Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You keep using that phrase. It does not mean what you think it means.

That remains to be seen. By means of argumentation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinarily well susbstantiated hypotheses.

You keep using that phrase. It does not mean what you think it means.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes I see a big difference between ideas that are well substantiated, partially substantiated, and not at all substantiated. If there is quite literally nothing at all what so ever that supports a claim someone has made then I do not go around believing that claim. I see nothing wrong with that.

And the problem that the world isn't behoven to naked empiricism? That there are a myriad of ways of concluding things? And that those arguments can be evaluated and found compelling?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinarily well susbstantiated hypotheses. Failing one, you've not gotten off the ground.

What position? I have not expressed one.

Krauss' interesting hypothesis. You were supposing yourself in a more advanced position than I weren't you? With what where you advancing yourself?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Probably. There is a reason why there is over 33,000 branches of Christianity alone, let alone all the other religions people subscribe to outside that category. When people simply make stuff up and declare it to be true then there is no real methodology by which to reconcile those differences.
I don't think they just make stuff up, it's a bit more nuanced than that.

Here I am afraid you speak for yourself. For me belief is not a choice. If there is no reason to believe X then I simply do not believe X. I do not choose to believe it, or not. If you gave me an empty box there is absolutely no switch I can flick in my brain to "choose" to believe it full of money for example.
Oh I only speak for myself, sorry if I hadn't made that clear.
I take it from past conversations with many people on many forums that there does exist people with a credulity so labile that they in fact can choose what to believe. Even where there is a lack of even a modicum of substantiation for the claim.

I am not one of those people. Unless someone can actually provide a shred of even a modicum of evidence, argument, data or reasoning which suggests that a non human intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe then I am afraid I will continue to be entirely unable to believe such a proposition.

I bet you do make choices in what to believe though, you might chose between capitalism and socialism, or believe in man made climate change or that it's all just a cycle of nature. But 'I believe in that because of the evidence' you say and so dos'e the person who believes the opposite. Nothing comes with absolute proof, we decide on a balance of probality. It's why science call things theory's not facts. Their is a chance that it might be disproved by later evidence.

Belief in God requiring proof? For some the fact that we are here or that anything is here is a sort of proof. God is as likely as big bangs or constant state. After that it all extrapolation from what we experience.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

It might help if believers didn't act with such certainty that their version is the only right one.

Probably. There is a reason why there is over 33,000 branches of Christianity alone, let alone all the other religions people subscribe to outside that category. When people simply make stuff up and declare it to be true then there is no real methodology by which to reconcile those differences.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Lets tell the truth, we chose to believe

Here I am afraid you speak for yourself. For me belief is not a choice. If there is no reason to believe X then I simply do not believe X. I do not choose to believe it, or not. If you gave me an empty box there is absolutely no switch I can flick in my brain to "choose" to believe it full of money for example.

I take it from past conversations with many people on many forums that there does exist people with a credulity so labile that they in fact can choose what to believe. Even where there is a lack of even a modicum of substantiation for the claim.

I am not one of those people. Unless someone can actually provide a shred of even a modicum of evidence, argument, data or reasoning which suggests that a non human intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe then I am afraid I will continue to be entirely unable to believe such a proposition.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You posit part-substantiated ideas and suppose them carrying more weight than unsubstantiated ideas.

Yes I see a big difference between ideas that are well substantiated, partially substantiated, and not at all substantiated. If there is quite literally nothing at all what so ever that supports a claim someone has made then I do not go around believing that claim. I see nothing wrong with that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your position remains as makey-uppy as mine

What position? I have not expressed one. I have merely discussed how the idea there is a god is unsubstantiated entirely. That is, after all, what the thread is about. So what part of my position is makey uppy given my position is just that the claim there is a god is unsubstantiated?

Once again: We find ourselves in a universe and we do not know how or why. It is an open question. There are many hypothesis being put forward. Some are substantiated. Some have just been plucked out of dark bodily orifices and are not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated. The god claim, or the claim that the universe has only existed for 1 second when it was actually created with everything in the place we now find it, are two examples of people simply making stuff up based on nothing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Applying what you've already said in the matter re belief and faith:

Since the commitment being made (decision to believe) is made because it's considered worth making, the evidence must of course be retrofitted. The decision to believe is leading, not the evidence.

And seeing through the lens of faith (aka trust and hope) is not so much seeing as it is trusting and hoping that the evidence is indeed objectively pointing towards what is believed.

