's not like Islam doesnt want to pick a fight, and despises atheism, but is curiously out of this one.
- Excepting isolated desperate individuals, of which can be found for any combination of beliefs there is no movement to root out atheism from schools. There is no move to remove tax exemption status from atheistic secular charity movements. Large numbers of atheists want both those things for religious institutions, especially Christian ones.
3. Petty jibs and insults.
- Those are individual responses, often from groups that mainstream Christianity disown. like Westboro Baptists. You dont see bishops or spokespersons of major faiths doing this.
- Petty jibs and insults flow the other way, but the assault is more mainstream. In fact the mainstream of atheist movement is defined by this. Hitchens was defined primarily by his sardonic put downs, it is arguably his most visible contribution to the atheist movement, and he was certainly a leader.
4. So you claim agnostic and basically 'opt out' of the discussion.
- This is true and your original premise is sound.
- However blaming it on Christians is grossly unfair. You have to look at this more open mindedly and own and acknowledge what atheists do.
- The vast majority of religious offense to atheism comes from other religions with a more direct action approach, especially Islam; from unstable individuals and publically disowned fringe churches.
- You could even look at Dakka for evidence. Religious people (and agnostics) dont disparage their rivals as dupes or idiots. The other way around however happens rather a lot, to a page on religion threads, when some names turn up, as they have, you can tell that there is going to be some anti-religion hatespeech coming. Often persistent vitriol on page after page and far more intensely worded than for which other posters on other topics have got a thread warning and a personal ban.
The reason 'Christians' are targetted is that most of the rules and laws (basically most of the power) in the western world (primarily the US) lies in Christian hands and benefits Christianity.
I don't really see any athiests here trying to remove all religion, but rather getting rid of the special priveleges that Christianity has that turns people of other or no faith to second-class citizens.
skyth wrote: The reason 'Christians' are targetted is that most of the rules and laws (basically most of the power) in the western world (primarily the US) lies in Christian hands and benefits Christianity.
I don't really see any athiests here trying to remove all religion, but rather getting rid of the special privileges that Christianity has that turns people of other or no faith to second-class citizens.
Really. People of other on no faith second class citizens? Lets examine that.
- Jews are not second class citizens in the US. In fact if any religious group should be logically labeled as privileged it would be the Jews. Jews enjoy vastly disproportionate power to their demographics. Heard of 'J Street'.
- Laws that protect Christians also protect other faiths, and have done so from the outset. Back in 1776 having a singular state religion was normal, the US could easily have followed suit, yet was founded with freedom of worship as a core principle.
- As for Christians, which Christians? Denominational bias also has to be taken into consideration. Is America Protestant or Catholic, you could argue it is Protestant as a follow on from the UK and because religious freedom works out better in reality than it does in Catholic countries. Catholic and Protestant don't see eye to eye sadly enough. America rose above that because it had freedom of worship without a denominational bias. Also America has cultivated a milieu that allows Amish to remain, in a way that would be impossible in another nation with a specific denominational bias.
The USA doesn't have a denominational bias because it had a secular state, with the strongest religious culture within being non-sectarian.
- Scientologists, like them or not - have successfully tapped into their religious rights. No second class citizenry for them, at least in terms of external pressure.
Even though atheists always rank worst in public opinion polls, it's probably not helpful for us to claim a second class status while there are groups in the US who actually do live as second class citizens, and if we whine too much because people don't like us so much, it makes us seem blind to the more meaningful problems that groups such as LBGTQ, black people, women, etc deal with on a day to day basis. Just my two cents.
- It is arguable that Christians are the injured party. Atheists made an 'us vs them' fight by targeting Christians exclusively with regards to their battle against religion; as nobody wants to be seen targeting Jews, and they are collectively litigious if you do, and targeting Moslems is outright dangerous. The fact that Christians are on the firing line indicate where the shots are coming from, it's not like Islam doesnt want to pick a fight, and despises atheism, but is curiously out of this one.
Christians are most definitely NOT the injured party. We have the 1st amendment in the US, which, for some reason a fairly significant number of Christians thinks applies only to them. I mean, look at school districts in the bible belt that are continuing to teach biblical creationism as science, counter to SCOTUS rulings. Look at the horribly written text books for "history" classes in Texas, claiming that Moses (of the 10 commandments) was "instrumental in the founding of the US".... Then, there's this whole thing of there having been around 40 something Christian presidents.
We can also look to Christians at political rallies with signs exclaiming that Muslims need to get out of the country, or expressing a desire to outlaw the religion from the country, despite that same 1st amendment.
Yes, a lot of us atheists have problems with Islam, but when it comes to public policy and domestic governance, in the US, the power is held almost exclusively by Christians. Therefore, that is the "exclusive" target.
- It is arguable that Christians are the injured party. Atheists made an 'us vs them' fight by targeting Christians exclusively with regards to their battle against religion; as nobody wants to be seen targeting Jews, and they are collectively litigious if you do, and targeting Moslems is outright dangerous. The fact that Christians are on the firing line indicate where the shots are coming from, it's not like Islam doesnt want to pick a fight, and despises atheism, but is curiously out of this one.
Christians are most definitely NOT the injured party. We have the 1st amendment in the US, which, for some reason a fairly significant number of Christians thinks applies only to them. I mean, look at school districts in the bible belt that are continuing to teach biblical creationism as science, counter to SCOTUS rulings. Look at the horribly written text books for "history" classes in Texas, claiming that Moses (of the 10 commandments) was "instrumental in the founding of the US".... Then, there's this whole thing of there having been around 40 something Christian presidents.
We can also look to Christians at political rallies with signs exclaiming that Muslims need to get out of the country, or expressing a desire to outlaw the religion from the country, despite that same 1st amendment.
Yes, a lot of us atheists have problems with Islam, but when it comes to public policy and domestic governance, in the US, the power is held almost exclusively by Christians. Therefore, that is the "exclusive" target.
Almost all Presidents were Christian or some form of. It's even been used as a platform. Imagine the reaction if someone ran as a Muslim/Jew/Atheist/Hindu. Also, if someone says they're Christian, the reaction is usually positive or indifferent. Not so if someone says they're Atheist.
Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
Sure, it's easier now to be anything other than Christian, but it's a pretty big fallacy to say that Americans are against Christianity.
I was addressing the point of christians being an "injured party" in regards to atheist activism working against religion. America as a whole certainly is Christian, if not in practice, then at least in custom. What I was saying is, of course atheists are "targeting" Christianity in the US. if you want to change how things are done, you don't target a group of people without power. That would've been like MLK marching for civil rights by targeting the Latin community.
And, I put "40 something" up because we pretty much know that Washington and Lincoln were deists. In fact, the best evidence we have suggests that Lincoln went to church twice as an adult: once to get married, and once to get buried. And I don't think I need to explain that deism =/= christian. But beyond those two, I either don't remember, or don't know where their religious/spiritual leanings were.
version of god who picks who lives and who dies on a whim. This "god" decided to cure two random women, while leaving countless other people to die of the same disease? Granted, "god is a 
, generals, princes, and kings with the backdrop of many of the events being the most advanced and sophisticated cities and societies for their time, e.g. Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome and in such cities as Thebes, Nineveh, Jerusalem, Corinth, Damascus, Corinth, and Rome.
dude, this is why people hate saying they're atheists. Others come out with such a slap in the face that it makes us look like asshats.
