Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Cen taurus wrote: »

What evidence for alien life ? Science hasn't even identified any yet, but that does not stop people believing there is more than likely alien life out there someone (including me)

By understanding how life, as we understand it, occurs, and what conditions can be favourable to life, it is all evidence that it can occur elsewhere in the universe. We already know life exists (here) in many forms, even in conditions that are extremely inhospitable.
When looking elsewhere you simply look for conditions that might be compatible with ours.
Scientists have identified many hundreds of extrasolar planets already, some very similar, cosmologically, as our planet. Since these exist, that is further evidence that life can also exist.
You don't need to actually find alien life to have evidence that supports the plausibility of alien life. Similar conditions and the sheer magnitude of planets and moons, and our growing knowledge of comets (thanks to landing on one) all help us gauge how plausible the concept of alien life existing is.
If someone says that they KNOW alien life exists on a particular extrasolar planet currently, as a fact, then they would be open to criticism, but based on what we DO know about the universe currently, and life in general, there is nothing foolish about recognising that life might indeed exist somewhere other than earth as earth is nothing unique as far as we know.

TheLurker wrote: »

Yes. I've already presented them to you. Lets try again.

Humans are known to have hyperactive agency detection, particularly in times of stress or feelings of the world is out of control. What this means is that we are prone to making up agents in the world that we then believe are directing actions around us.

This is a psychological explanation for why religious belief exists that does not require the existence of deities or supernatural agents in nature to explain the phenomena.

So we have a strong competing theory for religious faith that works within current biological models and does not require the introduction of any supernatural agents.

Couple that with the absence of any verifiable evidence for the existence of said supernatural agents beyond claims made by believers (explained above), then the theory of the existence of deities ends up having no support and not explaining phenomena.

As such it is reasonable to reject it, until a time that future evidence is presented that lends it more support.

Now what part of that do you have trouble with?

The exact same fallacies that I identified yesterday, and that you did not reply to.

Cen taurus wrote: »

The exact same fallacies that I identified yesterday, and that you did not reply to.

I must have missed that. Can you link the post that dealt with the 'fallacies' of this conclusion. I will happily tear it apart for you.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

That's always struck me as funny, Jesus's early years, the fact they're not recorded at all (the only thing I can recall off hand being mentioned is him going to the temple and saying "I am in the house of my father" or words to that effect).
According to christianity, this guy is the most important guy in the entire history of the world, there never has been nor never will be a person as important as him...and yet somehow, only his last three years are worth writing about or talking about?

It is consistent with the idea that Jesus was a con-man, the MO of hazy past is useful it allows them to claim what ever they like. For example Jesus claiming he was from Bethlehem in order to fulfil prophecies. There is no evidence the census that called his father back to the town actually happened but this gives an excuse for how he was born there without people knowing about it, and the explanation that he was sent away avoids any awkward situations when someone from the town actually claims he ain't ever heard of him.

orubiru wrote: »

Hinault,

You are definitely more reasonable than a lot of other posters here.

The truth is though that you need to provide some links or references for these claims you are making.

I am happy enough to believe that Jesus really did exist and I even think there is a lot of value in the teachings of Jesus.

However, I would really like to read up on the historical evidence.

Regarding the supernatural claims surrounding Jesus, I do not believe those at all and would definitely need to see some proof for that.

Part of me can understand the sceptic who doubts, or who cannot accept, that Jesus Christ was God.

One could look at the absence of evidence and conclude that the absence of evidence vindicates ones view.

FWIW, I look at what the gospels record. I look at the words and deeds ascribed to Jesus.

I look at the testimony and the actions of the 12 men that he selected as his disciples. Men who are human, and men who are as weak as I am in several regards (peter denying Christ, judas betraying Christ, thomas doubting Christ), but strong in many other regards.

So even the men who sat beside Christ, eat with Christ, walked and listened to Christ, they doubted at times. And they were there as the events unfolded!

Faith is not about about physical evidence in my view.
Faith takes more than physical evidence.
Faith involves times of doubt, times of uncertainty, times of absolute belief and conviction.

hinault wrote: »

Part of me can understand the sceptic who doubts, or who cannot accept, that Jesus Christ was God.

One could look at the absence of evidence and conclude that the absence of evidence vindicates ones view.

FWIW, I look at what the gospels record. I look at the words and deeds ascribed to Jesus.

I look at the testimony and the actions of the 12 men that he selected as his disciples. Men who are human, and men who are as weak as I am in several regards (peter denying Christ, judas betraying Christ, thomas doubting Christ), but strong in many other regards.

So even the men who sat beside Christ, eat with Christ, walked and listened to Christ, they doubted at times. And they were there as the events unfolded!