Would that be about right?

That's a kinda forensic approach but sounds about right. End of the day, you have to be true to yourself and what you feel best represents your hopes and aspirations and supports them. A way to live.

tommy2bad wrote: »

The thing is once you make the commitment it's hard to be completely objective about the evidence. You start seeing things through a lense of faith.

Applying what you've already said in the matter re belief and faith:

Since the commitment being made (decision to believe) is made because it's considered worth making, the evidence must of course be retrofitted. The decision to believe is leading, not the evidence.

And seeing through the lens of faith (aka trust and hope) is not so much seeing as it is trusting and hoping that the evidence is indeed objectively pointing towards what is believed.

Would that be about right?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. So you believe in God exists because he's (or rather, that concept is) worth believing in. That you hope and trust that your belief is well founded and true is faith.

Would you agree that without evidence, your hope and trust is blind - relying solely on your own view that God's existence is something worth believing in (or preferable to alternative things you could believe in).

The thing is once you make the commitment it's hard to be completely objective about the evidence. You start seeing things through a lense of faith.
What to me looks like the work of God might look like random chance to a non believer.
It becomes a balance of probality and the scales are weighed by faith.

I heard the expression 'live in the leap' somewhere and I think it best describes my position, make the leap of faith but don't land on the other side.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A big part of the problem is religion.

I think I'll have to disagree with you - the big part of the problem is pride and greed!

Why strive for a paradise tomorrow when we know that we can cultivate the garden here? Therefore the religious hierarchies spend a lot of the time selling the line that "there will always be poor people, and they are poor only becauce they deserve to be poor" (the well known jam tomorrow principle).

You misunderstand what 'poor' means to a Christian. Poor means not only those who are struggling to feed their families and are our very own family, but it also means those who are poor in Spirit too.

These can come in any form, they can be very rich, but devastatingly poor because their heart is restless and knows no rest except in what they are told feeds their soul, but it never fills them.

And then of course you've got the problem that organised religion has one main purpose, the maintenance and increase of power into the hands of the hierarchy (hence all the threats of excommunication recently over the non-abortion abortion law). And poor, hungry, uneducated people are easier to keep under your thumb than prosperous, full and educated people.

Well, Brian, you are perfectly free to believe that we are calculating and want to take over the world to have 'power', but I think you are very hasty in your estimation, because we are just people, we are not a 'hierarchy' we are quite simply people who are 'organised', and power is not where the best of us live - chop off the Kings head! Doesn't quite fit!

I'm sorry we let you down so much, that you see only a 'regime', others don't, but that's not good enough. I wish it were different, I'll spend my life trying to make a difference to that perception - I'm sorry you feel that way.

tommy2bad wrote: »

A lot of it is trust and hope. Or love if you prefer as Jesus once said "All you need is Love" or it could have been John Lennon, I often mix them up

Okay. So you believe in God exists because he's (or rather, that concept is) worth believing in. That you hope and trust that your belief is well founded and true is faith.

Would you agree that without evidence, your hope and trust is blind - relying solely on your own view that God's existence is something worth believing in (or preferable to alternative things you could believe in).

A lot of it is trust and hope. Or love if you prefer as Jesus once said "All you need is Love" or it could have been John Lennon, I often mix them up

tommy2bad wrote: »

Because somethings are worth believing in! Why would you believe competition was better than cooperation or vise versa? Why believe that democracy is better than dictatorship?

Okay. I get that sense

I have no evidence to support the concept of a God, in fact theirs far more evidence of a lack of God/gods. None the less I have faith and believe

.

What is 'faith' in this context? You believe because it's worth believing. Once you find it worthy the belief follows.

But I don't confuse faith with evidence,

The Bible seems to equate it. Indeed provision of evidence seems to be something God majors in both in Old and New testaments

faith can lead to evidence but in itself it evidence of nothing more than that you believe.

You'll have clarified what you mean by faith above. I'll try to understand this then..

