Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Pushtrak wrote: »

Don't make that mistake when talking to geneticists. The ones I've talked to make pains to stress it isn't junk DNA, it is non coding DNA. Very different things.

Also, to make the point that talking about evolution (as used in modern times) is neo-Darwinian is trivially true. It's true, but hardly even worth a passing mention.

The good ones certainly say that. It is non coding as in it does not code for proteins. However, it does have key functionality.

As for neo-Darwinism, true in science circles, but many people are not aware of the distinction and assume Darwin knew all about random mutation. In many ways we are hacking away at a code that defines how DNA dictates the development of an organism from a zygote. The more we hack, the more data emerges.

philologos

HHobo wrote: »

I used the term atheistic to indicate my perspective was distinct from nagirrac's (deistic).

I am assuming you hold logic to be consistant regardless of a person's worldview.

Do you have an issue with my reasoning?

The only issue is conflating atheism with reason and logic.

philologos wrote: »

The only issue is conflating atheism with reason and logic.

I don't think I did. Believe me Phil, I don't need to be told that atheists aren't necessarily reasonable or rational. I was disabused of that idea a loooong time ago.

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't know the mechanism, but as the ENCODE and other projects unfold we will learn a lot more. Random mutation in my opinion and in the opinion of an increasing number of scientists does not account for the amount of variation needed for evolution and certainly not the type of evolution seen in humans over the past 10,000 years.

Think about it logically. The human DNA has to account for building an entire human. Genes code for proteins and everything else in the DNA determines how the 200+ different types of cells are built and interrelate in the human anatomy. The brain alone is almost incomprehensible in terms of how such a structure is built. We still have a way to go in understanding all of it.

Do you think there are a lot of scientists who are now entertaining the idea of some kind of external guiding force in evolution?
If not, you are making the fairly uncontroversial claim that scientists think we still have a lot to learn about precisely how the mechanisms work. I would have no issue with the latter statement and I doubt many scientist would either.

The general theme I have been hearing in advances in understanding evolution have been in the opposite direction to what you seem to be suggesting here. That evolution can take much less time than previously thought.

This is one example. There was one involving grasshoppers too if I remember correctly.
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

I should stress that this is not an area I find overly interesting so I don't pay it more than a passing glance most of the time. I'm not sure what we can gain by two non-experts (in my case at least, not even well lay-educated on the topic) discussing a complex scientific field with incomplete information.

It seems to me that evolutionary biologists haven't changed their minds about the underlying nature of the processes. The overwhelming majority view is that it is a natural and unguided, I mean unguided in the sense of some designing external force - if there are more complex mechanisms that make adaptation more efficient I don't see that as helping your case.

If you can provide evidence that a significant number of scientists have changed their mind in response to recent findings and now favor intelligent design as a more likely mechanism I am certainly willing to take a look. I submit that the status quo remains in the scientific community on this question.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Just for clarity, Darwin knew nothing about the mechanisms of biochemistry so we are talking about neo-Darwinism. In some ways it is unfortunate for Darwin to be dragged into a debate of science he knew nothing about. Darwin was a zoologist and not even aware of Mendel's work nor were most scientists of the time, genetics as we know it started 50 years after Darwin, the physical structure of DNA was discovered 100 years after his time. The discovery in the 1970s that most DNA was not involved in making proteins led to the conclusion that most of the genome is junk. This is the basis for neo-Darwinism, random mutation is a messy process leading to a messy genome, ergo 95% of it is jumk. The more rational conclusion would have been the rest of this genome may have function, we just have not figured it out yet.

The current work on understanding the function of the entire human genome is some of the most exciting science in history. How does a genome make a full organism from a zygote? We don't know, but we will find out, and it won't be because the genome is full of junk I can assure you.

So now you agree that, in fact, the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology is not facing a paradigm shift?

Morbert wrote: »

So now you agree that, in fact, the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology is not facing a paradigm shift?

