The Persistence of Bulls**t

velocirafter

JimiTime wrote: »

I wont deal with the discrepencies of your post as to do so will take us away on a tangeant. I will instead correct you on what you think my point was. Though I do believe God is the creator, that had nothing to do with my point to AH. His point was that 'Gods existance is not required to explain anything we currently observe'. My point is that 'Life is observable yet unexplained, so you do not know if God is required or not.'. That is not a statement of 'God did it'. It is a statement that you don't know if he's required or not.

I think this is too big of a philosophical question for my meager brain to grasp

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

You don't know that though. Life? We don't know how life began, so you don't actually know if he is required.

We know how life can begin and it doesn't require God.

God could have done something anyway but that doesn't mean he is required. It is like saying God is not required to fall from a plane but you can never demonstrate that God isn't pulling you down rather than gravity.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Are wolfsbane, PDN, and Jimmi the die hard religious though? I mean these people (as far as I know, I'm not sure of wolfsbanes case) came to Christianity due to being convinced of their own free will. It isn't that they had faith from the get go. I see no reason from the POV of an atheist why these people if they have gone in freely can also return to their previous state freely. However, as a Christian I personally don't think they will lose their faith.

Don't know about Jimi but PDN has often talked about how crap his life was before he embraced Christianity.

If PDN believes that Christianity turned his life around, particularly if he believes he could not have simply done that himself, that could be a very strong factor in how he will evaluate the truth of Christianity.

New Scientist mentioned a study done recently about how people have a natural instinct to move to more supernatural thinking when placed in situations where they feel stress and lack of control

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know how you get the notion that theists are somehow not interested in truth.

Spend 5 minutes on the Creationist thread :pac:

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

You don't know that though. Life? We don't know how life began, so you don't actually know if he is required.

We've got several hypotheses that seem to work. One of which has now worked partially in a lab (RNA abiogenesis as shown by Gerald Joyce). What we don't know is which of these processes, if any, actually started life as we know it on Earth. So to assume "God did it" first violates Occam's Razor. We explore the simpler and more plausible explanations first. We know of ways by which life can arise by purely material means. So those are the hypotheses we should test first. It appears very much as if God is totally unnecessary for the formation of life.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We've got several hypotheses that seem to work. One of which has now worked partially in a lab (RNA abiogenesis as shown by Gerald Joyce). What we don't know is which of these processes, if any, actually started life as we know it on Earth. So to assume "God did it" first violates Occam's Razor. We explore the simpler and more plausible explanations first. We know of ways by which life can arise by purely material means. So those are the hypotheses we should test first. It appears very much as if God is totally unnecessary for the formation of life.

Firstly, I'm not arguing that 'God did it'. My faith has been left at the door for this one. I'm merely saying that the statement 'God is not necessary' is not known. There may be several hypotheses, but the statement above would still be in error at this point in time. Existance itself is not explained. We go back to the big bang, and then what? Again, I'm not making the jump to 'God did it', just that saying 'God is not necessary' is IMO, not only an erroneous statement, but a non-scientific one too. I think the most accurate statement in this scenario, leaving faith aside, is 'We don't know'. Your opinion can then be expressed as to what you think etc, but it is by no means definitive.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not arguing that 'God did it'. My faith has been left at the door for this one. I'm merely saying that the statement 'God is not necessary' is not known.

I'm not sure why you're being pedantic over this, the statement "His existence is not required to explain anything we do currently observe", is currently a true statement, there is currently no aspect of the natural world that *requires* God as an explanation, and until there is the statement is correct.

His existence being required would be the position when a mountain of evidence had been accumulated that a natural process could not have produced some aspect of the natural world - hence a supernatural explanation would now be required, until that time, the statement "His existence is not required" is perfectly OK.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not arguing that 'God did it'. My faith has been left at the door for this one. I'm merely saying that the statement 'God is not necessary' is not known. There may be several hypotheses, but the statement above would still be in error at this point in time.

