Atheism isn't a belief?

Humans have certain limitations that we must deal with. One of those is that our brains can't directly access reality. It can only access reality through the senses. If we want what's in our heads to match what's outside, we have to use our senses. Simply closing your eyes and imagining a universe doesn't work. Sure, the results can be neat -- it gave us the Star Wars, Star Trek, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer universes, which I greatly enjoy visiting -- but it does not give us an accurate model of reality.
The terms that existent objects must meet is simply to ensure that we're placing the concepts in the right spot. 'Buffy' doesn't belong in reality, as she doesn't meet the terms. 'Sarah Michelle Gellar', OTOH, does. Now personally, I'd prefer it if Buffy met the terms, since she's like twice as hot as Sarah Michelle Gellar (obviously, I don't rate 'hotness' only on physical appearance, since they look identical), but reality doesn't take my personal preferences into consideration.Anyway, I simply make a demand of myself -- I demand that I use a method that works. However, it's rather difficult to find a method to verify: "Invisible aliens are beaming thoughts into my head."
However, as you seem to think it's just one alien doing this, and that this alien is beaming thoughts into multiple people's heads, and is doing it so that people can know something about it; we can check for consistency among people who think an alien is beaming thoughts into their head, as that would be evidence of a common source.
What we find is that once you expand beyond the common source that is the Bible, people are all over the map. Thus, there cannot be anything external to them unifying their thoughts on the matter. Thus, your hypothesis is disproved.
So, even if there is something external beaming thoughts into people's heads, those thoughts cannot be trusted. And, as falsehoods apparently abound, the probability that any one person happens to be correct is vanishingly small; so, the most stringent means of verification would have to be used to ensure that these falsehoods were filtered out. However, nothing external is even needed, as if people are simply using their own imaginations, it's expected that they'll be all over the map. So, until there's evidence that aliens are actually beaming thoughts into people's heads, there's no need to even try to attempt the gargantuan task of verifying if someone happens to have something right. It can all be dismissed out-of-hand as the products of active imaginations, as this is the most likely scenario.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-24-2005 02:14 AM

Science is working with the objectively verifiable evidence. It is revealing layer upon layer of a complexly interwoven universe. And every avenue it follows leads up to one inescapable question. Why? Science has done only what it was meant to do. Deliver us to that sub-destination. Why? The mistake made is not being prepared to get off the vehicle at the sub-destination.And it's not that we don't make this mistake all the time in this respect. It is human nature to mistake such things. In the Bible, God has lots of Laws. Both in the OT and the NT. People make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of the law is that we should follow the Law. They don't realise is that the Law is a vehicle, not a sub-destination. The purpose of the Law isn't that we follow the Law. The purpose of the Law is to deliver us to a sub-destination - which is simply this: to realise that we can't keep the Law. That's all. But folk don't see this, they turn the vehicle into a destination, into a Religion and think what they'll be okay if they keep the Law.Its the same thing.... "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears (listens to, heeds) my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him and he with me". Revelation 3:20. This oft used verse isn't actually referring to Jesus speaking to the unbeliever but to believers. Nevertheless it demonstrates the point clarified elsewhere. He is knocking, you have to 'hear', you have to 'open' the door - he won't come in if you don't want him (you have been given free will). And the best way to 'hear' is to take your fingers out of your ears. Seeking is the process by which your fingers are extracted from your ears. There is indeed a broader stuff going on but it is aimed at the central issue: the basis for athiesm. The rational for your athiesm is what is being investigated and in my reponses I'm trying to show that these things: empirical evidence. God not doing an objective miracle, contradictory teachings of man etc, can be shown not to be rational basis for athiesm - given that there are overriding rational reasons why these things say nothing against the existance of God.But I understand that you may think I am not being clear or am diverting all over the place. You are within your rights to think so. I can't prove i'm not. The discussion isn't obligatory and there will be no offence taken or sense of me having 'won' if you chose not to discuss it further. I would however thank you for the patience and honestly in your dealings thus far. Discussing with you is a pleasure.