The modern synthesis dates from the 1930s and has had much development and definement since. It depends on how you define a paradigm shift I suppose. The discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s I would say was a paradigm shift in that we then started to understand the molecular processes and coding behind genetics. Before then the gene (although we didn't understand its chemical structure or how it worked) was believed to be the blueprint for life, instructing the building of individual cells and guiding the develoment of the embryo. The discovery of DNA structure confirmed this view.

This led us down the path of the gene being all that mattered and the concept of the "selfish gene" being the only driver of selection. Random mutations of genes resulting in selection based on adaption to environment. This has been the primary view of genetics since the 1970s and was reinforced when the human genome was decoded in 2003. Genes only occupied 1.5% of DNA, the rest was mainly "junk", carried over from millions of years of random mutations.

What we now know (actually knew for a long time but was largely ignored) is that genes are recipes for making proteins. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the rest of the DNA, what lies between the genes, that regulates the development of individual cells, the embryo and ultimately the organism. It is also very likely that it is this 98% of non-coding DNA and jumping DNA that is the driver for evolution and not random mutation of genes.

This is the paradigm shift. The old school geneticists believe the gene is all that matters and is the driver of evolution. The evidence is pointing elsewhere. Like all paradigm shifts in science it will be resisted and the old school thinkers will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new world, or as Max Planck once said die off before the new paradigm is accepted.

HHobo wrote: »

Do you think there are a lot of scientists who are now entertaining the idea of some kind of external guiding force in evolution?

If you can provide evidence that a significant number of scientists have changed their mind in response to recent findings and now favor intelligent design as a more likely mechanism I am certainly willing to take a look. I submit that the status quo remains in the scientific community on this question.

If you mean does God say "zing" and then a horse appears, then of course not.

The question of a random purposeless universe versus a universe that was designed, including all its natural laws, is a philosophical one. Science should not concern itself with philosophical why questions, not does it typcially. However, there are clearly many scientists who bring their beliefs into the arena, on both sides, atheists who argue for a random, purposeless universe and religious who argue for design.

I have given my thoughts on where I think evolutionary science is leading in my answers to molbert. I agree most scientists do not hold spiritual or religious beliefs, at least publically, although there are many notable exceptions (Francis Collins for example who led the Human Genome project and is the current head of NIH is an evangelical Christian). Although I can see why atheists view science and spiritual beliefs as incompatible, I believe this is flawed reasoning as it is due to a philosophical belief. Science has nothing to do with philosophical belief.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

The modern synthesis dates from the 1930s and has had much development and definement since. It depends on how you define a paradigm shift I suppose. The discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s I would say was a paradigm shift in that we then started to understand the molecular processes and coding behind genetics. Before then the gene (although we didn't understand its chemical structure or how it worked) was believed to be the blueprint for life, instructing the building of individual cells and guiding the develoment of the embryo. The discovery of DNA structure confirmed this view.

This led us down the path of the gene being all that mattered and the concept of the "selfish gene" being the only driver of selection. Random mutations of genes resulting in selection based on adaption to environment. This has been the primary view of genetics since the 1970s and was reinforced when the human genome was decoded in 2003. Genes only occupied 1.5% of DNA, the rest was mainly "junk", carried over from millions of years of random mutations.

What we now know (actually knew for a long time but was largely ignored) is that genes are recipes for making proteins. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the rest of the DNA, what lies between the genes, that regulates the development of individual cells, the embryo and ultimately the organism. It is also very likely that it is this 98% of non-coding DNA and jumping DNA that is the driver for evolution and not random mutation of genes.

This is the paradigm shift. The old school geneticists believe the gene is all that matters and is the driver of evolution. The evidence is pointing elsewhere. Like all paradigm shifts in science it will be resisted and the old school thinkers will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new world, or as Max Planck once said die off before the new paradigm is accepted.

Again, I'll have to ask you for the relevant citations. I don't see a contradiction between random mutations and "jumping" DNA, which simply sounds like horizontal gene transfer.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, I'll have to ask you for the relevant citations. I don't see a contradiction between random mutations and "jumping" DNA, which simply sounds like horizontal gene transfer.

First of all I am not an evolutionary biologist nor a geneticist. My views are not based on reading one or two scientific papers, they are based on trying to keep up with all the developments going on in all the relevant areas of science.