Not true. If an object goes missing from your house, you may form a number of plausible hypotheses to explain this event. In the absence of evidence you may be stuck as to which, if any, is the correct one, but you can certainly say "God is not necessary for this event to have occurred". It's the same deal with abiogenesis. We know it can happen in many ways, don't know which way is the correct one but can say with confidence that God is not required for it to have happened.

JimiTime wrote: »

Existance itself is not explained. We go back to the big bang, and then what? Again, I'm not making the jump to 'God did it', just that saying 'God is not necessary' is IMO, not only an erroneous statement, but a non-scientific one too.

If you go back to my post, you'll note that I say that God is known to be not needed for: the evolution of life, the origin of life, the formation of Earth. I've made no such contention about the Big Bang though I probably could have using the logic pH details above.

JimiTime wrote: »

I think the most accurate statement in this scenario, leaving faith aside, is 'We don't know'. Your opinion can then be expressed as to what you think etc, but it is by no means definitive.

The general opinion on the cause of the big bang and the nature of the universe outside of that event is "we don't know". But we can say "cheese appears to not be required", "unicorns appear to not be required" and so we can also say "God appears to not be required". He's not one of the elements of the current model and does not help us if we drop Him in there either. At least not any more so than cheese and unicorns.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not true. If an object goes missing from your house, you may form a number of plausible hypotheses to explain this event. In the absence of evidence you may be stuck as to which, if any, is the correct one, but you can certainly say "God is not necessary for this event to have occurred". It's the same deal with abiogenesis.

Is it? Like the cookie going missing. We know and observe other people being able to take it. We may have forgotten we ate it, again something we know happens. We know vermin or pets etc could take it etc etc. Whereas, do we observe abiogenesis with such knowledge? Do we 'know' it happens? Do we witness it happening? Or is abiogenesis itself a hypotheses?

We know it can happen in many ways

Genuine question, do we 'know' abiogenesis can happen?

If you go back to my post, you'll note that I say that God is known to be not needed for: the evolution of life, the origin of life, the formation of Earth. I've made no such contention about the Big Bang though I probably could have using the logic pH details above.

You said he is not required for anything currently observed. The fact that our very existance is observed means that going back to the big bang is relevant. If you can't explain it, then saying 'well God is not required' is an ignorant statement, as you simply don't know. As I said, you can say, well we don't know, and I've every confidence that its not some god etc, but again thats opinion. I don't have issue with that.

The general opinion on the cause of the big bang and the nature of the universe outside of that event is "we don't know".

Ok, so leave any definitive statements until you do know.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Whereas, do we observe abiogenesis with such knowledge? Do we 'know' it happens? Do we witness it happening?

Yes. That is the point.

We cannot observe the original abiogenesis on Earth but we know enough about chemistry and the formation of complex molecules to put forward plausible ways it could have happened.

JimiTime wrote: »

Genuine question, do we 'know' abiogenesis can happen?

Leaving aside the obvious "Yes because we are here aren't we", yes we know abiogenesis can happen naturally. Experiments and computer simulations have got self replicating molecules up to quite an advance stage (relatively speaking, the original formation of cells took a billion years)

JimiTime wrote: »

You said he is not required for anything currently observed. The fact that our very existance is observed means that going back to the big bang is relevant.

You are being some what pedantic. We cannot observe before the Big Bang. There is no known process to say God is or is not required. God is required or not required comes after the process bit. Saying we are observing us aren't we is beside the point because we know the process that we got here and it doesn't require God. We cannot observe the process that created the big bang and as such cannot say if God is or is not required.

That was why Atomic put that qualifier at the end.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes. That is the point.

Oh right.

We cannot observe the original abiogenesis on Earth but we know enough about chemistry and the formation of complex molecules to put forward plausible ways it could have happened.

Do we observe abiogenesis?

Leaving aside the obvious "Yes because we are here aren't we",

Well thats as useful as the same point being used for Gods existance.

yes we know abiogenesis can happen naturally. Experiments and computer simulations have got self replicating molecules up to quite an advance stage (relatively speaking, the original formation of cells took a billion years)

This doesn't sound like life animation from non-animation has been observed Have you any links you could provide witrh any more info?

You are being some what pedantic. .