Cheers

Manach

The advantage of religion is that it just the opposite of the utopian ideas. Since the eclipse of the sense of community, various competing ideologues have proclaimed the perfectibility of man if just do/follow X (Burleigh). It never works as planned, because of man's inherently flawed nature (as per Steven Pinker) or original sin as it is known (K. Minogue). So some scapegoat is found and blames for the woes of society. Back in the day, used to be the British, now the Church, and soon the EU superstate. Religion promotes useful civic and moral pride and lays the foundation of a society (borrowing from Chesterton) - its absence uncuts that sense of real community and instead we have just a servile state.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A big part of the problem is religion. Why strive for a paradise tomorrow when we know that we can cultivate the garden here? Therefore the religious hierarchies spend a lot of the time selling the line that "there will always be poor people, and they are poor only becauce they deserve to be poor" (the well known jam tomorrow principle).

And then of course you've got the problem that organised religion has one main purpose, the maintenance and increase of power into the hands of the hierarchy (hence all the threats of excommunication recently over the non-abortion abortion law). And poor, hungry, uneducated people are easier to keep under your thumb than prosperous, full and educated people.

I think it's called the pie in the sky when you die principal when talking about religion.:D
I disagree that religion is a big part of the problem as religions tend to promote a better chance of a better afterlife on the basis that you produce a better before life here on earth. You are closer to the truth when you say organised religion has one purpose, the maintenance and control of power.
But that's a human failing; organised humans always fall into the trap of maintaining power to those that have it. Organised religion is just around longer and has become better at it!

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes we do, and it does, because there ARE people who reach out and try to get that message across to see Christ,

A big part of the problem is religion. Why strive for a paradise tomorrow when we know that we can cultivate the garden here? Therefore the religious hierarchies spend a lot of the time selling the line that "there will always be poor people, and they are poor only becauce they deserve to be poor" (the well known jam tomorrow principle).

And then of course you've got the problem that organised religion has one main purpose, the maintenance and increase of power into the hands of the hierarchy (hence all the threats of excommunication recently over the non-abortion abortion law). And poor, hungry, uneducated people are easier to keep under your thumb than prosperous, full and educated people.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is ... the evidence of things not seen."

I believe (i.e. I am convinced of..) because I have faith (a.k.a. spiritual evidence). Just like I believe anything else - because I have evidence.

Why would you assent to this? On what basis? If you have no evidence to support the belief then the belief is blind. Surely?

Because somethings are worth believing in! Why would you believe competition was better than cooperation or vise versa? Why believe that democracy is better than dictatorship?
I have no evidence to support the concept of a God, in fact theirs far more evidence of a lack of God/gods. None the less I have faith and believe. But I don't confuse faith with evidence, faith can lead to evidence but in itself it evidence of nothing more than that you believe.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah, it's a problem with how we use words. Believe might mean 'to be convinced of something' but that's not how it would have been used up until recently,

Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is ... the evidence of things not seen."

I believe (i.e. I am convinced of..) because I have faith (a.k.a. spiritual evidence). Just like I believe anything else - because I have evidence.

'I give assent to this'. This is where choice comes in, unlike how now we use believe as a synonym of know.

Why would you assent to this? On what basis? If you have no evidence to support the belief then the belief is blind. Surely?

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a believer, I have absolutely no idea what those words mean (i.e. chose to believe)

Whilst one can argue about the nature and validity of evidence (in it's most elemental form, evidence is that which brings about belief) one doesn't chose whether or not to believe.

Rather, one is convinced (or not) by the evidence. You might weigh it up, put it to the test, wrestle with it. But ultimately it's not a matter of choice (in any arbitrary sense). You are brought to belief by the evidence itself, the only choosing involved is how it is you reckon to assess it.

Yeah, it's a problem with how we use words. Believe might mean 'to be convinced of something' but that's not how it would have been used up until recently, not in a faith context. It comes from 'to allow' and would orignaly have meant something more like 'I give ascent to this'.
This is where choice comes in, unlike how now we use believe as a synonym of know.

I think it's pretty much a truth that when one searches in earnest, and know their own warts and all, and seek the face of God, want to know the 'truth' that Pilate wondered about....and Jesus says he quite literally embodied, that they will find it, but also find out to their astonishment that God was always with them and sought them out first - and they start on the path having known him, and can stay or wander....

Just like the Isrealites circled the walls of Jericho, he circles hearts until the walls tumble that we build around them.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Lets tell the truth, we chose to believe

As a believer, I have absolutely no idea what those words mean (i.e. chose to believe)

Whilst one can argue about the nature and validity of evidence (in it's most elemental form, evidence is that which brings about belief) one doesn't chose whether or not to believe.

