Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

himnextdoor wrote: »

Well I'm not and nor am I crediting you in particular with being confused; I was challenging a weak position that is strongly held by ISAW. He's the one always harping on about the importance of definitions. I was merely trying to get ISAW to practice what he/she preaches.

Good luck with that.!

<percentages stuff removed>

muppeteer wrote: »

You hold judgment over somebody on the internet and seek to tell them they do not know their own mindset. Charming.

I would think even though your words say charming you in fact dont find me charming at all.
You stated did you not "I don't think of all Christians as lacking ability. I wouldn't even bother talking to you if I believed that."

You would not bother talking to people who lack ability -an elitist point of view.
and if you dont think about all you do apply this to some Christians do you not?

I prostrate myself to your judgment and offer a quote that I find helps guide my most humble assessments on the rational ability of myself and the kindly Christians who offer me debate as equals.

False humility comes from the same elitist mindset of superiority.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell"

so do you think I am either a fool or a fanatic or do you deny calling me that?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Now that the atheist position has been clarified it will be obvious that someone who believes in say a Christian God implicity dis-believes any belief system that contradicts that position. It should be noted though, that even of those who express a particular belief in that particular God, many may ultimately be panentheists.

So, someone who says 'I believe there is but one God' is equally saying 'I do not believe (disbelief) in the Norse Gods', etc.

what you are saying here is if you Believer in Christ ist therefore you do not believe in Norse gods.

That is logically valid

The same cannot be said of the atheist; if an athiest does not believe in the Norse Gods (which he wouldn't) then that does not mean that he believes in some alternative God.

You have the logic backwards!
With "i do not believe in Norse gods" it does not logically follow that "I believe in christ" nor "I am atheist" either could be true but both cant!

Your problem here is -"which you wouldnt" Because atheism is "i dont believe in God"

so what you are really saying is "i dont believe in a chriatian god or any other gods or supernatural forces" (which he wouldnt) and that DOES MEAN he does not believe in Norse gods.

The reason is 'rationality'; combining experience and knowledge with the senses allows one to create a reasonably accurate picture of reality in our mind - ones views in almost all areas of ones life are based on affirmative evidence of some kind.

Well science tries to set up a proposition one can falsify and not one to verify. the verification principle can lead into contradiction or infinite regression.

But you can believe in the flying spaghetti Monster or astrology or aliens or unicorns if you wish. when you make claims you assrt are grounded in rationality the onus is on you to produce evidence.

I produced peer reviewed publications citing empirical research. what have you produced?

It may even be that the term 'atheist' is synonymous with 'rationalist'.

In other words it may NOT even be as well?

In order for an atheist to support a hypothesis, he needs evidence to support it.

So does a non atheist! so what?

And there are two types of evidence, broadly speaking; positive and negative. Evidence that supports a hypothesis is positive evidence while evidence that contradicts the hypothesis is negative evidence.

could you not except ther is one thpe of evidence and a hypothesis and one can ether verify i.e. prove true or falsify i.e. prove false ?

THe "infinite regression" problem above lies in the fact that only ONE tst might falsify but verification can go on and on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Falsificationism
It is commonly believed that Karl Popper rejected the requirement that meaningful sentences be verifiable, demanding instead that they be falsifiable. However, Popper later claimed that his demand for falsifiability was not meant as a theory of meaning, but rather as a methodological norm for the sciences

A problem with this discussion arises from the fact that faith removes the requirement for evidence and so believers start from a position where they have faith and evidence at their disposal while an atheist doesn't possess the faculty of faith and therefore has only the evidence from which to form a view.

which is why I referred to faith AND reason and argued on reason and not on faith.
It is why I use standard scientific methods, peer review research etc.
It is also why I pointed out science for example does rely in varying degrees on the faith of practitioners. they believe in something but they eventually use objective evidence to prove it. Although terms like "objective evidence" itself are frequently dismissed by philosophical relativists - sometimes on moral relativist grounds sometimes empirically relativist sometimes sociologically. Some atheists posting here hold conflicting relativism and claim science (incliding sociology and social science and Medicine) isnt relative but morals are relative.

Faith has the consequence of allowing believers to 'cherry-pick' evidence and apply a logic, that makes a huge number of assumptions, that 'converts' negative evidence into positive evidence while still relying on what might possibly be considered positive evidence.

For example, a believer might say that an antelope escaping from a lion and getting safely back to its mother is positive evidence of God while an atheist might argue that the lion's family starving is negative evidence of God; or a believer might say that someone survived an 'incurable' disease because there were prayers sent to God whereas an atheist would say that all religions can make the same claim - sometimes a Hindu will survive an 'incurable' disease. In my view, it is not sensible to consider these things as positive evidence at all but if both sides can say that the jury is somewhat still out on those things, they can be set aside.

I think the above is weak and vague. the notion that "only good things happen" and "but they can really be seen as bad things" isnt about the proving thing but about judging whether the thing is good or bad. The THING is the evidence event etc. that is objectively measurable and falsifable or verifiable. the antelope escapes or not. the man survives the disease or not.
The personal significance of the event is related to judgement yes but that has nothing to do with measuring whether or nt it happened.
We have moved on from "earthquakes happen therefore A god exists" and B"god is punishing us" and right through the problem of evil[:i] debate C "God is allowing free will"
you are regressing to

Earthquakes happen/ animals escape/ people are cured as if the events are to be questioned. We did that at the "people were cured in Lourds" stage.