Fair enough, I've made my point and its been rejected, and leave unconvinced by yours. Thats a few accusations of me being pedantic, so I'll leave it be.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it? Like the cookie going missing. We know and observe other people being able to take it. We may have forgotten we ate it, again something we know happens. We know vermin or pets etc could take it etc etc. Whereas, do we observe abiogenesis with such knowledge? Do we 'know' it happens? Do we witness it happening? Or is abiogenesis itself a hypotheses?

We've witnessed parts of it directly- I refer again to the work of Joyce and others in a similar vein- and we've modelled and simulated other parts. We know it happens in some naturalistic manner as much as we know other phenomena that can't be replicated in a lab happen, such as planet formation. The specifics are the issue.

JimiTime wrote: »

Genuine question, do we 'know' abiogenesis can happen?

Yes.

JimiTime wrote: »

You said he is not required for anything currently observed. The fact that our very existance is observed means that going back to the big bang is relevant. If you can't explain it, then saying 'well God is not required' is an ignorant statement, as you simply don't know. As I said, you can say, well we don't know, and I've every confidence that its not some god etc, but again thats opinion. I don't have issue with that.

Again though, not knowing how something happens does not require the insertion of God. So God is not required to explain our observations any more than unicorns are. There are gaps in our knowledge, but none of them is particularly God-shaped any more than they are unicorn shaped.

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, so leave any definitive statements until you do know.

My uncertainty regards what did happen. I am certain that we see no specific need for God in anything we have observed for the reasons already stated. We can posit many naturalistic explanations for all we so far observe, therefore we do not require God unless we run out of naturalistic explanations. At that point, there'll still be no reason why the gap ought to specifically filled with God instead of cheese.

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

If PDN believes that Christianity turned his life around, particularly if he believes he could not have simply done that himself, that could be a very strong factor in how he will evaluate the truth of Christianity.

New Scientist mentioned a study done recently about how people have a natural instinct to move to more supernatural thinking when placed in situations where they feel stress and lack of control

PDN has referenced the fact that his Church can meet it's bills as evidence of God's intervention in his life.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Do we observe abiogenesis?

Yes, in so far as humans can observe a process that takes a billion years. We observe can observe it in the same way we can observe tectonic shift or soil erosion.

JimiTime wrote: »

This doesn't sound like life animation from non-animation has been observed Have you any links you could provide witrh any more info?

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=72B0C4D9-21B2-40E2-B773-53299C4F299
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Type "self replicating molecule" into Google for tons more.

Húrin

velocirafter wrote: »

I think the article does make a good point. Religious people dont respond very well to logical arguments on the topic of religion, they have a kind of mental ringfence that exempts it from that sort of critque.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Thats not your problem, its theirs.

Its not a difference of opinion, its a refusal to acknowledge facts, evidence, and reality. Ours is the refusal to accept bullsh*t, not on a par really.

liah wrote: »

But there are a few people who have changed their mind due to these men presenting a logical argument, mostly people who were reluctant about the idea but went along with it because of their family or community, but a fair few have been die-hard, too, and finally "saw the light" of logic.

I just don't get why the religious can't see things properly, why they have to resort to faith. I mean, really, it just makes no legitimate sense, how on earth do they not realize it's a fairytale like a thousand other stories? It's the exact same thing. Just because it's old doesn't make it right, or true, or honest.

That's nonsense. It is sadly typical of atheists to think that they have a monopoly on logic, and that all logical thought leads to atheism. How can you guys be so sure that you have the truth, the logic and the light? :P

Carpo wrote: »

What truth do I have that is absolute? Again, truth is not dependant on anyones belief in it or perception of it.

Just because you are not using the word "believe" (perhaps choosing the more categorical verb "to be/is") does not mean that you do not have a belief. You do not see things "as they are" you see them as you believe them to be. So it is with all of us.

MrPudding wrote: »

Wolfsbane believes that atheists know god exists and we simply deny it so we can eat babies and do all the other things that we can do that you can’t. He thinks that belief in god is so obviously right that we must be intentionally denying it.

I think the opposite is true. It is so stupendously and blindingly obvious that your god is so unlikely to exist that you guys must know this but carry on a charade.