I would suggest you review the various blogs discussing the results of the ENCODE project. It seems like every leading scientists has a blog these days, a good start is Ewan Birley's blog going back to September 2012 when the preliminary ENCODE results were released. There is the usual hysterical ranting betwen atheists and creationist contributors, but beneath that there is the more subtle and reasoned discussion between scientists on what the partially complete ENCODE data is telling us.

Good scientists are very cautious about making conclusions from brand new data. The outrage from some scientists like Larry Moran is interesting, why are they so outraged that "junk" DNA may not turn out to be junk but actually quite important. What is so precious about the idea of "junk" DNA? Why would a scientist cling to a belief when the belief itself was based on ignorance i.e. we did not understand what quite a lot of the genome is responsible for and are now starting to find out.

It certainly appears to me from my reading that the gene-centric view of life is starting to collapse, as is a lot of long accepted "truths" regarding evolution, such as the tree of life (it is clearly a bush, not a tree).

nagirrac wrote: »

Science has nothing to do with philosophical belief.

There are many classicly philosophical questions which are beginning to be explored by science. It may once have been an entirely philosophical question as to what exists beyond the stars we see in the sky. The answer is now at least partially known, more stars! Any question involving the properties of the universe is at least potentially open to scientific investigation. Who will tell us which questions science can explore and which not? What is philosophy today might be established science tomorrow.

As I indicated earlier, I don't know what "random" means when applied to the universe. The opposite of purposeful design is not necessarily pure randomness.

lmaopml

HHobo wrote: »

There are many classicly philosophical questions which are beginning to be explored by science. It may once have been an entirely philosophical question as to what exists beyond the stars we see in the sky. The answer is now at least partially known, more stars! Any question involving the properties of the universe is at least potentially open to scientific investigation. Who will tell us which questions science can explore and which not? What is philosophy today might be established science tomorrow.

Sciencists are in the business of searching out truth in tangible nature. It may seek to answer some questions such as how people appreciate beauty, the 'function' of beauty etc. in the natural world. Which is perfectly fine - and science is a common tool that both an atheistic worldview can appreciate and benefit from and also a theistic world view can appreciate.

However, I have found in my lifetime that when an Atheist believes that his 'worldview' contributes greatly to scientific understanding or indeed is 'liberating' to science or free thought - i.e. Richard Dawkins maintains that the ultimate function of life is to procreate more people, and they procreate more people etc. etc. so on. That the 'purpose' is never ending procreation and that's that - no purpose of the person, just procreation......but never answers the question about 'what' a person is, 'what' their 'value' is, their 'purpose' outside that definition - To my mind he diminishes and 'stunts' any search for truth because he believes he has 'found' it and it resides in knowing this limited arena soley. Mind you some Christians have been known to claim science for themselves too, which is rather silly imo.

Chesterton once said...and broadly what philosophers use their natural ability to 'figure' is.....

What is the good of begetting a man until we have settled what is the good of being a man? You are merely handing on to him a problem you dare not settle yourself.

It is as if a man were asked, "What is the use of a hammer?" and answered, "To make hammers"; and when asked, "And of those hammers, what is the use?" answered, "To make hammers again". Just as such a man would be perpetually putting off the question of the ultimate use of carpentry, so Mr. Wells and all the rest of us are by these phrases successfully putting off the question of the ultimate value of the human life.

I understand that there is a spectrum of belief and worldviews within those who may describe themselves as anything from hard atheists to spiritual agnostic, and a variety in between etc. and not everybody thinks 'like' Dawkins - Wouldn't it be pretty boring if they did?

