Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree. Popularity is not a reliable indication of whether something is true or not.

Then again, for Christians it is not just a matter of proving something to be true. My happiness at seeing Christianity growing is not because I think it proves me right, but because I'm glad increasing numbers of people are receiving salvation.

Salvation from what, exactly? How does one receive salvation? And who is the judge of who needs this salvation?

Cato Maior

PDN wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree. Popularity is not a reliable indication of whether something is true or not.

Then again, for Christians it is not just a matter of proving something to be true. My happiness at seeing Christianity growing is not because I think it proves me right, but because I'm glad increasing numbers of people are receiving salvation.

Whatever gets you through the night, my friend.

old hippy

Cato Maior wrote: »

Whatever gets you through the night, my friend.

Which reminds me, I'm off to get salvation in the local. Have a pleasant evening all.

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

Let's discuss people with their heads up their butts, how about that?

I'm glad to. I made the point that people on either side of the Atheist/Christian are equally at fault when it comes to indoctrination etc. Therefore anyone who tries to pretend that their side is whiter than white has their head stuck up their butt.

That is not a jibe at Atheists, no more than it is a jibe at Christians. It is a jibe at those who demonstrate bigotry, from either side.

What do your friends get from packing into these alleged buildings?

We meet with good friends, find a support network in times of difficulty, enjoy worshipping and praying together, and discuss our common beliefs.

Then we get into our alleged cars, have dinners with our alleged families, go to our alleged places of employment, etc. Last Sunday I ate some alleged roast beef with alleged yorkshire pudding too.

Cato Maior

old hippy wrote: »

Which reminds me, I'm off to get salvation in the local. Have a pleasant evening all.

Enjoy.

"For ale does more than Milton can,
to justify god's ways to Man.
Aye, ale's the stuff to drink,
for fellows whom it hurts to think."

Irony intended!

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Of course he's going to say that the burden of proof is on you because you're in his forum.

You don't think it's reasonable that Atheists who post in the Atheism/Existence of God thread should bring something to discuss?

It does seem a bit disappointing that after promising us all kinds of contradictions etc, they get frustrated when things don't go to plan and the best they can come up with is, "Well go on, then, prove that there's a God!"

I watch theists go into A&A with nothing better to say than, "Yah! Can you prove that God doesn't exist?" and I think to myself, "What a tool." That kind of approach invites derision.

Ciaran0

Cato Maior wrote: »

I tend to find that one is better advised not to allow the low standards of others to determine the standards by which one operates.

Not sure who said this but it's apt here,

Never argue with a fool, they'll just bring you down to their level and beat you there with experience

Cato Maior

PDN wrote: »

You don't think it's reasonable that Atheists who post in the Atheism/Existence of God thread should bring something to discuss?

It does seem a bit disappointing that after promising us all kinds of contradictions etc, they get frustrated when things don't go to plan and the best they can come up with is, "Well go on, then, prove that there's a God!"

I watch theists go into A&A with nothing better to say than, "Yah! Can you prove that God doesn't exist?" and I think to myself, "What a tool." That kind of approach invites derision.

The only way to really prove that god does not exist would be to show that the idea contains a logical contradiction. I've seen a few attempts at that, but they were either unconvincing, or they are easily overturned by simply contesting the definition of god used.

Of course, there is another approach that some use, which simply says that the proposition 'god exists' is neither true nor false; it is simply nonsense. It is what some scientists would call, 'not even wrong'.

Terrlock

Hi Guys,

I just came across this thread, it's rather large so I haven't managed to read through a lot of it. I get the general jist of it I think.

Please forgive the bad english, typos and spelling mistakes.



Many people look at believers in God as fools, believing in A God, Its like believing in Santy or the tooth fairy.


I can't really blame people for being of that oppinion as for years I struggled with a lot of the same questions.


I mean we were all told to believe in so many things as children, that turned out to be false.



Why do parents think it's okay to lie to their kids, I mean it's only a bit of fun isn't, it's to make the childhood magical. But at the same time, why believe in a God, when he has about the same amount of proof as there was a Santy or tooth fairy and they turned out to be lies, why isn't God a lie?

Why believe in A God, just because we are told he is real, when we are told so many lies.