I think that both claims are false, and merely reveal that both of you are fanatics.

So I suppose that is the difference. Atheist gain nothing by denying the existence of god.

Not at all. Many atheists seem to use their atheism as a foundation for their self-image as a logical, rational and cosmopolitan person.

To even state the above implies that the atheist is a strong and secure person, an image which would be imperilled by a conversion to theism.

AtomicHorror

Húrin wrote: »

Many atheists seem to use their atheism as a foundation for their self-image as a logical, rational and cosmopolitan person.

How do you tell the difference between the people who are atheistic because they are logical and those who just want to look logical? I assume you have some means to spot the difference?

I've been religious in the past, as have most of the posters here I would guess. Do you not think that gives us some perspective you may be lacking? I'm sure it makes you feel more comfortable to assume we're all just acting like we really don't believe, but speaking for myself it makes perfect logical sense. There's no particular benefit for me, as far as I can see. It's just something I have to accept because it's self-evident.

philologos

I believe atheism to be much more of an emotive and an irrational response than most people think it is. Particularly in the field that they do not think that these awkward religious rules should be involved in their life, irrespective of truth value. That is more to do with desires rather than to do with the truth.

It has also puzzled me in the past, when I have discussed with atheists that if they knew that there was a God, and if they knew that there was a heaven or hell that they still say that they would go to hell out of principle. That's hardly a logical answer if God has shown Himself to be true and God has shown Himself to know the universe better than any other.

As for "being religious" in the past, and having a perspective that we may be lacking. Most theists have had times when they didn't know God, and yet have come to know faith and religion. I don't think that gives you any real or tangible advantage over most theists at all.

You say that you believe that atheism makes logical sense. However has it ever occurred to you that Christians believe that Christianity makes logical sense. Claiming a monopoly on reason and logic does atheism really no favours. Anyone, at any stage can claim such a monopoly. Whether or not it is true is another question.

MrPudding: So you think I don't actually believe that God exists, but I pretend I do? As absurd as that is I want you to clarify your position on this.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe atheism to be much more of an emotive and an irrational response than most people think it is. Particularly in the field that they do not think that these awkward religious rules should be involved in their life, irrespective of truth value. That is more to do with desires rather than to do with the truth.

What you say MAY have been true in the past (and that's a big may) when religion was an oppressive and controlling force (or at least, to a lesser extent than it is now). Atheism may for some have been a knee jerk response to what some saw as overbearing and unholy. Nowadays though, I don't think that many people choose atheism as a lifestyle choice, it is merely a realisation that people come to. They discard the silly rituals and observances as a by-product. It's not an irrational response, it's a rational response against something they see as irrational.

Jakkass wrote:

It has also puzzled me in the past, when I have discussed with atheists that if they knew that there was a God, and if they knew that there was a heaven or hell that they still say that they would go to hell out of principle. That's hardly a logical answer if God has shown Himself to be true and God has shown Himself to know the universe better than any other.

If there was solid proof that God was real, I think most atheists would change their views, as the evidence is there. Some would still be stubborn. Same as if there was concrete proof that God wasn't real, some theists would still not yield. There will always be headstrong believers who don't listen to evidence. Having that kind of conversation with an atheist is completely facetious though.

Jakkass wrote:

You say that you believe that atheism makes logical sense. However has it ever occurred to you that Christians believe that Christianity makes logical sense. Claiming a monopoly on reason and logic does atheism really no favours. Anyone, at any stage can claim such a monopoly. Whether or not it is true is another question.

Logical means different things to different people. Like how it is logical for a child to believe that if there are presents under the tree, Santa must have left them. So until something happens to break the pattern of thought of a person (eg discovering the truth about Santa), your views are hard to change because you have accepted it as logical. So when we accept something which shatters our preconceptions (the realisation that God isn't real) we find it difficult to understand why you don't see the same thing. That isn't to say that we are right, but it's why I find it hard not to feel like the one who has seen the light. It's entirely possible that in accepting god isn't real I was tricked, but until I make another earth-shattering realisation that isn't going to happen.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe atheism to be much more of an emotive and an irrational response than most people think it is. Particularly in the field that they do not think that these awkward religious rules should be involved in their life, irrespective of truth value. That is more to do with desires rather than to do with the truth.