Accept the events happened. i do applaud your trying to focus on the significance of events and what can be said of them. Assume it happened - What is significant for you for example in the passion of the Christ story?

And an atheist might say that evil and murder and the state of the modern world constitute negative evidence regarding the existence of God but a believer might say that free-will was given to mankind by God and since men commit evil and not God, the existence of free-will is positive evidence of God; evil could not flourish without free-will but God didn't design us to be evil, we somehow re-designed ourselves by being born. Therefore, to a believer, the existence of evil is evidence that God exists and they rejoice. (Which suggests that a world without evil would be nothing to rejoice about.

We have done that argument to death. do a search including Leibniz and problem of evil in this forum.

Or an atheist might say, 'How come the only instrument in the Universe that can detect God is the human imagination?'

You accept supernatural things can be measured then? with what?

And as if by the will of God, negative evidence becomes positive.

If it is "no evidence of God proves god" is what you are saying we got past "only the true Messiah denies he is the Messiah " bit back at the Life of Brian stage.

However, a good atheist would not be arrogant enough to state that there is no God.

what is a "good" or a "bad" atheist for that matter?
Who is deciding what s a "good" atheist?
You?
and you do not view that as arrogant?

One might say that God is not an old man sitting on the clouds and claim to be an atheist; he might say that Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian Gods are simply fairytales but to claim there is no God one must have a definition for God. To say that God is 'x..y..z' requires a belief that God is 'x..y..z' regardless of whether one denies the existence of 'x..y..z' or not. You can't believe that God is 'x''y''z' and still be an atheist.

So you cant believe that mythical unicorns have horns and also not believe unicorns exist in reality is that what you mean? But one can believe that?

According to Christians, Revelations is as far as God got with His message and it doesn't seem to me to be a happy ending at any level for anyone.

which demonstrates you ignorance of Christianity. As far as one can go and as far as necessary. One doesnt need to go further is the Christians view.

But God loves His creation, no? He is merciful and kind; He sacrificed His only begotten son to cleanse mankind; He created all of existence in six days. God can do as He pleases and have done what He pleases.

already dealt with
Please read my reference to faith and reason and Regensberg on this.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

[/quote]
So, question: Does Revelations constitute positive evidence or negative evidence that the God of the Christians is an evil and cruel God who takes delight in the suffering of mankind whether they be Palestinian, African, Chinese, European, etc.?[/QUOTE]

Answer :NO
Again dealt with back when Marianbad suggested -in error- that the Biblical God told people to rape women and children.

<Norway stuff removed>

marienbad

ISAW just in the interests of accuracy ''in error'' I did'nt suggest ''the Bibical God told people to rape women and children''

I did'nt suggest it someone else did, I happened to agree with them, and secondly I never said anything about children. As a matter of fact the whole focus of the discussion was on just women.

The Bible to you and others may be a sacred book,but to me it is just a book like any other book. I can interpret it any way I wish - after all that was one of the things the Reformation was all about .I can weigh the evidence , examine the sources and consult the experts and then decide for myself the interpretation. Is'nt that what every religion, cult,sect and individual or preacher has been doing for 2000 years ?

My reading of it leads me to believe the God indeed condoned rape and it was an inevitable consequence on that particular passage in the text.

There is no proving it to you or anyone else and no need to- you believe what you want and so do I and others.

I asked before, but I'll ask again because I think it's an interesting question:

If there was no reward to being a Christian and no punishment for not being a Christian (ie. no Heaven, no Hell, no God answering your prayers, no bad things happening if you didn't pray), if all there was to religion was worshipping God for creating us and following all his rules/guidelines on how to live your life; Do you think religion would have survived to this day?

If people were told they had to worship God their whole life for no reason other than people saying they should, and at the end of their life, there's no Heaven or Hell, they just die and there is no afterlife; would there be Christianity now in the modern day. I'm not asking if you yourself would still follow Christianity if those things were removed, rather do you think that over the past few thousand years would enough people have passed on the faith to later generations.

Penn wrote: »

I asked before, but I'll ask again because I think it's an interesting question:

If there was no reward to being a Christian and no punishment for not being a Christian (ie. no Heaven, no Hell, no God answering your prayers, no bad things happening if you didn't pray), if all there was to religion was worshipping God for creating us and following all his rules/guidelines on how to live your life; Do you think religion would have survived to this day?

Judaism has survived for rather longer than Christianity, and doesn't promise an afterlife, etc. From the Jewish perspective, Jews should observe the Law simply because doing so is inherently good. So, yes, religion can indeed survive without a punishment/reward mechanism.

It's an article of faith on the A&A board that atheists can be moral without the promise of reward. It would seem a bit arrogant to assume that religious people can't be.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Well I'm not and nor am I crediting you in particular with being confused; I was challenging a weak position that is strongly held by ISAW.

How can one strongly hold a weak position?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Judaism has survived for rather longer than Christianity, and doesn't promise an afterlife, etc. From the Jewish perspective, Jews should observe the Law simply because doing so is inherently good. So, yes, religion can indeed survive without a punishment/reward mechanism.

It's an article of faith on the A&A board that atheists can be moral without the promise of reward. It would seem a bit arrogant to assume that religious people can't be.