I think where Christians and Atheists perhaps ( and to my mind unnecessarily ) butt heads in their respective worldviews is that they both claim the 'source' of all truth is different - but imo science as a tool of understanding nature always has and always will belong to mere 'people' with very many worldviews, and being a theist does not negate that one is also a man who may use science as a tool, and not limit oneself to a type of scientism that is both restrictive and not at all satisfying or interesting - imo of course

philologos

To bring this back to a discussion on Christianity rather than varying shades of secular thought, I'd like to follow up on this.

nagirrac wrote: »

Well, that is a great question philologus and one I am quite familiar with as my mid teen daugher is a devout Catholic and as you can imagine dinner time discussions are quite interesting:)

I'm sure they are, I still have some niggling questions

nagirrac wrote: »

I do believe in the historical Jesus, but I do not believe in the truth of revealed scripture, whether Old or New Testament. I would even go as far as to say that some of the more recent discoveries of documents from the era, like those of the Essenes, are more likely to be authentic as they were not subject to censure and modification by the early Christian Church.

1) What do you consider to be the "historical Jesus"? How does this concept of the "historical Jesus" differ significantly from what is in the New Testament?

2) Why don't you believe in or trust the Scripture (Old or New Testament)?

3) Why are documents written by the Essenes "more likely" to be authentic? What basis do you have for your claim?

4) Which findings are you referring to, is it the 1948 Dead Sea Scrolls find at Qumran? (If so, they also found quite a number of Old Testament manuscripts including a perfect match of Isaiah).

5) Why would you say that the New Testament isn't authentic? (particularly given that we have over 20,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament which is far far more than any other ancient text in the world today).

6) What texts were subject to censure? Why do you think this undermines the case for trusting in Scripture?

7) What evidence do you have for modification to the Scriptures?

Naturally, I think a lot of the claims that you've presented are very questionable, I'd like to see what thoughts you have.

nagirrac wrote: »

I see no evidence of a God that intervenes directly in human affairs. If there was such a God, there was no better opportunity to step in than the 20th century with its unprecedented levels of human savagery.

8) Why do you consider God immoral for things that humans have done?

9) How does a deistic God fare any better in light of this?

10) How is it logical that God would create the world and then do a runner?

11) What evidence do you have to suggest that there is a deistic God at all?

I'm interested in your answers. I think that deism is about as questionable as total atheism on this subject, and I don't think there is really much middle ground on this issue - namely do you believe and trust in Jesus.

philologos wrote: »

I'm interested in your answers. I think that deism is about as questionable as total atheism on this subject, and I don't think there is really much middle ground on this issue - namely do you believe and trust in Jesus.

I will get back to you phil but being the day thats in it I have to run and attend to a higher calling

On the immoral God question, assuming that God loves his creation and all creatures in it, I find it a bit immoral that he would not intervene. Maybe not every instance, but for example he could have stopped the major mass slaughters, terminated Stalin and Hitler for example, or shot down the Enola Gay.

I find the deist position more reasonable, a God who designed the universe including all its natural laws (understood and not yet understood) that led to life and evolution, but does not intervene. Why would he have intervened 3,000 years ago to rseolve family disputes but not intervene when Hitler was slaughtering 6 million of his chosen people?

philologos

nagirrac wrote: »

I will get back to you phil but being the day thats in it I have to run and attend to a higher calling

On the immoral God question, assuming that God loves his creation and all creatures in it, I find it a bit immoral that he would not intervene. Maybe not every instance, but for example he could have stopped the major mass slaughters, terminated Stalin and Hitler for example, or shot down the Enola Gay.

I find the deist position more reasonable, a God who designed the universe including all its natural laws (understood and not yet understood) that led to life and evolution, but does not intervene. Why would he have intervened 3,000 years ago to rseolve family disputes but not intervene when Hitler was slaughtering 6 million of his chosen people?

A deistic god doesn't solve the problem that claiming that an omnipotent God should intervene. By your own definition, the god you believe in is immoral, and worse still doesn't care.

The concept of God in Christianity is a great deal different to this. In terms of Scripture, suffering is inevitable. Indeed we believe in a God who suffered for our sin on the cross so that we might one day be glorified with Him. It does mean however struggling with the fallen creation until Jesus returns. There is the assurance that sin has been dealt with in full by Jesus' death and resurrection and there is the assurance that Jesus will usher in a new creation. Indeed one could say from a Christian point of view that suffering even intense suffering has a purpose and is sometimes necessary. Indeed the temporal suffering that pertains to this world is nothing in comparison to what is yet to come (Romans chapter 8 covers this pretty thoroughly). This creation is not perfect and is not intended to be.