Rather, one is convinced (or not) by the evidence. You might weigh it up, put it to the test, wrestle with it. But ultimately it's not a matter of choice (in any arbitrary sense). You are brought to belief by the evidence itself, the only choosing involved is how it is you reckon to assess it.

willabur wrote: »

you are quite arrogant for a "lover", I have lived for a couple of years in calcutta. I worked with people trying to believe in themselves, in the power of community not just accept the cards they have been dealt

Well good on you - because the children of Calcutta who are now heading up the schools, and hospitals that once were a place to send your child, are dealing with the stigma of being 'children' of the same Calcutta, with it's casts etc. and the face of it's faithful reflecting not an imported one, but their own features - the face of the poor - the ghetto children who are reaching out and are educated and trying to make a difference are still there, living in the caste system and providing an oasis through love of others..

They aren't honoured so much, just like Christ wasn't honoured in his own homeland. If you tried to help, well good on you -

As for me, I'm crap at helping mostly, I'm too busy surviving these days, mores the pity, and it's my shame, big talker, but not enough action, I carry it with me. So you won't be telling me something new.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And my point that YHWH as is described in the bible being an impossibility still stands, no matter how often you ignore it.

I'm not at all ignoring your point claim. You claim that the laws of the Universe prohibit YHWH. So begin the case to support same.

willabur

lmaopml wrote: »

Aw somebody read about how 'awful' Mother Theresa is - after all she spoke about 'suffering' in the world and how even 'that' can be a valuable tool, and how it is something that every single person will go through one way or the other, and a big lesson because she chose to live her life with others in her own.

Love is not bland. It's something you count on every day, you count on 'justice' in love every single day, when you believe that people 'should' love and seek the good for eachother - when a total stranger loves you when nobody else does, then you realise the value of love and of those who get up off their bum cheeks, whether they are Christian or no, they are seeing humanity and seeing clearly.

you are quite arrogant for a "lover", I have lived for a couple of years in calcutta. I worked with people trying to believe in themselves, in the power of community not just accept the cards they have been dealt

willabur wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude but this statement is so bland that it has no meaning. Everyone is poor and rich? its like a venn diagram with just one circle. No meaning!

It reminds me of speeches that Mother Theresa gave to the poor of Calcutta, utterly mind warping, ultimately harmful conjecture that cost people their lives

Aw somebody read about how 'awful' Mother Theresa is - after all she spoke about 'suffering' in the world and how even 'that' can be a valuable tool, and how it is something that every single person will go through one way or the other, and a big lesson because she chose to live her life with others in her own.

Love is not bland. It's something you count on every day, you count on 'justice' in love every single day, when you believe that people 'should' love and seek the good for eachother - when a total stranger loves you when nobody else does, then you realise the value of love and of those who get up off their bum cheeks, whether they are Christian or no, they are seeing humanity and seeing clearly.

willabur

lmaopml wrote: »

There will always be poor people. There will always be people who think they are rich who in fact are poor, and there will always be people who are poor who are very rich indeed. Love is the measure - it's also what magnifies the Cross.

Foolishness to some - indeed it is a stumbling block.

I don't mean to be rude but this statement is so bland that it has no meaning. Everyone is poor and rich? its like a venn diagram with just one circle. No meaning!

It reminds me of speeches that Mother Theresa gave to the poor of Calcutta, utterly mind warping, ultimately harmful conjecture that cost people their lives

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Wrong. We could right now pretty much permanently eliminate poverty if we wanted to, we have the resources and capacity to do so.

But by not doing so says a lot about humanity.

Yes we do, and it does, because there ARE people who reach out and try to get that message across to see Christ, or there but for the Grace of God go I ( or let's say in the case of an Atheist, their random chance birth ) - so basically get up and do something about it, that may involve 'sacrifice', but it's a common goal. It's something worth doing, because your value is not what you say in totality, but what you do about what you say...and we all will leave this world having said many words.

lmaopml wrote: »

There will always be poor people.

Wrong. We could right now pretty much permanently eliminate poverty if we wanted to, we have the resources and capacity to do so.

But by not doing so says a lot about humanity.

willabur wrote: »

So in essence you need some people to be poor in order to find God - that quite frankly is bizarre, absurd, weird and cruel

There will always be poor people. There will always be people who think they are rich who in fact are poor, and there will always be people who are poor who are very rich indeed. Love is the measure - it's also what magnifies the Cross.

Foolishness to some - indeed it is a stumbling block.