I grew up in a catolic school, I went to mass every Sunday. I never felt the presence of God their. I mean for most people mass has to be the most boring place on earth. I have to say I have never found God in a Catholic Church.

Science also lies to people, they tell us what's good for us, when years later it can be found out the opposite.
There are so many scientific theories, but how many are actual proofs. Even evolution by darwin is still just a theory even though it's accepted by the majority of Scientists.

They can show so much evidence about this, but actually when you do a bit of research there is more evidence to the biblical flood then there is for evolution.


Companies come out with false reports to sell their products. Politicians lie, I mean everywhere I look all I can see is constant lies coming from everywhere.

Who in the world can actually be completely trusted? Did the US actually go to the moon? Have people actually been obducted by Aliens?

We as people have become so accustomed to being lied to. I mean how can we then have any belief in a God that we can't see, feel, talk too, experience. I mean that only evidence we have of a god, is in a book that has been written thousand of years ago.

Even if God was real, would I want to follow him. I mean is all that bad stuff in the bible true, how do you explain all the rapes, murders, wars.

When I was growing up I had total believe in God, I mean I trusted the priests, the nuns, my parents, the schools religious studies.

When I was about 10 I started to question the whole thing, I had all the above questions in my head, I just wasn't able to believe there was a GOD. It just didn't make sense to me at all that there would be a God, considering my understanding at the way the Universe works, evolution, but I decided to do something different.

Everyday I would say in my head, "God if you exist answer all my questions and show me that you are real". I prayed this for 2 years, In the morning, before I went to bed, in church. My prayer was "Lord I can't believe in you, but if you are real, show me and answer all these questions I have, help me to make sense of it all."

One day, I was in school and there was a retreat where Christian songs were being sung. I was going along with it but in my head I said the same prayer. When all of a sudden an incredible sensation came over me, and I can only describe this as being the Holy Spirit as there is no other way to describe it. And it filled my mind instantly with all the answers to every question I had, God was actually speaking to me through his HOly Spirit. When I recieved the answers to my questions I remember jsut starting to laugh with both so much happiness and also laugh at my own sillyness as to not to be able to see what was so obviously in front of me all along.

I learnt from that day that the Lord not only exists but is extremely obvouisly in front of our eyes everyday but we just refuse in our own extreme ignorance to see him.


You cannot prove the God exists through our human created scientific means.

They only way you can prove that God exists is by meeting him for yourself!!!


So if you can't believe in a God, just ask him, it can't hurt, just ask him if he is real to reveal himself to you. Do with with senerity and it will happen.

This post has gotten to long for my liking and I have so much more to talk about but I will leave it at this.

I trust and Love the Lord and I pray that if you have not found him yet that someday you do, before it's all too late.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. I look at demographics and see the following:

Christianity (as a generic whole) is increasing numerically but remaining static as a percentage of world population.

The brand of Christianity to which I belong (Pentecostal/Charismatic) has increased from a handful of people 110 years ago to where it now embraces approximately 10% of the world's population.

Over the Twentieth Century, Atheism increased dramatically but has considerably declined numerically since 1980.

So, no, I don't think the tide is moving out for me at all.

In fact, I think we have much more in common than you think. Atheist numbers overall have declined, but the variety of atheism that you presumably espouse (voluntary rather than coerced) has probably increased.

Christian numbers overall are increasing (if remaining flat as a percentage of world population) but the variety of Christianity that I espouse is increasing dramatically.

The numbers of Catholics in Ireland are declining, and the numbers of atheists in Ireland are increasing - which you presumably think is a good thing.


The numbers of Catholics in Ireland are declining, and the numbers of Pentecostals in Ireland are increasing - which I think is a good thing.

So the direction of the tide is looking pretty good from where I'm standing.

Yes I said already I think we are in agreement, and I would'nt dis-agree to much with the above. But the problem for you is the area of growth for believers is in the devoloping countries. And if they follow the example of the west then with prosperity comes secularism.

Just a couple of separate issues- I don't think the loss of faith in Ireland is a particularly good thing. We have no history of citizenship,civic spirit , secularism and a with the overnight collapse of authoritarian religion we have been left with the worst of both worlds.