Nothing to do with morality, moreso the act of worshipping a deity with no rewards or punishments. If there was no reward whatsoever, would religion have survived. Would people, having learnt about God and his teachings, have accepted the faith if there was no rewards for doing so, and no punishments for not doing so?

As for Judaism, there is an afterlife. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Eschatology)

Penn wrote: »

I asked before, but I'll ask again because I think it's an interesting question:
{sniped}
If people were told they had to worship God their whole life for no reason other than people saying they should, and at the end of their life, there's no Heaven or Hell, they just die and there is no afterlife; would there be Christianity now in the modern day. I'm not asking if you yourself would still follow Christianity if those things were removed, rather do you think that over the past few thousand years would enough people have passed on the faith to later generations.

Buddhism, Judaism, Shinto, I think. All offer no heaven hell system. but it's a moot point, the desire to live a good life is common to all cultures even atheist ones so I suppose the answer is yes. How that would work out in the aftermath of an existing culture of eternal punishment reward is another thing. I imagine if theism was proved false then theists would react differently from atheists. Possibly a reaction of embracing options that were forbidden but as a reaction to the previous restriction rather than an abandonment of morality.

Nothing to do with morality? Judaism is a highly moral religion, in that its focus is largely on how adherents live, as opposed to what they believe. A good Jew is noe who observes the Law; it’s as simple as that. Morality consists of asking and answering questions on how it is right to live, and Judaism is largely concerned with morality.

Judaism does have a concept of an afterlife today, but it’s a relatively late arrival to the religion, it doesn’t have anything like the central place in Judaism that it has in Christianity, and it’s entirely optional; you can be a perfectly good and faithful Jew without believing in an afterlife of any kind. Ask any rabbi if you doubt me.

So, can religion survive without a belief in an afterlife? If you’re going to allow your beliefs to be formed by the evidence, yes. Even if we concede that Judaism has the concept of an afterlife, it survived for at least a thousand years without it.

Penn ;
If there was no reward whatsoever, would religion have survived. Would people, having learnt about God and his teachings, have accepted the faith if there was no rewards for doing so, and no punishments for not doing so?

I think I see what your getting at and no, it wouldn't survive but the reward mightn't be in the next life. Their are substantial rewards in this life that balance the need for a next life reward. Without them I think it wouldn't even be a religion, it would be sport or being a goth or emo or Fianna Fail supporter.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think I see what your getting at and no, it wouldn't survive but the reward mightn't be in the next life. Their are substantial rewards in this life that balance the need for a next life reward. Without them I think it wouldn't even be a religion, it would be sport or being a goth or emo or Fianna Fail supporter.

Of course. As an atheist I know all too well the rewards that can be had in this life with and without religion, and that morality isn't tied to religion. What I'm getting at is the whole processes of going to mass, praying to God (not for anything in particular as that would be a reward or benefit, but merely because God is deserving of your praise) and worshipping him would have been rejected by so many people if there were no benefits to doing so.

But the benefits (Afterlife, praying to God to help whatever cause or person etc) are something which from my viewpoint, can neither be proven nor disproven. (When I say 'you' in the following bit, I mean other people who aren't me) I can't prove there is no Heaven, but you can't prove there is. You can't prove God helps us if we pray to him, but I can't prove he doesn't. The greatest benefits to following a religion like Christianity cannot be proven, and pretty much can't be disproven either.

That's why I think religion is made up. It offers the perfect rewards, things which the vast majority of people would want, but doesn't have to offer any proof of it. If thousands of years ago, the religion had said that it's not only your soul which goes to Heaven but your whole body does, that could be disproven because obviously the body doesn't go anywhere. Nobody would have believed it. Things like your soul going to Heaven (both things which cannot be seen, measured etc) sounds absolutely great, but it is something which has to be taken on whether you believe that can happen or not, not something which you can prove.

Today, if I wanted to start a religion, you can be damn skippy I'd say there's a Heaven (probably call it something else though

). I'd definitely say that if you pray for something hard enough, the deity I make up for us to worship might grant your wishes. Definitely. These are fundamental ideals and concepts to get people to accept your religion. Offer them loads of things they want but that you don't have to provide.

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW just in the interests of accuracy ''in error'' I did'nt suggest ''the Bibical God told people to rape women and children''

Really To PDN:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76171582&postcount=1460

if you want to rehash the rape issue- no probs, though again you will be bested except or course to your own chorus

you claimed the bible ordered rape or you backed up anothers claim. No matter. i is still making the cvlaim. yu never admitted the error. Similarly others make claims about the growth of atheism ot the majority of it in countries or that christianity is a huge killer of people in history or "no historical jesus" or "bible was made up several centuries after Jesus" and so on But when the ctuyal stats or history are looked into their position is exposed and they dont admit they are wrong.

I did'nt suggest it someone else did, I happened to agree with them, and secondly I never said anything about children. As a matter of fact the whole focus of the discussion was on just women.

I thought the abuse f children wa also dragged into it and i still believe it was but maybe i am in error on that. No matter. You still claimed rape and you claimed it in error and you didnt admit you were wrong.

The Bible to you and others may be a sacred book,but to me it is just a book like any other book. I can interpret it any way I wish - after all that was one of the things the Reformation was all about .I can weigh the evidence , examine the sources and consult the experts and then decide for myself the interpretation. Is'nt that what every religion, cult,sect and individual or preacher has been doing for 2000 years ?

so what? straw men have nothing to do with claiming it orders rape! You were wrong about that claim and you failed to admit you were wrong.