The idea that suffering is alien and should be prevented isn't a Christian idea. Indeed, it is the very fact that suffering exists that points to the world having fallen into sin, and it points to our need for a Saviour, and for the coming restoration of all creation for those who believe and trust in Jesus.

The Christian concept doesn't shy away from suffering, it acknowledges that it is real and it has a purpose ultimately. It also acknowledges that evil will reign as a result of the fall, and that this will be one day no more. Unlike Buddhism we don't claim that evil is an illusion. Nor is there any form of karma. Indeed how could there be if an inherently blameless, holy, just and merciful Saviour was nailed to a cross because of it?

Indeed if I look to the life of Joseph in the context of Genesis we see this:

Genesis 50:15-21 wrote:

When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “It may be that Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the evil that we did to him.” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this command before he died: ‘Say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” Joseph wept when they spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

This is one of the most powerful handlings of suffering from a Judeo-Christian view that you're ever going to get.

What do you mean by family disputes? Moreover, if mankind has rejected God, and if mankind has separated themselves from Him, why do we deserve God's intervention? The reality is we don't, we didn't even deserve it in the case of Jesus rescuing us from sin.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

So now you agree that, in fact, the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology is not facing a paradigm shift?

... no paradigm shift allright ... it's just facing extinction ... from the new kid on the block ... Intelligent Design!!!

J C wrote: »

... no paradigm shift allright ... it's just facing extinction ... from the new kid on the block ... Intelligent Design!!!

You have one thing right, it is a kid. In more ways than being new (relatively speaking). It has all the bluster of youth, with little to no knowledge.

J C

Pushtrak wrote: »

You have one thing right, it is a kid. In more ways than being new (relatively speaking). It has all the bluster of youth, with little to no knowledge.

... that's what conservative older people often say about youth ... Atheism has had 'it's day in the Sun' ... but it's now time to move on ... and let the next generation of thinking take over!!!

Jesus loves you ... and wants to Save you ... when you eventually stop believing that He doesn't exist.:)

Brian Shanahan

Pushtrak wrote: »

You have one thing right, it is a kid. In more ways than being new (relatively speaking). It has all the bluster of youth, with little to no knowledge.

Actually ID is older than Evolution, it is simply Creationism with all the mentions of the word "creationism" excised from books and pamphlets.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually ID is older than Evolution, it is simply Creationism with all the mentions of the word "creationism" excised from books and pamphlets.

Yes, true, but my point related to the new face aspect of it. And also, my point wouldn't have worked if I didn't differentiate, so... :pac:

Benny_Cake

There is already a thread devoted to creationism, take the discussion there folks.

J C

I used to be an Atheist ... but now I don't believe ...
... that there isn't a God!!!:)

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

I used to be an Atheist ... but now I don't believe ...
... that there isn't a God!!!:)

Taking the position that there is no god isn't a position of belief. It is simply the default position when there is no evidence for a hypothesis. Just like with the Celestial Teapot Hypothesis of Bertrand Russell, it is the position you should take if you are acting logically.

"There is a god" (no matter which god) is the belief position in this case.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Taking the position that there is no god isn't a position of belief. It is simply the default position when there is no evidence for a hypothesis. Just like with the Celestial Teapot Hypothesis of Bertrand Russell, it is the position you should take if you are acting logically.

"There is a god" (no matter which god) is the belief position in this case.

The position that there is no God is a belief. Beliefs are independent from evidence in the sense that you believe what you believe, the actual ontology or corresponding configuration of the universe notwithstanding. I understand what you are saying but I don't think it is strictly true. You would have the default disbelief (as in not actually a belief at all) only about concepts or claims you have never been exposed to. Once you are exposed to a claim you will form a belief. You will either consider the claim (true or likely true) or (false or likely false). The belief that God's don't exist is the rational position to take in light of the staggering paucity of evidence but it is a belief. I would make a distinction between positive and negative atheism of course, but even in both of those cases, there is a belief at work.