Positions on philosophies regarding morals, life and death will tend to be emotive. But that does not equal irrational. There is nothing irrational about scepticism in a world where we can demonstrate that our intuition and common sense are inadequately equipped to answer the big questions. As for those awkward religious rules, are you suggesting we're being contrary? You'll find that we tend only to reject the rules that contradict what we know to be correct by observation. We're hardly rushing to overturn the laws on rape and murder just because religions also abhor them.

I'm sure there are people who would, but they'd hardly be norm, assuming they're really atheists rather than general rebels against whatever happens to be established.

Jakkass wrote: »

It has also puzzled me in the past, when I have discussed with atheists that if they knew that there was a God, and if they knew that there was a heaven or hell that they still say that they would go to hell out of principle. That's hardly a logical answer if God has shown Himself to be true and God has shown Himself to know the universe better than any other.

I think that's the position with specific regard for the God of the Bible, and assumes that the bible is indeed 100% factual. In that case, yes I'd rather go to hell than be pally with a supreme being who hates gays and advocates genocide- now perhaps you might not see that rejection as rational, but my reasoning on it is this:

That God is going to punish a great many people that I think are undeserving and no eternal reward is going to make me feel better about that. In fact I'm going to really dislike myself a lot (forever!) if I accept that rather than making what will probably be a fruitless stand for what I think is right in the hopes that it might actually change His stubborn mind.

But what you're implying above is not anything to do with that specific case. You're suggesting that most atheists will reject any god, which is of course rubbish. Either you are misrepresenting us or you're confusing our distaste for the specific beliefs of one faith for our rational position on faith in general. We can certainly have both without them undermining each other.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "being religious" in the past, and having a perspective that we may be lacking. Most theists have had times when they didn't know God, and yet have come to know faith and religion. I don't think that gives you any real or tangible advantage over most theists at all.

I had religion. Then I had the vague hand-wavey theist thing for a time. I had long periods of real doubts bookended with periods of strong faith. So really, I get all of that. Nothing during that time in my life resembled where I am now. Crises of faith are not atheism. Once you go atheist, it's pretty much impossible to go back. It happens sometimes, sure. As I understand it, our own PDN was once an atheist. But I wonder at the mental gymnastics required to make such a move and I'd be willing to bet good money (if I had any) that the percentage of atheists who lapse back into faith is far far lower than the percentage of faithful types who switch faiths or abandon it entirely.

Jakkass wrote: »

You say that you believe that atheism makes logical sense. However has it ever occurred to you that Christians believe that Christianity makes logical sense.

I'm certain some of them think that. But so do a whole bunch of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and religious miscellanea. That they feel like it makes logical sense does not impress me both because these faiths all contradict each other and because I know the logical loops I fabricated to hold the same position myself. It was logic, but it was circular logic.

Jakkass wrote: »

Claiming a monopoly on reason and logic does atheism really no favours. Anyone, at any stage can claim such a monopoly. Whether or not it is true is another question.

But that's a ridiculous statement to make. Of course the claim of a "monopoly" on logic and reason is diminished by similar claims from the faiths. But if we consider our position to be logical should we keep that fact quiet? What are you suggesting?

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Positions on philosophies regarding morals, life and death will tend to be emotive. But that does not equal irrational. There is nothing irrational about scepticism in a world where we can demonstrate that our intuition and common sense are inadequately equipped to answer the big questions. As for those awkward religious rules, are you suggesting we're being contrary? You'll find that we tend only to reject the rules that contradict what we know to be correct by observation. We're hardly rushing to overturn the laws on rape and murder just because religions also abhor them.

I'm sure there are people who would, but they'd hardly be norm, assuming they're really atheists rather than general rebels against whatever happens to be established.

Emotions by their very nature impede on sober and rational thought surely? It's not about logic, it's about feelings. But guess what? Theists and atheists both do this!

