Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
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....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/28 19:26:22
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. "
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/28 20:00:46
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.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/28 21:24:51
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.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 00:40:57
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 01:41:24
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 02:26:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/07/29 07:31:52
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/29 07:42:24
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 09:40:56
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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."
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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.
The Tick: Everybody was a baby once, Arthur. Oh, sure, maybe not today, or even yesterday. But once. Babies, chum: tiny, dimpled, fleshy mirrors of our us-ness, that we parents hurl into the future, like leathery footballs of hope. And you've got to get a good spiral on that baby, or evil will make an interception.
~1.5k
).
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 