There seems to be a reluctance amongst atheists to accept that they hold a belief on the question and I think the reason may be the laughable attempt that some religious people make to equate atheism and religious faith. Moronic statements like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" loudly demonstrate the egregious stupidity of the person making them and are not claims that atheists need to be defensive about. Claiming that atheism is a faith position comparable to religious faith is exactly like the claim that not believing in Bigfoot is an exactly equivalent position of faith as that of those who do believe in Bigfoot. The same is true of UFOs, fairies or any other unevidenced claim, no matter how popular it may be.

We all “believe in gravity”. That it is easily demonstrable doesn’t alter the fact that we have a belief about it. By the same token, we have a belief that we are not all submerged beneath a giant ocean. “Tofflegrinds” are giant blue creatures that bear a startling resemblance to Ann Widdecombe which inhabit every urban area on earth. They are hundreds of meters tall and emanate a loud grating sound that can be heard for hundreds of miles. Before reading about them just now you had no beliefs about “Tofflegrinds” at all. You do now. You believe they don’t exist. I think you’re probably right! You are probably very, very glad they don’t but that’s besides the point. If on the other hand I had described say a “Silocanthus-Grenarian” which is a small sea-horse like creature that lives exclusively on the sea floor in regions where depth and fresh water interaction create a very specific salinity that they require, you might have been a lot less sure of the existence of such a creature. You will be leaning one way or the other, no matter how slightly. You will have a belief about them. Perhaps you will grant their existence on the basis of plausibility and the lack of any motivation on my part to lie about them, these kinds of factors, or perhaps you will have judged me to be a notorious liar and assume I’m probably just making them up.

It seems implausible, though I will grant possible, that you would be perfectly balanced on the razor’s edge of belief, though I am still not sure if that would qualify as no belief at all. The grander the claim, gods and the like, the less plausible that position seems to me. When particular character traits are described as in the case of the Christian god, it seems altogether outlandish that someone would have no opinion at all on the likelihood of its existence.

TL;DR Version: You are quite right that disbelief is the rational position when presented with an unevidenced claim but it is a belief position.

Fanny Cradock

HHobo wrote: »

It is my opinion, honestly stated. Did you just call me a dishonest?

Curious how the word "humble" seems to have disappeared. I've not called you dishonest. Instead, I called you out on your insults and how you sought to frame these insults as humble and honest opinions.

HHobo wrote: »

If one supposed that by fiat, one is not rational. This is self-evident.

Given that I've mentioned anything about supposing by fiat I don't get your point.

HHobo wrote: »

No. We have thounds of living eye-witnesses to the miracles of Satya Sai Baba. You could go to India today and interview them yourself, if you so desired. They will talk about Sai Baba raising the dead etc. and how he is omniscient and omnipotent. I don't find these claims convincing. People have invented such fabrications since the dawn of humanity.

If you find the two thousand year old second-hand report, translated and copies numerous times, of 500 eyewitnesses compelling, you must surely find the first-hand testimony of thousands of living eye-witnesses extemely so. Do you or will you dismiss these claims out of hand?

Indeed, we do have witnesses to other alleged miracles. But simply because somebody claims a miricale doesn't mean that each claim carries equal weight. You apply the same principle in your life and that's why you think that a certain type of God is more probable then others. And so too with miracles.

In terms of contemporary accounts Craig Keener has written a two volume work on reports of miracles within Christian circles. (Audio interview here.) I suppose if we are both being fair we would evaluate each claim on its own merit. I've had a look at Sai Baba over the last week and I can't say that I am impressed with the man or his miracles. On the other hand, I think that the NT is a reliable collection of documents. That they happen to report miracles doesn't bother me. Can you say the same? If people are interested in why I place my confidence in the NT accounts then this interview with Daniel Wallace might be of interest. There are also a number of interesting debates between Wallace and sceptic Bart Ehrman on Youtube. All this said, I don't expect somebody to come from scepticism to believing in miracles because it says so in a book.

At this point I feel justified in throwing your closing question right back at you. "Do you or will you dismiss all claims of the miraculous out of hand"? And if so why?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Curious how the word "humble" seems to have disappeared. I've not called you dishonest. Instead, I called you out on your insults and how you sought to frame these insults as humble and honest opinions.