I know that the Pentacostal/Charismatic belief is increasing rapidily but is not a huge part of that increase at the expense of other Christian beliefs ?

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

You don't think it's reasonable that Atheists who post in the Atheism/Existence of God thread should bring something to discuss?

It does seem a bit disappointing that after promising us all kinds of contradictions etc, they get frustrated when things don't go to plan and the best they can come up with is, "Well go on, then, prove that there's a God!"

I watch theists go into A&A with nothing better to say than, "Yah! Can you prove that God doesn't exist?" and I think to myself, "What a tool." That kind of approach invites derision.

I know that you can't prove if there's a god or not and I can easily see how one could arrive at a deist belief, that there was a creator. It's not something that's disputable. But how does one logically get from a deist idea, which is logically a perfectly acceptable one, to the theist idea that there is a loving God that cares for all, the one which the theists are arguing the existence of here? This question is surely an addition to the discussion, is it not? Except there doesn't seem to be an answer to it.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Yes I said already I think we are in agreement, and I would'nt dis-agree to much with the above. But the problem for you is the area of growth for believers is in the devoloping countries. And if they follow the example of the west then with prosperity comes secularism.

Again, that isn't a problem for me. I am a secularist, and my brand of Christianity flourishes in a secular society. In religious-controlled societies we tend to suffer persecution.

Just a couple of separate issues- I don't think the loss of faith in Ireland is a particularly good thing. We have no history of citizenship,civic spirit , secularism and a with the overnight collapse of authoritarian religion we have been left with the worst of both worlds.

I think it's an improvement on what we had before.

I know that the Pentacostal/Charismatic belief is increasing rapidily but is not a huge part of that increase at the expense of other Christian beliefs ?

That depends where you are. In Indonesia and China, for example, it certainly isn't at the expense of other Christian beliefs.

In other places it is, but I don't see that as a bad thing. In many countries 'Christian' refers to a cultural or even ethnic identity where there is often little genuine faith in God. In those circumstances, where people abandon such folf-Christianity to convert to a brand of Christianity that requires an adult act of faith, then I personally see that as a huge plus.

The Quadratic Equation

PDN wrote: »

And atheists never indoctrinate children, do they? :pac:

Never

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/9060-richard-dawkins-new-childrens-book-encourages-atheism-evolution

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

I know that you can't prove if there's a god or not and I can easily see how one could arrive at a deist belief, that there was a creator. It's not something that's disputable. But how does one logically get from a deist idea, which is logically a perfectly acceptable one, to the theist idea that there is a loving God that cares for all, the one which the theists are arguing the existence of here? This question is surely an addition to the discussion, is it not? Except there doesn't seem to be an answer to it.

You get there by weighing up the evidence.

For me this started by talking to Christians, and hearing their stories. My arguments against their faith was all theoretical, but I asked myself how their experiences could be best explained. Could I reasonably ascribe their answered prayers to coincidence? Were they lying?

Then I compared them with the atheists I knew. Which group of people had a philosophy that helped them to be better people? Which had a philosophy that made them bitter or angry. (Not steotyping here, just comparing the evidence in front of my eyes).

Then I tried reading the Bible with an open mind. Did it add up to a coherent and consistent message or not? The evidence was that it did.

So, as we do with many things in life, I tried an experiment. I prayed for some things and waited to see what happened. Then I weighed up the results. Was this more likely to be coincidence? Or something else?

The Bible says we are to 'Taste and see that the Lord is good.' So I gave that a try. I decided to try asking Jesus into my life and see what happened. After all, if it didn't work I could always reject it again - I would hardly be the first to do so! The changes in my life, in my self esteem, in my relationships, were actually pretty astounding as I tried to live by the New Testament's teachings.

That was over 30 years ago, and three decades of study, answered prayer, and experiences of being led by God have only served to increase my conviction that the evidence available to me indicates strongly that God is who the Bible says He is. This includes numerous answers of answered prayer which, to be honest, would constitute a string of coincidences so unlikely that it beggars belief.

And if after all I'm wrong? Then I'll have lived an absolutely incredible and fulfilling life and lost nothing at all by doing so. 30 years ago I was homeless, dishonest, unable to form lasting relationships, and going nowhere. Today I have a job that I love doing - I would do it even if I wasn't paid to do so! I have a loving family, and I get to travel all over the world getting the satisfaction of helping some of the planet's poorest and most oppressed people.