My reading of it leads me to believe the God indeed condoned rape and it was an inevitable consequence on that particular passage in the text.

There is no proving it to you or anyone else and no need to- you believe what you want and so do I and others.

i knew it! the argument about rape having being utterly destroyed you return later with the same argument! as I predicted. And no doubt others will return with Norway is atheist and Jesus never existed and was made up. It is akin to returning with astrology predicts the future

"It is just my opinion " isnt good enough to make a claim like that! Is it alos your opinion that unicorns exist? If it is others opinion that God exists and it is nt necessary to prove anything rationally then why are you in this debate?

Penn wrote: »

Of course. As an atheist I know all too well the rewards that can be had in this life with and without religion, and that morality isn't tied to religion. What I'm getting at is the whole processes of going to mass, praying to God (not for anything in particular as that would be a reward or benefit, but merely because God is deserving of your praise) and worshipping him would have been rejected by so many people if there were no benefits to doing so.

...

That's why I think religion is made up. It offers the perfect rewards, things which the vast majority of people would want, but doesn't have to offer any proof of it.

i think you have missed the point. Christians do things not because of future reward in the future but because they are the morally right thing to do today. It isnt about doing it so you get future payback. thats more a jewish or Islamic notion.

ISAW wrote: »

i think you have missed the point. Christians do things not because of future reward in the future but because they are the morally right thing to do today. It isnt about doing it so you get future payback. thats more a jewish or Islamic notion.

What I'm saying is, would people have become Christians (ie. not Christians yet) in the early days of the religion, were it not for future reward?

I'm thinking back to two thousand years ago, when people preached the Gospels and people who had never heard of Christianity were listening. Would they have become Christians if there were no rewards to doing so whatsoever, and no punishments for not doing so? They are still free to live a moral life and to do things not for reward, but because it's the morally right thing to do. But would they also have accepted that they have to live their lives according to the Bible and gospels etc and worship and praise God and Jesus, and do things they may not have agreed with or may not be morally wrong in their eyes, if there was no benefit?

marty1985

Penn wrote: »

What I'm saying is, would people have become Christians in the early days of the religion, were it not for future reward?

I'm thinking back to two thousand years ago, when people preached the Gospels and people who had never heard of Christianity were listening. Would they have become Christians if there were no rewards to doing so whatsoever, and no punishments for not doing so? They are still free to live a moral life and to do things not for reward, but because it's the morally right thing to do. But would they also have accepted that they have to live their lives according to the Bible and gospels etc and worship and praise God and Jesus, and do things they may not have agreed with or may not be morally wrong in their eyes, if there was no benefit?

I think there was more to it than that. Perhaps you should consider that Christianity brought a new culture that made life more tolerable in Greco-Roman cities, brought charity to the homeless and impoverished, offered an immediate basis for attachments in urban areas (where Christianity spread more rapidly) and so on. Christianity also provided effective nursing services in the face of epidemics, fires and earthquakes. I'd imagine these things had as much to do with it than someone promising rewards in an afterlife.

Added to that, Christian subcultures produced a surplus of females as a result of prohibitions against infanticide (which was usually directed against baby girls) and abortion (which often resulted in the death of the mother). It seems women converted to Christianity at a higher rate than men. This would result in a lot of secondary conversions to Christianity by pagan men. So, perhaps women became Christians for promise of rewards in an afterlife. OR, perhaps it was because they enjoyed a substantially higher status within Christian subcultures than women did in the world at large.

Looking at the history of Christianity, the rewards, it seems to me, were experienced there and then. As were the punishments. So, I don't think it has that much to do with promises of an afterlife, although I'm sure it was a factor, but only one among many.

Penn;
Offer them loads of things they want but that you don't have to provide.

I mention FF and then you post this,:p

joseph brand

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nothing to do with morality? Judaism is a highly moral religion, in that its focus is largely on how adherents live, as opposed to what they believe. A good Jew is noe who observes the Law; it’s as simple as that. Morality consists of asking and answering questions on how it is right to live, and Judaism is largely concerned with morality.

What about these Jews?

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/19/world/meast/israel-rosa-parks/index.html

"I heard him call me 'Shikse,'" Rosenblit wrote on her Facebook page, referencing a Yiddish term for a non-Jewish woman. "He demanded I sit in the back of the bus, because Jewish men couldn't sit behind women (!!!).

Nice guys. Lovely hats. Their women enjoy similar rights to Islamic women. They're living in the 'Dark Ages'.

Larry David is a good Jew.

Penn wrote: »

What I'm saying is, would people have become Christians (ie. not Christians yet) in the early days of the religion, were it not for future reward?

I'm thinking back to two thousand years ago, when people preached the Gospels and people who had never heard of Christianity were listening. Would they have become Christians if there were no rewards to doing so whatsoever, and no punishments for not doing so?

and im saying it has not changed. A minority of people today go on about hellfire or heavenly reward ; christianity to them is about doing the right thing today because it is good today not because they will get a kickback tomorrow.

They are still free to live a moral life and to do things not for reward, but because it's the morally right thing to do. But would they also have accepted that they have to live their lives according to the Bible and gospels etc and worship and praise God and Jesus, and do things they may not have agreed with or may not be morally wrong in their eyes, if there was no benefit?

and Im saying yes they would because doing it because of a kickback or because you get personal gain is more along the selfish or pride lines than altruism.