Humble is vital to the point is it? You really find it “curious” that I didn’t restate myself verbatim when dealing with the honesty portion of your accusation?
Or are you snidely insinuating that I am not at all humble?

You did call me dishonest. You claimed I was not giving an opinion but that I was trying to be insulting. Just above “how you sought to frame these insults as humble and honest opinions”. Was that actually the case, that would make me dishonest. It is a pretty clear accusation. “I've not called you dishonest.” <- That looks a lot like a lie given your statements.
It was my honest, humble (is that better?), opinion. In my experience Christians don’t treat the evidence for Christianity honestly. They privilege it to a massive degree and deny the obvious parallels with other faiths. The deny it is equivalent to other comparable forms of evidence and give reasons they will openly admit are not convincing when the same arguments are used as justifications for other faiths’ supposed evidence. This has been my experience. It is based on that experience that I said that this was where I find Christians become dishonest and irrational.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given that I've mentioned anything about supposing by fiat I don't get your point.

“If one presupposes that the NT is a reliable source of documents dealing with the life, death and resurrection of Christ then the accounts of his post-crucifixion existence are indeed evidence that he was divine. This is self-explanatory.”
If one presupposes that, one is not rational. This is self-evident. The point is that we don't assume, in the normal run of things, that any source is perfect or entirely relaible. Even were a source reliable on many things, it could be completely wrong on other. Any historian who jazzed up their accounts of historical events with miracles and the like (and I am led to beleive many did) were considered reliable in a very general sense but the miraculous claims were dismissed as rubbish. Similarly, exaggerated troop numbers and these kinds of fudged facts are often ignored while the report in a general sense is considered reliable. It is not rational to assume "This book is relaible" and then when evaluating a fantastical claim later made in it to suppose "Well, I think this book is reliable, therefore I should credit these outrageous claims as being reliable too". Much of the writings on Mohammed are considered quite reliable and match much of the supporting historical evidence. I am willing to bet that you believe there was a man named Mohammed who did many of the reported things but that you don't believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Indeed, we do have witnesses to other alleged miracles....

....At this point I feel justified in throwing your closing question right back at you. "Do you or will you dismiss all claims of the miraculous out of hand"? And if so why?

Note: I edited the last quote for brevity. Probably futile given the length of this post but worth a shot!

I don’t in principle. If it just eye-witness testimony or second hand report, then yes. People are notoriously unreliable. Miracles act in opposition to established reality and on that basis alone I would need to see some very compelling evidence. Nobody has ever presented any evidence of any merit. You dismiss Sia Baba after looking him up for a bit and you’re not impressed. Fair enough. I wasn’t either but you are dismissing the claims of thousands of eye-witnesses. I would too. It’s the giving of unwarranted credibility to the bible that I would part ways with you. If thousands of people who witnesses events first-hand can be wrong and by now there will also be all manner of written reports and testimonies which all must also be wrong, why not the bible. You apply different levels of skepticism to the two accounts. If you approach the bible without presupposing anything about it, it is just as unconvincing as the miracles of Sai Baba. I would bet any sum that sooner or later there will be people announcing that they have encountered the risen Sai Baba.
Do you dismiss the miracles of Mohammed? If so why? For his miracles there is similar evidence to the biblical ones . He was impressive enough to spawn a religion that could well overtake Christianity in adherents. It even considers much of the biblical account to be true. Surely these miracles warrant a deep investigation?

Brian Shanahan

HHobo wrote: »

The position that there is no God is a belief...

No it is not. When there is no evidence for something "it doesn't exist" is the default logical position. Next you'll tell me my lack of belief in unicorns or pisheógs is itself a belief.:rolleyes:

We all “believe in gravity”...

You might, but anyone who has an understanding of 16th century science doesn't (yes that badly out of date). Depending on how far you got before finishing up with your science education, you'll know that gravity is either a force acting on all bodies or a distortion in the space time continuum (I love that word). It exists, it has plenty of evidence, it is real. To believe in gravity is as sensible a position as believing in the chair you sit on. Again you don't believe in something which has been proven to exist, because belief is a function of something which has no conclusive evidence as to its existence.