I followed the evidence. It wasn't proof positive, but each step of the way I weighed it up and went with what, in my judgement, was the balance of probability. Which, when you think about it, is how people reach most of their conclusions in life.

The Quadratic Equation

Ciaran0 wrote: »

But how does one logically get from a deist idea, which is logically a perfectly acceptable one, to the theist idea that there is a loving God that cares for all, the one which the theists are arguing the existence of here? This question is surely an addition to the discussion, is it not? Except there doesn't seem to be an answer to it.

That answer could be different for every indvidual, and depending on what you believe, you need to be prepared to bet eternal life on it.

Most anti-theists like to pretend Christianity is a totally irrational and illogical belief. This is incorrect.

For most Christians, it goes something like this :

All reputable historians already agree on the historicity of Jesus Christ, so for many considering Christianity it boils down to whether you believe Jesus was, on the balance of probability, : probably mad, probably bad or probably telling the truth. Even those that met Jesus in person had to make this very same decision.

It is also quite logical to suppose that The Apostles really did believe what they preached, as they gave up their families, possessions, and homes in return for certain persecution and death to preach the Gospel.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

That answer could be different for every indvidual, and depending on what you believe, you need to be prepared to bet eternal life on it.

Most anti-theists like to pretend Christianity is a totally irrational and illogical belief. This is incorrect.

For most Christians, it goes something like this :

All reputable historians already agree on the historicity of Jesus Christ, so for many considering Christianity it boils down to whether you believe Jesus was, on the balance of probability, : probably mad, probably bad or probably telling the truth. Even those that met Jesus in person had to make this very same decision.

It is also quite logical to suppose that The Apostles really did believe what they preached, as they gave up their families, possessions, and homes in return for certain persecution and death to preach the Gospel.

And ... get to the Christianity is rational and logical bit.

Cause you have just described pretty much every religion or cult from Heavens Gate to Jonestown.

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

Cause you have just described pretty much every religion or cult from Heavens Gate to Jonestown.

I'm afraid the facts differ in reality. I am the most skeptical person I know and most Christians would also descibe Heavens Gate to Jonestown as nutjobs.

Try as you might, nothing has or ever will come close to the perfection displayed in the words, actions and example set by Jesus Christ.

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

For me this started by talking to Christians, and hearing their stories. My arguments against their faith was all theoretical, but I asked myself how their experiences could be best explained. Could I reasonably ascribe their answered prayers to coincidence? Were they lying?

Which people had their prayers answered? Maybe you met a lot of people who did get what they prayed for, but it doesn't change the fact that most people never get what they pray for. Millions of them. They're the people in the third world countries whose populations make up the majority of believers. You were convinced because some people had their prayers answered even though most didn't?

Then I compared them with the atheists I knew. Which group of people had a philosophy that helped them to be better people? Which had a philosophy that made them bitter or angry. (Not steotyping here, just comparing the evidence in front of my eyes).

Whether theistic or atheistic philosophies help or hinder people has nothing to do with whether they are true or not. There is anger and bitterness on both sides of the line and believing in one thing or the other isn't the cause of it.

Then I tried reading the Bible with an open mind. Did it add up to a coherent and consistent message or not? The evidence was that it did.

Getting a coherent and consistent message from a book doesn't equate to any sort of evidence though. The book is only a book. It was written by man and though you may believe it was the will of god, we have no way of knowing if it is. And aside from the knowledge that some of the characters in the book did in fact exist and were killed, there is zero evidence to suggest any of the events in the Bible actually happened. The Bible doesn't provide evidence of God's existence any more than the Lord of the Rings proves elves exist.

^^ I'd love to take credit for that Lord of the Rings phrase but I robbed it from a guy on YouTube.

So, as we do with many things in life, I tried an experiment. I prayed for some things and waited to see what happened. Then I weighed up the results. Was this more likely to be coincidence? Or something else?