ISAW wrote: »

what you are saying here is if you Believer in Christ ist therefore you do not believe in Norse gods.

That is logically valid

Okay.

ISAW wrote: »

You have the logic backwards!
With "i do not believe in Norse gods" it does not logically follow that "I believe in christ" nor "I am atheist" either could be true but both cant!

Your problem here is -"which you wouldnt" Because atheism is "i dont believe in God"

so what you are really saying is "i dont believe in a chriatian god or any other gods or supernatural forces" (which he wouldnt) and that DOES MEAN he does not believe in Norse gods.

No, you miss the point again; "I don't believe in God" is a reaction to a claim that a particular God exists.

Atheists do not start with a list of Gods to reject, they deal with each God on an evidential basis. So far, they are unpersuaded by religious arguments. This does not amount to a claim that no God exists, just the ones that have been claimed to exist so far.

The point is that an atheist may well become a non-atheist provided the evidence was compelling enough.

ISAW wrote: »

Well science tries to set up a proposition one can falsify and not one to verify. the verification principle can lead into contradiction or infinite regression.

No, they try to falsify claim which have been validated by, for example, observational data.

ISAW wrote: »

But you can believe in the flying spaghetti Monster or astrology or aliens or unicorns if you wish. when you make claims you assrt are grounded in rationality the onus is on you to produce evidence.

No, an atheist cannot believe these things as there is as much data against them as there is against the existence of a Christian God or indeed the Norse Gods.

We lack faith remember.

ISAW wrote: »

I produced peer reviewed publications citing empirical research. what have you produced?

You produced peer reviewed scientific evidence in support of the existence of a Christian God? Where?

ISAW wrote: »

In other words it may NOT even be as well?

I wouldn't get bogged down in that.

ISAW wrote: »

So does a non atheist! so what?

Wrong, a crazy man banging on about the bible is ample evidence for most people.

ISAW wrote: »

could you not except ther is one thpe of evidence and a hypothesis and one can ether verify i.e. prove true or falsify i.e. prove false ?

Yes, in the context of this argument but I don't see how this is so different from the position I outlined.

ISAW wrote: »

THe "infinite regression" problem above lies in the fact that only ONE tst might falsify but verification can go on and on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Falsificationism
It is commonly believed that Karl Popper rejected the requirement that meaningful sentences be verifiable, demanding instead that they be falsifiable. However, Popper later claimed that his demand for falsifiability was not meant as a theory of meaning, but rather as a methodological norm for the sciences

Then you must believe that spiritualists can commune with the dead and that astrology is an exact science. These claims are falsifiable.

Or do you take the view that all supernatural events outside the bible are the result of some kind of con-trick?

ISAW wrote: »

which is why I referred to faith AND reason and argued on reason and not on faith.
It is why I use standard scientific methods, peer review research etc.
It is also why I pointed out science for example does rely in varying degrees on the faith of practitioners. they believe in something but they eventually use objective evidence to prove it. Although terms like "objective evidence" itself are frequently dismissed by philosophical relativists - sometimes on moral relativist grounds sometimes empirically relativist sometimes sociologically. Some atheists posting here hold conflicting relativism and claim science (incliding sociology and social science and Medicine) isnt relative but morals are relative.

You forgot to mention that all these things are sufficiently explained by evolution.

Indeed, man is not the only animal to develop such skills.

ISAW wrote: »

I think the above is weak and vague. the notion that "only good things happen" and "but they can really be seen as bad things" isnt about the proving thing but about judging whether the thing is good or bad. The THING is the evidence event etc. that is objectively measurable and falsifable or verifiable. the antelope escapes or not. the man survives the disease or not.
The personal significance of the event is related to judgement yes but that has nothing to do with measuring whether or nt it happened.
We have moved on from "earthquakes happen therefore A god exists" and B"god is punishing us" and right through the problem of evil[:i] debate C "God is allowing free will"
you are regressing to

Earthquakes happen/ animals escape/ people are cured as if the events are to be questioned. We did that at the "people were cured in Lourds" stage.

Accept the events happened. i do applaud your trying to focus on the significance of events and what can be said of them. Assume it happened - What is significant for you for example in the passion of the Christ story?

My view of the story of Christ? Theatre - a way for the Jews to convince non-Jews that they have access to an afterlife which the Jews had never claimed for themselves. It gave the Romans a diversion away from the Jews.

If you take away the supernatural elements of the story of Christ, then you are left with a story of political subterfuge which has greater plausibility than the Biblical version.

This would mean of course that the 'Virgin Birth' was actually the result of adultery; thta the rising of Lazarus was nothing more than a Derren Brown trick, etc.

ISAW wrote: »

We have done that argument to death. do a search including Leibniz and problem of evil in this forum.

I was simply pointing out how those with faith can justify absolutely anything.

ISAW wrote: »

You accept supernatural things can be measured then? with what?

With the human imagination! These things are always only seen by imagination.

ISAW wrote: »

If it is "no evidence of God proves god" is what you are saying we got past "only the true Messiah denies he is the Messiah " bit back at the Life of Brian stage.

No, a true Messiah would have to be in communion with God. This is something that the Messiah would know. He might choose to lie about it though in which case: How many other lies were told?