TL;DR Version: You are quite right that disbelief is the rational position when presented with an unevidenced claim but it is a belief position...

So not believing is believing? Next you'll be telling me that war is peace, love is hate, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and 2+2=5.

JimiTime

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it is not. When there is no evidence for something "it doesn't exist" is the default logical position. Next you'll tell me my lack of belief in unicorns or pisheógs is itself a belief.:rolleyes:

You might, but anyone who has an understanding of 16th century science doesn't (yes that badly out of date). Depending on how far you got before finishing up with your science education, you'll know that gravity is either a force acting on all bodies or a distortion in the space time continuum (I love that word). It exists, it has plenty of evidence, it is real. To believe in gravity is as sensible a position as believing in the chair you sit on. Again you don't believe in something which has been proven to exist, because belief is a function of something which has no conclusive evidence as to its existence.

So not believing is believing? Next you'll be telling me that war is peace, love is hate, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and 2+2=5.

It is completely accurate to say that atheism is the belief that gods don't exist. The fact that some atheists insist that 'NO, ITS THE NON BELIEF IN DEITIES' is rather silly. Its the same thing.

Not to mention, people who call themselves atheists will have had to consider the question. I.E. They are not simply without belief, as if they never considered the question. They call themselves atheists because they have arrived at the opinion, and believe that gods don't exist. If they simply never considered the question, they wouldn't even call themselves atheist.

JimiTime wrote: »

It is completely accurate to say that atheism is the belief that gods don't exist. The fact that some atheists insist that 'NO, ITS THE NON BELIEF IN DEITIES' is rather silly. Its the same thing.

So, you know better what perspective someone has than the person who has that perspective? Interesting. Of course, you don't. If someone comes up to you with a random claim, you can accept it, reject it or have no reason to do either. Having no reason to do either isn't some neutral agnostic position, as theism is an affirmation of a belief, and atheism is not having done so.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it is not. When there is no evidence for something "it doesn't exist" is the default logical position. Next you'll tell me my lack of belief in unicorns or pisheógs is itself a belief.:rolleyes:

Quite right. They are beliefs in the sense I was talking about. i.e. you have a belief position. Is it ture to say the following:
"You believe that unicorns or pisheógs are not real." Your belief corresponds with reality. Happy days!
Lack of positive belief is not identical to having no belief at all. If you think it is, you can make no distinction between your position on pisheogs and someone who has never heard the word. You have evaluated the evidence (or lack thereof) for pisheogs and come to the conclusion that there is no such thing.

The other person's thought on the topic were this

"....."

These two things are not identical.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You might, but anyone who has an understanding of 16th century science doesn't (yes that badly out of date). Depending on how far you got before finishing up with your science education, you'll know that gravity is either a force acting on all bodies or a distortion in the space time continuum (I love that word). It exists, it has plenty of evidence, it is real. To believe in gravity is as sensible a position as believing in the chair you sit on. Again you don't believe in something which has been proven to exist, because belief is a function of something which has no conclusive evidence as to its existence.

Are you telling me you don't beleive in gravity, apparently my belief that there is such a thing is hundreds of years out of date!

More likely, you are under the false impression that our recognition of something known to be true is not a belief. You are suggesting, I think, a distinction between a fact and a belief. Inside a human mind they are synonymous. Do you believe any given fact is true?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So not believing is believing? Next you'll be telling me that war is peace, love is hate, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and 2+2=5.

See now, I said no such thing. Not believing is having a belief about a proposition, not the belief that the proposition is true.
Propositon X is not true. In colloquial conversation we charaterise that as a person's "beliefs" on the topic.

If someone asked me "What does Brian believe about God?"

If I respond by saying:
"He doesn't believe in God."
you would be completely baffled by this response. I responded to a question about what you believe by talking about what are the complete opposite of beliefs. Nonsensical gibbering surely.

or

"He doesn't believe anything about God"
This is simply untrue. You are familiar with the concept and you openly reject it. You do believe something about the concept of God, specifically that it is bogus.