The Bible says we are to 'Taste and see that the Lord is good.' So I gave that a try. I decided to try asking Jesus into my life and see what happened. After all, if it didn't work I could always reject it again - I would hardly be the first to do so! The changes in my life, in my self esteem, in my relationships, were actually pretty astounding as I tried to live by the New Testament's teachings.

That was over 30 years ago, and three decades of study, answered prayer, and experiences of being led by God have only served to increase my conviction that the evidence available to me indicates strongly that God is who the Bible says He is. This includes numerous answers of answered prayer which, to be honest, would constitute a string of coincidences so unlikely that it beggars belief.

I'll give the same answer as above. Just because you tried it and it seemed to work doesn't mean it's real. You're prayers were answered and maybe you know other people who had prayers answered but the fact still stands, the majority of people don't get their prayer answered at all. You might think your experiences of God are so improbable they must be real but in a world with seven billion people, statistical improbabilities are likely to happen to some lucky individuals. You may have been one.

And if after all I'm wrong? Then I'll have lived an absolutely incredible and fulfilling life and lost nothing at all by doing so. 30 years ago I was homeless, dishonest, unable to form lasting relationships, and going nowhere. Today I have a job that I love doing - I would do it even if I wasn't paid to do so! I have a loving family, and I get to travel all over the world getting the satisfaction of helping some of the planet's poorest and most oppressed people.

I'm glad for you. I only hope I can lead such a good life.

I followed the evidence.

We still haven't got to any actual evidence though.

It wasn't proof positive, but each step of the way I weighed it up and went with what, in my judgement, was the balance of probability. Which, when you think about it, is how people reach most of their conclusions in life

See, what you did there was come to a conclusion based on personal experiences and, as I explained above, you're personal experiences could easily have been complete coincidence. Your thinkings which led to your conclusion on the existence of God were subjective as they were based on what you mentioned above. To determine the truth about something you must be objective(as possible). You need to look at everything, and going on what you've told me, you haven't. Or is there more?

And as for this whole burden of truth issue. If I presented a new scientific hypothesis to my peers, it wouldn't be accepted as correct until someone could prove it wrong. The opposite is true. It would be regarded as just an idea until I could prove it correct. That should apply here. But for some strange reason. It doesn't.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Which people had their prayers answered? Maybe you met a lot of people who did get what they prayed for, but it doesn't change the fact that most people never get what they pray for.

I heard specific instances of answered prayer that, in my opinion, were unlikely to be explainable as coincidence. And the people sharing these accounts came across as trustworthy. And, I must say, that over the last 30 years that impression has been confirmed repeatedly.

Millions of them. They're the people in the third world countries whose populations make up the majority of believers. You were convinced because some people had their prayers answered even though most didn't?

Really? And you've spent a lot of time talking to people in the third World about their prayers, have you?

I have, and I've heard some amazing testimonies from them. They seem to have a very different opinion of how their prayers worked. Oh, but hang on, they're ignorant Third World people aren't they? And you're a white westerner. So you're more quallified than them to assess their own personal experiences.

Whether theistic or atheistic philosophies help or hinder people has nothing to do with whether they are true or not. There is anger and bitterness on both sides of the line and believing in one thing or the other isn't the cause of it.

True, but their ability to provide a positive outcome prompts us to greater or lesser motivation to explore their claims.

Getting a coherent and consistent message from a book doesn't equate to any sort of evidence though. The book is only a book. It was written by man and though you may believe it was the will of god, we have no way of knowing if it is. And aside from the knowledge that some of the characters in the book did in fact exist and were killed, there is zero evidence to suggest any of the events in the Bible actually happened. The Bible doesn't provide evidence of God's existence any more than the Lord of the Rings proves elves exist.

So you assess it differently. Fair enough. Since I haven't seen any great evidence of your biblical knowledge I'm not overly concerned that we disagree about it.

We still haven't got to any actual evidence though.

We have. We just assess it differently. And I'm much happier to trust my decision making capabilities than I am to trust yours.

See, what you did there was come to a conclusion based on personal experiences and, as I explained above, you're personal experiences could easily have been complete coincidence.

You're catching Zombrex's habit of assuming that making an ignorant assertion somehow equals having explained something.

You don't have a clue what my experiences have been. Yet, without any knowledge of them whatsoever, you claim they could easily have been coincidences. Blinkered or what?