ISAW wrote: »

what is a "good" or a "bad" atheist for that matter?
Who is deciding what s a "good" atheist?
You?
and you do not view that as arrogant?

I make no claims as to my arrogance. I was pointing out that to believe there are no Gods at all would not be agnostic and would require some degree of faith rendering one with that view a non-atheist.

Or a 'bad atheist'.

ISAW wrote: »

So you cant believe that mythical unicorns have horns and also not believe unicorns exist in reality is that what you mean? But one can believe that?

That's my point; people with faith can believe anything without knowing anything.

ISAW wrote: »

which demonstrates you ignorance of Christianity. As far as one can go and as far as necessary. One doesnt need to go further is the Christians view.

An evolutionary dead-end?

ISAW wrote: »

So, question: Does Revelations constitute positive evidence or negative evidence that the God of the Christians is an evil and cruel God who takes delight in the suffering of mankind whether they be Palestinian, African, Chinese, European, etc.?

Answer :NO

Such is the power of faith.

marienbad

ISAW , you really are a strange one, if you don't mind me saying so. I don't have to admit any mistake as I did'nt make one,I and others were not proved wrong. This may come as news to you but you don't get to decide.

It is a book that is open to myriad interpretations, people have been burned at the stake for it.

You believe your version is correct, I believe mine is. Why is that so difficult for you to understand ?

ISAW wrote: »

How can one strongly hold a weak position?

By vigorously defending a weak point.

You strive to be correct and lose sight of what is right.

Or are you of the opinion that Jesus would approve of the 'Christianised' nations?

Penn wrote: »

What I'm saying is, would people have become Christians (ie. not Christians yet) in the early days of the religion, were it not for future reward?
　
I'm thinking back to two thousand years ago, when people preached the Gospels and people who had never heard of Christianity were listening. Would they have become Christians if there were no rewards to doing so whatsoever, and no punishments for not doing so? They are still free to live a moral life and to do things not for reward, but because it's the morally right thing to do. But would they also have accepted that they have to live their lives according to the Bible and gospels etc and worship and praise God and Jesus, and do things they may not have agreed with or may not be morally wrong in their eyes, if there was no benefit?

No offence, but is there a certain circularity in the reasoning here?

If people believe that, e.g., when they die they will go to heaven where there will be unlimited vanilla icecream with the topping of your choice, it is because they belong to a religion which teaches that. They don’t typically come to believe this, and then seek out a religion which teaches it in order to join that religion. Nor, if they aren’t raised believing this, do they come to believe it because they hear a street preacher say it, and it never occurs to them to doubt him. Belief comes from religion, not the other way around.

In other words, the notion that people become Christians because they find the idea of Christian heaven both convincing and appealing strikes me as not very realistic. I’ve known quite a number of adult converts to Christianity, and I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone for whom this was a factor in their conversion. (To be quite frank, excessively simplistic notions of heaven and hell are more often something of a barrier; people find them either incredible or childish.)　 And I’ve no reason to think that things were very different in the past.

I think if you want to understand religious conversion - particularly "waves" of religious conversion, such as Christianity undoubtedly enjoyed in the early centuries after the death of Christ - you have to look at the social function of religion, and the place it has in people’s lives. The expectation of heavenly reward is a very striking idea, but it actually comes pretty low down on the list of things that motivates people, and gives meaning and significance to their lives, compared to having a secure place in society, enjoying good relationships with family and community, and finding a framework within which to address questions about how to live. It’s the effectiveness of Christianity - or any other religion - on those levels that we need to look at to explain its success (or lack of it).

There are some distinctly secular explanations for the early growth of Christianity, one of them being the distinct social disadvantage of being identified as Jewish in the Roman Empire after the First Jewish War, and even more so after the Second Jewish War. The rise of Christianity is paralleled by a collapse in the number of Jews in the empire at this time, and a likely explanation is that an awful lot of Jews saw identifying as Christians as a way of retaining much that was familiar and comforting and important to them, without suffering the social and political disadvantages of being seen as Jewish.

marty1985 wrote: »

Added to that, Christian subcultures produced a surplus of females as a result of prohibitions against infanticide (which was usually directed against baby girls) and abortion (which often resulted in the death of the mother). It seems women converted to Christianity at a higher rate than men. This would result in a lot of secondary conversions to Christianity by pagan men. So, perhaps women became Christians for promise of rewards in an afterlife. OR, perhaps it was because they enjoyed a substantially higher status within Christian subcultures than women did in the world at large..

I'm sorry, where did you get this?

I was under the impression that the human tendency was to over-produce boys; boys that could go to war.

Besides, since the dawn of time, everything that man does is to please women; women are the most valued and important to men.

This is where Christianity falls down; it attempts to subvert human nature.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No offence, but is there a certain circularity in the reasoning here?

If people believe that, e.g., when they die they will go to heaven where there will be unlimited vanilla icecream with the topping of your choice, it is because they belong to a religion which teaches that. They don’t typically come to believe this, and then seek out a religion which teaches it in order to join that religion. Nor, if they aren’t raised believing this, do they come to believe it because they hear a street preacher say it, and it never occurs to them to doubt him. Belief comes from religion, not the other way around.