As for intuition and common sense, I find these to be compatible with Christian thought. I have yet to see how this is anything special about atheism or secular beliefs.

As for the norm. I certainly don't think it is the norm that peoples main objections to Christianity are merely intellectual ones, or even mainly so.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think that's the position with specific regard for the God of the Bible, and assumes that the bible is indeed 100% factual. In that case, yes I'd rather go to hell than be pally with a supreme being who hates gays and advocates genocide- now perhaps you might not see that rejection as rational, but my reasoning on it is this:

This isn't rational at all in any reasoning.

I disagree that God hates gays. As for "genocide", I agree that God has the right to punish people for their transgressions yes, and indeed I am deserving of this punishment also.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That God is going to punish a great many people that I think are undeserving and no eternal reward is going to make me feel better about that. In fact I'm going to really dislike myself a lot (forever!) if I accept that rather than making what will probably be a fruitless stand for what I think is right in the hopes that it might actually change His stubborn mind.

You might think they are undeserving, that's where the line is drawn isn't it. I think I and everyone else in the world is deserving of judgement, but we have received salvation should we choose it.

You say you would dislike yourself for believing in God. By extension, do you dislike Christians both on boards.ie and outside for their belief in a higher power? It's a strange position to hold, because surely if it is something you would dislike in yourself, it's something you would dislike in others.

I find it humorous that you would continue to insist that you are in teh right however above someone who has shown Himself to be superior to you in knowledge, and believe it or not even in compassion and grace. Infact the offer has been there your entire life, and you in your stubbornness refuse to accept His offer.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But what you're implying above is not anything to do with that specific case. You're suggesting that most atheists will reject any god, which is of course rubbish. Either you are misrepresenting us or you're confusing our distaste for the specific beliefs of one faith for our rational position on faith in general. We can certainly have both without them undermining each other.

You're assuming that your view is indeed rational. Yet I am still utterly confused at your reasoning for the above.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I had religion. Then I had the vague hand-wavey theist thing for a time. I had long periods of real doubts bookended with periods of strong faith. So really, I get all of that. Nothing during that time in my life resembled where I am now. Crises of faith are not atheism. Once you go atheist, it's pretty much impossible to go back. It happens sometimes, sure. As I understand it, our own PDN was once an atheist. But I wonder at the mental gymnastics required to make such a move and I'd be willing to bet good money (if I had any) that the percentage of atheists who lapse back into faith is far far lower than the percentage of faithful types who switch faiths or abandon it entirely.

I don't think several years counts as a crisis of faith. I was an agnostic. You say that as an atheist it is pretty much impossible to turn back. Christians say the exact same thing though. It seems like a pretty futile point of argument considering both of these positions. It's going to be an argument based around:

No you can't turn back from atheism.
No, it's practically impossible to turn back from Christianity.

Do we really want to go here?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm certain some of them think that. But so do a whole bunch of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and religious miscellanea. That they feel like it makes logical sense does not impress me both because these faiths all contradict each other and because I know the logical loops I fabricated to hold the same position myself. It was logic, but it was circular logic.

Yes, and I do think that other faiths can make sense to other people too. Just like your atheism can make sense to you. Sense != truth value surely?

As for circular logic, I really don't my faith is circular, or that of others is circular. I consider there to be mental gymnastics in the atheism of many folks too. That is another discussion however.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But that's a ridiculous statement to make. Of course the claim of a "monopoly" on logic and reason is diminished by similar claims from the faiths. But if we consider our position to be logical should we keep that fact quiet? What are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting that it doesn't need to be raised in every argument. It's insignificant and it doesn't bear any value to what the truth is. Infact the abuse of the words "reason" and "logic" can be quite annoying

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

You say that as an atheist it is pretty much impossible to turn back.

Sorry to butt in...

It is pretty much impossible to turn back, UNLESS... I see water turning into wine or a statue of mary dancing around a grotto or other such miracles. Even something simple like a little whisper from god or something, ANYTHING.

Not that I want it to be true, but if I see the evidence then damn, I'll just have to accept it.