You need to look at everything, and going on what you've told me, you haven't. Or is there more?

When it comes to weighing my experiences and studies, it's fair to say that I've looked at more of them than you have.

And as for this whole burden of truth issue. If I presented a new scientific hypothesis to my peers, it wouldn't be accepted as correct until someone could prove it wrong. The opposite is true. It would be regarded as just an idea until I could prove it correct. That should apply here. But for some strange reason. It doesn't.

The reason isn't strange at all. It's because no-one is presenting a scientific hypothesis to their peers. :rolleyes:


Let us know if you come up with any actual arguments or points rather than demanding that I prove to you that God exists - something I have no interest in doing.

Ciaran0

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

All reputable historians already agree on the historicity of Jesus Christ, so for many considering Christianity it boils down to whether you believe Jesus was, on the balance of probability, : probably mad, probably bad or probably telling the truth.

Reputable historian's acknowledge only the existence of Jesus. You'd be hard pressed to find a reputable historian who says Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead.

Even those that met Jesus in person had to make this very same decision.

It is also quite logical to suppose that The Apostles really did believe what they preached, as they gave up their families, possessions, and homes in return for certain persecution and death to preach the Gospel.

And what the followers of Jesus believed adds nothing to the debate of whether Jesus actually was divine and performed miracles or not. We don't know how intellectual they were, how naive or gullible they were therefore cannot say if them believing in Jesus is any indication of his credibility.

The Quadratic Equation

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Reputable historian's acknowledge only the existence of Jesus. You'd be hard pressed to find a reputable historian who says Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead.

No one did, history does not rule on such matters, it reports them.
At least look up term Historicity before trying to build a strawman.

Ciaran0 wrote: »

And what the followers of Jesus believed adds nothing to the debate of whether Jesus actually was divine and performed miracles or not. We don't know how intellectual they were, how naive or gullible they were therefore cannot say if them believing in Jesus is any indication of his credibility.

I can see why you would be keen to rule out all eyewitness accounts.
Try that when verifying any event and see how you get on.

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

I heard specific instances of answered prayer that, in my opinion, were unlikely to be explainable as coincidence. And the people sharing these accounts came across as trustworthy. And, I must say, that over the last 30 years that impression has been confirmed repeatedly.

You haven't explained what those experiences actually are. But it doesn't matter because like I said earlier in a point you failed to address, You might think your experiences of God or those of are so improbable they must be real, but in a world with seven billion people, statistical improbabilities are likely to happen to some lucky individuals.

Really? And you've spent a lot of time talking to people in the third World about their prayers, have you?

I have, and I've heard some amazing testimonies from them. They seem to have a very different opinion of how their prayers worked. Oh, but hang on, they're ignorant Third World people aren't they?

Admittedly no, I certainly haven't as much experience with third world people as you do, but are you telling me that most people who go to bed(if they have one) hungry at night, who lose loved ones to AIDS and suffer from it themselves, who walk miles to get water and get sick from drinking it, who are miserable, feel that their prayers are answered?

I don't want to sound condescending about the ignorance of these poor people but they are uneducated. And as I said in an earlier post(and left a link to a website), countries with better levels of education tend to have higher levels of atheism.

And you're a white westerner. So you're more quallified than them to assess their own personal experiences.

Am I? This is the internet. You don't know who or what I am so please don't assume.

You don't have a clue what my experiences have been. Yet, without any knowledge of them whatsoever, you claim they could easily have been coincidences. Blinkered or what?

You could tell us what some of these experiences are.

When it comes to weighing my experiences and studies, it's fair to say that I've looked at more of them than you have.

I don't claim to know a lot about you or your experiences. I do know however know that they are you're experiences and only yours. If we were to suppose the existence of God based on personal experiences we would have to take into account everyone's personal experience, which is something that simply can't be done. Can we therefore, for the sake of the argument, not use personal experience as evidence?

The reason isn't strange at all. It's because no-one is presenting a scientific hypothesis to their peers. :rolleyes:

God existing is only a hypothesis. It shouldn't be accepted until sufficient evidence is provided.

Let us know if you come up with any actual arguments or points rather than demanding that I prove to you that God exists - something I have no interest in doing.