In other words, the notion that people become Christians because they find the idea of Christian heaven both convincing and appealing strikes me as not very realistic. I’ve known quite a number of adult converts to Christianity, and I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone for whom this was a factor in their conversion. (To be quite frank, excessively simplistic notions of heaven and hell are more often something of a barrier; people find them either incredible or childish.)　 And I’ve no reason to think that things were very different in the past.

I think if you want to understand religious conversion - particularly "waves" of religious conversion, such as Christianity undoubtedly enjoyed in the early centuries after the death of Christ - you have to look at the social function of religion, and the place it has in people’s lives. The expectation of heavenly reward is a very striking idea, but it actually comes pretty low down on the list of things that motivates people, and gives meaning and significance to their lives, compared to having a secure place in society, enjoying good relationships with family and community, and finding a framework within which to address questions about how to live. It’s the effectiveness of Christianity - or any other religion - on those levels that we need to look at to explain its success (or lack of it).

There are some distinctly secular explanations for the early growth of Christianity, one of them being the distinct social disadvantage of being identified as Jewish in the Roman Empire after the First Jewish War, and even more so after the Second Jewish War. The rise of Christianity is paralleled by a collapse in the number of Jews in the empire at this time, and a likely explanation is that an awful lot of Jews saw identifying as Christians as a way of retaining much that was familiar and comforting and important to them, without suffering the social and political disadvantages of being seen as Jewish.

I don't see why you should make a claim of circular reasoning and follow with what you did. It seem reasonable to say that people will do things now for a reward that will come later. Have you never worked for a week in hand?

Desperate times call for desperate measures; simple and desperate people can be convinced to do anything and if they can be convinced that there is a world beyond this one then they can be persuaded to die for a cause.

If you are the product of a society that was persecuted for a cause then that cause would be the antithesis of your cause.

And we all all products of a society that was at some time persecuted for a cause.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I don't see why you should make a claim of circular reasoning and follow with what you did. It seem reasonable to say that people will do things now for a reward that will come later. Have you never worked for a week in hand?

I’m sorry, I didn’t explain myself clearly enough. The suggestion is that people become Christian because they believe that there is an afterlife in which they will be rewarded for doing so.

But there is no reason to suppose that they believe such a thing unless they are already Christian.

A variation on this argument might fly to explain why people who have been raised Christian remain so, but as an explanation for why they would convert to Christianity it does look circular to me; they converted to Christianity because they held beliefs which, on examination, only Christians would hold.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Okay.

No, you miss the point again; "I don't believe in God" is a reaction to a claim that a particular God exists.

Atheists do not start with a list of Gods to reject, they deal with each God on an evidential basis. So far, they are unpersuaded by religious arguments. This does not amount to a claim that no God exists, just the ones that have been claimed to exist so far.

which is only saying that atheists rely on the falsification principle or Popper rather than the verification principle of the Logical positivists and the associated problems of relying on, the verification Principle.

Also you loaded the example with "which he wouldnt"

The point is that an atheist may well become a non-atheist provided the evidence was compelling enough.

Which is shifting the burden to theists to supply verification of "there is a god" rather than
appealing to positive evidence that there is not a god!

No, they try to falsify claim which have been validated by, for example, observational data.

I have no idea how you observe "no god"

No, an atheist cannot believe these things as there is as much data against them as there is against the existence of a Christian God or indeed the Norse Gods.

so if you are not claiming a lack evidence for them and are instead claiming there much evidence against them
-Care to produce this evidence you claim against the existance of god?
You are aware "Evidence against" is not "lack of evidence for"as yu just made that point above with respect to falsification.

You produced peer reviewed scientific evidence in support of the existence of a Christian God? Where?

produced peer review research showing the claim that Norway was 70% atheist or the claim that the US is atheist and it is growing there is wrong.

Yes, in the context of this argument but I don't see how this is so different from the position I outlined.

Because you are saying there are two types of evidence. There may be different hypotheses but evidence is evidence proving or disproving the hypothesis. Evidence does not change into non evidence or another type of evidence because it proves or disproves something. You are adding unnecessary complications and that fudges what evidence actually is and encourages people to discount some evidence which is just as valid.

Then you must believe that spiritualists can commune with the dead and that astrology is an exact science. These claims are falsifiable.

Or do you take the view that all supernatural events outside the bible are the result of some kind of con-trick?

Mostly yes to the first and no to the second question.

You forgot to mention that all these things are sufficiently explained by evolution.

Indeed, man is not the only animal to develop such skills.

You are making the standard memetics error of confusing biological evolution of a species and sociological evolution of a society.

how does biological evolution explain values, morality, judgement?
how can you scientifically determine when an atomic weapon must be used?

My view of the story of Christ? Theatre - a way for the Jews to convince non-Jews that they have access to an afterlife which the Jews had never claimed for themselves. It gave the Romans a diversion away from the Jews.

If you take away the supernatural elements of the story of Christ, then you are left with a story of political subterfuge which has greater plausibility than the Biblical version.

This would mean of course that the 'Virgin Birth' was actually the result of adultery; thta the rising of Lazarus was nothing more than a Derren Brown trick, etc.

And you evidence the Bible and christianity was a made up trick is?
And why is it still around and if atheism is a "better way" why are people not all atheist?
And how come atheistic societies were all failures?

With the human imagination! These things are always only seen by imagination.

No! Things like miracles have been observed. Your answer may be it happened by chance but it was not imagined!