Faith is not about about physical evidence in my view.
Faith takes more than physical evidence.
Faith involves times of doubt, times of uncertainty, times of absolute belief and conviction.

Because, once again, if you have physical evidence what need do you have for faith?

orubiru wrote: »

I will have a stab at this.

Cen Taurus, please correct me if I am wrong here.

You are 100% correct. It is reasonable to reject a claim if you do not believe the evidence of that claim or if the claim is unverifiable or if the evidence does not exist.

So, I can understand why people are Atheists.

However, if I were to misunderstand Atheism as a belief that that there is no God then absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

I would be mistaken though as this is not what Atheism is.

Atheism is not an attempt to prove that God does not exist, nor does it state that God does not exist. It is a lack of belief and we have already covered the reasons for lacking a belief in God.

Therefore mindless rambling about fallacies or whatever is not relevant as the premise on which those ramblings is based (that Atheists claim there is no God) is false.

True, Cen Taurus does seems to be in the 'atheists say they know God doesn't exist' camp.

To answer that charge, I don't know God doesn't exist. I am pretty certain humans made up him, and the odds of something made up actually existing are pretty small.

If I said to you that everything in Star Wars actually happened you would probably not believe that. You know Star Wars was made up, and it is very unlikely that George Lucas some how managed make up something exactly (or even closely) to how it actually happened.

hinault wrote: »

The claim is a strong one. But let's examine the claim in it's context.

The author is writing about a person who the author accepts as God. Isn't it logical that if the author feels this way about his subject that there may well be sufficient material to write books that would fill the world?

A more likely explanation is it is a defensive response to the same charge being made at the time, where is the material?

It is a very common tactic among cults to both produce no evidence for claims while simultaneously claiming that the evidence exists and is over whelming. Scientology does this constantly.

hinault wrote: »

Even if the world was filled with books accounting for stuff not recorded in the gospels, there would still be folk 2,000 years later who would say that all of that never happened.

Probably. But the point is that that having no records of Jesus before he arrived on the scene is consistent with something making up their own history.

Take yourself out of your religious faith for a minute and imagine that Jesus was a con-man, like Jim Jones or L. R Hubbard. The claims by early Christians remain entirely consistent with this assumption.

TheLurker wrote: »

Would that not be an argument for any religion that has followers?

I don't see anything that the followers of Jesus did that countless others have done in cults? Many followers of cult leaders have doubts (which is more than ofte a good thing), many are so devoted to the follower that they kill or die for them.

It is a scary though that the fanatical devotion of cult followers would inspire others to the truth of their cause.

I can't speak for other systems of belief because I don't know what they espouse. Nor am I interested in what they espouse to be honest.

What I can say is that Catholic belief is founded on the concept of consent (despite what the naysayers say )

You must freely, and without duress, consent to believe in Christ.
I am entirely free to accept or reject the Catholic view of Christ.

And the gospels tell us that where people are told about Christ but decide to reject what they are told, that the disciple is to move on to the next listener.

hinault wrote: »

I can't speak for other systems of belief because I don't know what they espouse. Nor am I interested in what they espouse to be honest.

What I can say is that Catholic belief is founded on the concept of consent (despite what the naysayers say )

You must freely, and without duress, consent to believe in Christ.
I am entirely free to accept or reject the Catholic view of Christ.

And the gospels tell us that where people are told about Christ but decide to reject what they are told, that the disciple is to move on to the next listener.

My point was if strong faith of followers is a reason to follow a religion wouldn't that be a reason to follow any and all religions?

Christians regularly say that they were convinced by reading how the followers of Jesus reacted to the 'truth' that he was the son of God. But then all religions and cults have followers who react strongly to what they think is the truth of the claims made by the head of the cult/religion? If this is a reason why Christianity is probably true, is it not a reason why all religions are probably true?

The alternative of course is that the faith of believers has little if anything to do with the truth of the claims, and there are far many other ways to get someone to follow you than to actually have supernatural powers.

orubiru wrote: »

I think that this is all OK actually.

You have to accept then that if there is no evidence on which to base this faith then many people will simply lack faith?

I would go so far as to say that any reasonable person would see that the evidence for the supernatural aspects of Jesus' life is virtually non existent.

If follows then that if someone makes the claim that Jesus died for our sins, and we will all have to answer to Him when we die, then reasonable folks will ask "is there evidence for this?".

An entirely unreasonable response would be "is there evidence that it isn't true?".

I don't lie awake at night worrying that orubiru refuses to accept what the gospel says.

I accept that people are sceptical and that they're entitled to accept/reject what the gospel records.
The people closest to Christ some of them doubted too.
One even betrayed him.