Well until you or someone else does prove that a god exists, the idea of one should be left as a theory and only that.

Ciaran0

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No one did, history does not rule on such matters, it reports them.
At least look up term Historicity before trying to build a strawman.

I know what the term historicity means. History hasn't reported anything about Jesus's miracles, so why is there a reason to believe them?

I can see why you would be keen to rule out all eyewitness accounts.
Try that when verifying any event and see how you get on.

Eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago from people we know nothing about and (this is the most important bit) are only written about in a hugely biased book can hardly be regarded as reliable.

Peregrinus

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago from people we know nothing about and (this is the most important bit) are only written about in a hugely biased book can hardly be regarded as reliable.

The problem here is that there isn’t very much written on any subject from 2,000 years ago that isn’t “hugely biased”. Pretty much the only reason that people wrote books was to defend, or promote, particular viewpoints. If we’re going to dismiss “hugely biased” texts, then we don’t know much about anything from 2,000 years ago (or at any time before, or for many centuries afterwards).

But that’s not how historiography works. Historians don’t dismiss ancient texts on the basis that they are not modern newspapers; they read them, taking account of what is known or can be surmised about their authors, their audience, their purpose, their genre, etc, and they filter what the text says through that.

By the standards of 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth is very well attested. (Much better attested than, say, Plato.) We have the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which all draw on a common source. We have the gospel of John, which is written by somebody who seems never to have read, or heard of, Matthew, Mark or Luke and which therefore represents an independent source. And we have the writings of Paul, all of whose letters predate Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So he’s a third source.

Paul, though, says little or nothing about miracles (except the resurrection, of course). On the whole, he says very little about the life and doings of Jesus. Matthew/Mark/Luke does deal with miracles, and so does John (though, often, not the same miracles). But they never describe the events in question as “miracles”; they call them “signs”. The stress on their apparently supernatural nature is a modern preoccupation of our own. The ancients were much more comfortable with the notion that the world was full of things they didn’t understand and couldn’t explain. Besides, they made no distinction between events supposedly caused by God and “natural” events, as we do.

So, to sum up. The historiography on Jesus of Nazareth is actually pretty strong, and events that we would consider “miraculous” are attested in two distinct sources - three, in the case of the resurrection.

So the problem with accepting the miracles this is not really a lack of historical evidence. It’s that we don’t believe in the possibility of miracles, and to shake our unbelief - if that is possible at all - would require an extraordinary weight of evidence. Historical evidence which might easily lead us to accept a less controversial claim - e.g. that Jesus lived, and travelled in Palestine, and preached in public, and was crucified - is not sufficient to lead us to accept the claim that he raised the dead, or was born of a virgin. We apply a different standard to such claims. It’s perfectly reasonable to do that, in my view, but it’s a mistake - if not outright dishonest - to say that the barrier to accepting the claims is a lack of historical evidence. The barrier is our skepticism.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I'm afraid the facts differ in reality. I am the most skeptical person I know

You must know very very few people.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

and most Christians would also descibe Heavens Gate to Jonestown as nutjobs.

Which demonstrates my point (some) Christians dismiss these cults as "nutjobs" but won't apply the same standards to their own religion because its the one they believe.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Try as you might, nothing has or ever will come close to the perfection displayed in the words, actions and example set by Jesus Christ.

Oh right. So the rational logical reason why Christianity is true is that it all sounds perfect to you.

Yes, that doesn't sound like anything a worshipper of a cult would say at all.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

You haven't explained what those experiences actually are. But it doesn't matter because like I said earlier in a point you failed to address, You might think your experiences of God or those of are so improbable they must be real, but in a world with seven billion people, statistical improbabilities are likely to happen to some lucky individuals.

So "it doesn't matter" what the evidence is that led me towards faith in God, because you have already decided - no matter what the evidence is - that you are going to dismiss it as luck.

If you approach any proposition with that kind of mindset then you will reach whatever conclusion you wish.

Admittedly no, I certainly haven't as much experience with third world people as you do, but are you telling me that most people who go to bed(if they have one) hungry at night, who lose loved ones to AIDS and suffer from it themselves, who walk miles to get water and get sick from drinking it, who are miserable, feel that their prayers are answered?