Your lack of faith meands you cant accept what can not be explained by known laws like science. But in the past people didnt know as they do today and might well regard modren science as witchcraft. You however can not rely on that argument as believing in advancements which are indistinguishable from witchcraft are themselves by definition beliefs which indistinguishable from aliens or witchcraft.

No, a true Messiah would have to be in communion with God. This is something that the Messiah would know. He might choose to lie about it though in which case: How many other lies were told?

It is a Monty python joke based not on logic being disregarded by those who want to believe!
Just like you want to believe science is sufficient for explaining everything.

[Deleted User]

ISAW wrote: »

Which is shifting the burden to theists to supply verification of "there is a god" rather than appealing to positive evidence that there is not a god!

It's not shifting the burden of proof. Positive claims require positive evidence.
We cannot provide positive evidence that there is not a god because it is a negative position (one that none of us are actually arguing for.)
If you are claiming that there is a God, then you have to provide the evidence, otherwise, we're going to stick to the null hypothesis.

ISAW wrote: »

No! Things like miracles have been observed. Your answer may be it happened by chance but it was not imagined!

No, miracles and other such supernatural events have never once been verified to have been observed in circumstances that exclude the possibility of delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.
If you think otherwise, you need to present them for us to be convinced.

King Mob wrote: »

It's not shifting the burden of proof. Positive claims require positive evidence.
We cannot provide positive evidence that there is not a god because it is a negative position (one that none of us are actually arguing for.)
If you are claiming that there is a God, then you have to provide the evidence, otherwise, we're going to stick to the null hypothesis.

This contradicts what you were saying!

Earlier you proposed falsification. i.e that one can provide a test to say something like "there is a God" is shown to be false.
now you are suggesting verification which is what you earlier stated is pointless!

No, miracles and other such supernatural events have never once been verified to have been observed in circumstances that exclude the possibility of delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.

That is an "only true scotsman" fallacy. If you were given an example of a miracle that satisified all these conditions you would add another.

and again you are relying on verification not falsification.

How about the long list of cures at Lourdes? They are VERIFIED by independant medics. they were observed, were not fakes, not misidentified or exaggerated and dont contain lies.

Are you going to add another "true Scotsman " criterion?

If you think otherwise, you need to present them for us to be convinced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau#Notable_cases

Pieter De Rudder

Visited Lourdes: After his healing, from 9 to 15 May 1878

Pieter De Rudder was a farm labourer, born Jabbeke July 2, 1822, died March 22, 1898[6]. His recovery from a broken leg (1875) is one of the most famous recognized Lourdes miracles (a bronze cast of his bones is exhibited in the Lourdes Medical Bureau[7]), although it is not supposed to have occurred in Lourdes itself, but in a sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes at Oostakker near Ghent (Belgium, East Flanders).
[8].
Jeanne Fretel

Visited Lourdes: 10 May 1948.

Age 31, a student nurse from Rennes, France. Tubercular peritonitis with complications for seven years, extreme emaciation and oscillating fever. Comatose when brought to Lourdes, was given a tiny fragment of the Eucharist and awoke. Reported being "instantly and permanently cured" later that night while lying in her wheelchair beside the spring. She had not yet bathed in or drunk the water. Her cure was recognised officially on 11 November 1950.
Brother Léo Schwager

Visited Lourdes: 30 April 1952.

Age 28, from Fribourg, Switzerland. Multiple sclerosis for five years. His cure was recognised on 18 December 1960.
Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon

Visited Lourdes: 15 May 1952.

Age 34, from Bouille-Loretz, France. Multiple sclerosis for three years. Her cure was recognised on 16 July 1956.
Marie Bigot

Visited Lourdes: 8 October 1953 and 10 October 1954.

Age 32, from La Richardais, France. Arachnoiditis of posterior cranial fossa (blindness, deafness, hemiplegia). Her cure was recognised on 15 August 1956.
Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre

Visited Lourdes: 21 September 1954.

Age 26, from Carmaux, France. Budd-Chiari syndrome (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis). Her cure was recognised on 31 May 1963.
Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli

Visited Lourdes: 5 June 1958.

Age 27, from Patti, Sicily. Tuberculous osteoarthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right leg. Her cure was recognised on 26 May 1965.
Juliette Tamburini

Visited Lourdes: 17 July 1959.

Age 22, from Marseilles, France. Femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years. Her cure was recognised on 11 May 1965.
Vittorio Micheli

Visited Lourdes: 1 June 1963.

Age 23, from Scurelle, Italy. Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. His cure was recognized on 26 May 1976.
Serge Perrin

Visited Lourdes: 1 May 1970.

Age 41, from Le Lion-d'Angers, France. Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache, impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became a wheelchair user, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in April 1970, he felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was able to walk unaided. His cure was recognised on 17 June 1978.
Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa

Visited Lourdes: 24 December 1976.

Age 12, from Paterno, Sicily. Ewing's sarcoma of right knee. Offered amputation by her doctors, her mother refused and took her to Lourdes instead. On returning to Italy, her tumour rapidly regressed until no remaining evidence existed, although it left her tibia angulated, which required an operation (osteotomy) to correct. Her cure was recognised on 28 June 1989. She went on to become a nurse.
Jean-Pierre Bély

Visited Lourdes: 9 October 1987.

Age 51, French. Multiple sclerosis. His cure was recognised on 9 February 1999.