"Spiritual experiences" just aren't enough. I've had spiritual experiences on magic mushrooms, but I don't go around praying to mushrooms.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

MrPudding: So you think I don't actually believe that God exists, but I pretend I do? As absurd as that is I want you to clarify your position on this.

Why is it absurd? Christians, well some of them anyway, think that we actually believe god exists but consciously dismiss it so we can have an easy life. Surely if that is a possibility so is the opposite? That some Christians deep down realise it is all a load of rubbish but for whatever reason suppress that knowledge?

If one is possible I can’t see why the other is not also possible.

MrP

MrPudding

Overblood wrote: »

Not that I want it to be true, but if I see the evidence then damn, I'll just have to accept it.

I used to think the same, but now I am not sure. There was a thread about this a long time ago and it was either Dades or Flamed Diving that pointed out that, even if he did see a miracle or god appeared, they would always look for a rational answer. And when you do, a god or a miracle is not likely to be the most rational answer.

A bit of a debacle really…

MrP

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It has also puzzled me in the past, when I have discussed with atheists that if they knew that there was a God, and if they knew that there was a heaven or hell that they still say that they would go to hell out of principle. That's hardly a logical answer if God has shown Himself to be true and God has shown Himself to know the universe better than any other.

On the one hand you talk about atheists wishing to ignore "awkward" moral rules in order to give in to desires (I presume you mean sex before marriage) and then on the other you say they illogically choose the moral position of not wishing to worshipping a god they feel acts immorally.



The theist argument is that God can do what ever the heck he likes to humans because he made them. That is an argument that most atheists I know reject as ethical nonsense, a fundamentally skewed and unethical way of viewing the concept of fundamental rights. Because you are being raped by the person who made you doesn't effect that you are being raped. Because you are being burnt by the person who made you doesn't effect you being burnt.

I personally cannot help thinking that theists embrace this way of thinking, this axiom of morality, simply because it allows them to square the circle of the Old Testament and continue to look forward to heaven and everything they are promised. But as you say just because we say it is nonsense doesn't mean you think it is.

Overblood

MrPudding wrote: »

I used to think the same, but now I am not sure. There was a thread about this a long time ago and it was either Dades or Flamed Diving that pointed out that, even if he did see a miracle or god appeared, they would always look for a rational answer. And when you do, a god or a miracle is not likely to be the most rational answer.

A bit of a debacle really…

MrP

I disagree. If I could turn water into wine, by just pure magic, how would you come up with a rational explanation?

MrPudding

Overblood wrote: »

I disagree. If I could turn water into wine, by just pure magic, how would you come up with a rational explanation?

Well, you wouldn't. You would say I don't know how it was done, but it is unlikely to be god.

Exactly what would constitute proof for you? Would you not always think there was something going on that you simply were not aware of?

MrP

Overblood

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, you wouldn't. You would say I don't know how it was done, but it is unlikely to be god.

Exactly what would constitute proof for you? Would you not always think there was something going on that you simply were not aware of?

MrP

What if the clouds thunderously split apart and a bearded man descended while shouting "I am your LORD, prepare to be punished for your heresy" then proceeded to wipe out half of Ireland with earthquakes and tsunamis and plagues etc.

Dades

Overblood wrote: »

I disagree. If I could turn water into wine, by just pure magic, how would you come up with a rational explanation?

Water into wine is a parlour trick any half decent illusionist could handle!

Overblood wrote: »

What if the clouds thunderously split apart and a bearded man descended while shouting "I am your LORD, prepare to be punished for your heresy" then proceeded to wipe out half of Ireland with earthquakes and tsunamis and plagues etc.

Witnessed first-hand, that evidence would certainly worth looking into...

Worthy of at least one thread in the A&A forum!

MrPudding

Overblood wrote: »

What if the clouds thunderously split apart and a bearded man descended while shouting "I am your LORD, prepare to be punished for your heresy" then proceeded to wipe out half of Ireland with earthquakes and tsunamis and plagues etc.

Hmmm, maybe… I am not sure I would buy it.:D

MrP

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Water into wine is a parlour trick any half decent illusionist could handle!

It is wine into water, that is the hard one ....