I can say 'most' because that would mean gathering data from millions of people of various religions.

What I can say is that hundreds of the world's poorest people have shared with me how their prayers have been answered.

But I think you're missing an important point about how we assess evidence (I'm talking here about everyday decision making in in real life, not laboratory experiments under controlled conditions). If I make 100 phone calls to a phone number (let's say an Amazon call center) and only 1 of my calls is actually answered. What does that tell me?

Do I base my belief in the call center's existence on the 1 call where I talked to a rep and received my replacement book? Or do I decide that the 99 unanswered calls somehow negate the experience of the 1 successful call?

Or do I, based on my predetermined desire not to believe in Amazon's existence, decide that irrespective of how many phone calls are answered, I will dismiss them as coincidences? Perhaps I got a wrong number and the other person decided to play a prank and pretended to be a rep of the mythical Amazon? Perhaps someone else had already sent a copy of the book I wanted to my address, and I just thought it came from the mythical Amazon? After all, in a world with seven billion people, such statistical improbabilities are likely to happen to some lucky individuals.

I don't want to sound condescending about the ignorance of these poor people but they are uneducated. And as I said in an earlier post(and left a link to a website), countries with better levels of education tend to have higher levels of atheism.

You don't want to sound condescending? Sorry, you just failed massively.

Am I? This is the internet. You don't know who or what I am so please don't assume.

Yes, you're really Ciaran from Calcutta, aren't you?

I'm weighing evidence on probabilities. And the demographics of atheism, your screen-name, and your posts, make it at least a 90% probability that you are white, privileged, male, and reasonably educated but not to post-graduate level. There's a high possibility that you're also unmarried, and that you were raised with at least a nominal Catholicism.

Do I have proof of any of this? No, and given the nature of the internet you could now lie to me and pretend you're a happily married Buddhist African woman with a PhD. But the evidence points towards one conclusion rather than another.

You could tell us what some of these experiences are.

Why? What point could there be for sharing experiences when you have decided that, whatever they are, they are luck and coincidence? Why should I take half an hour to bother typing up experiences for someone who already has a closed mind?

I don't claim to know a lot about you or your experiences. I do know however know that they are you're experiences and only yours. If we were to suppose the existence of God based on personal experiences we would have to take into account everyone's personal experience, which is something that simply can't be done. Can we therefore, for the sake of the argument, not use personal experience as evidence?

Are you being serious? You want to talk about why people make choices in their lives without referring to their experiences? How far do you think history, science, or any other field of knowledge would have advanced with such a lame-brained approach?

Listen, like 99.99999%, if not more, of human beings, my experiences are an important part of how I assess the world around me, form a worldview, and test ideas.

God existing is only a hypothesis. It shouldn't be accepted until sufficient evidence is provided.

Your mother's existence is only a hypothesis. And, apart from personal experiences (which you don't accept as evidence) you have no evidence of her existence.

Well until you or someone else does prove that a god exists, the idea of one should be left as a theory and only that.

Ha, you're back to 'proof' again. Well, best of luck with your theory about your mother's existence.

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

You don't think it's reasonable that Atheists who post in the Atheism/Existence of God thread should bring something to discuss?

It does seem a bit disappointing that after promising us all kinds of contradictions etc, they get frustrated when things don't go to plan and the best they can come up with is, "Well go on, then, prove that there's a God!"

I watch theists go into A&A with nothing better to say than, "Yah! Can you prove that God doesn't exist?" and I think to myself, "What a tool." That kind of approach invites derision.

And your brand of bobbins doesn't? Oh puhleeease :rolleyes:

old hippy

Backseat modding removed

tommy2bad

God existing is only a hypothesis. It shouldn't be accepted until sufficient evidence is provided.

No the existence of God isnt a hypothesis. I don't think of it like that. For me God is a reality becauseI believe and I have to deal with my belief. Waiting for evidence is not an option.
Yes it's irrational, if God is something that I were to bet on or use to achieve something then I would be a fool to assume first and prove second.
God isnt something I use or an interesting factoid like faster than light neutrinos, He's someone/thing I have a relationship with.

marienbad

Anyway , whatever our differences Happy Christmas everyone