Purpledawn.
There has been much that I have said (all of what I have said probably), +infinity, 0, -infinity, valleys and valley floors etc., cannot be established in fact. They are arguments that can only be weighed in the light of what an individual who reads them decides is reasonable. If someone decides that any of it is unreasonable then that's their right. I can't point to peer reviewed papers to establish any of it. It is discussion - not proof. Faith and belief....In asserting the things I do, I can only try to build a picture on the basis of what folk might think is reasonable. Their choice. In discussing what a Christian is or isn't I do the same. There is no more reason to get into a 'proof' about this particular point as there is getting into a proof about any other point. In discussion, I am not appealing to proofs I'm appealing to reason.The athiests postion can't be proven (I think), it can only be reasoned. So reason is the canvas for discussion - not proof. Maybe we will one day get into the 'proofed' definition of a Christian. In the meantime though, a reasoned, not proven defintion is all that is on offer.Posing 'Christian' is used as a means of questioning the rational behind athiesm. It is not an end in itself. Your desire to discuss what constitutes a Christian, although a valid an important one, would divert to far away from the core of the issue. It will have to wait. Sorry.

Some largely universal attributes of people?- Man has conscience. Everybody has one and whilst the level of adherance to it may vary (although by not as much as one would imagine) everybody seems to be able to judge between right and wrong - irrespective of culture or era. Every legal system in the world presumes this to be a possession of every person. No one will get off on a charge by claiming that their conscience is different than anothers. In punishing people the world takes the position that a person has the same conscience as everybody else and the same ability to obey or disobey it - but in committing a crime has chosen to ignore it.- Man is eternal. I mean by this that athiests are relatively a tiny minority in the world. One of biggest question that man has ever asked is "Where am I going". The concept of eternity is one that the vast majority of the world share from the most stupid to the most intelligent. Remarkable uniformity here. Again, specualtive models can be erected to explain it but there is not a shred of evidence that this attribute is anything but an inbuilt aspect of what it is to be human- Man fears death. And he doesn't fear it because he thinks that when he closes his eyes he is going to sleep forever. Who would fear that? He fears it precisely because he doesn't know what is there. He fears it because he senses that there may well be something on the 'other side' and doesn't know if it will be bad.The bible speaks clearly on the reasons why man has these attributes and explains why they work the way they do - in a tremendously detailed and internally supported way. Not bad for a jumble of books written by a rag tag bunch of people over many years. There isn't a book in the world which compares to it in that senseNeither is there any naturalistic explaintion for these things. People can model all they like about "carry over from our evolutionary past" but totally unfounded speculation it remains. There is not a shred of evidence that the model is a correct one. Nothing.So there you have it: some universal, consistant messages beamed into every head in the world that has ever lived. And one book which describes and predicts it all.Your definition of 'reality' is self-defined. You are entitled to do this but are not entitled to impose this definition on everybody else. If you want to assert your definition is true then the onus is on you to prove that YOUR reality is THE reality. Stating that your definition of reality is "the way, the truth and the light" is countered by a man named Jesus who said the same thing. Millions believe him and don't believe you. Your entitled to your defintion of reality as they are theirs. One thing is for sure. Both can't be right! D.S., you rest on the shoulders of giants past who embarked on the impossible and succeeded. It may be seem difficult but unless one is to try one can't comment on impossibility or otherwise. Try it. Sit down with a pen and paper some evening. Assume a Creator God exists (without picking the Biblical God) and start putting down things you could say about him based on what you see around you. You would find there is a remarkable amount. You'd fill pages - just based on reason.One thing that would happen where you to carry out such an exercise would be that God would become so big (to have been able to do what he did) that your mind would completely boggle. You may come to realise that slings and arrows you fire at him (if he existed) are as effective as trying to sink an ocean liner with a BB gun.And this only using your reason!This message has been edited by iano, 24-Aug-2005 12:28 PM

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

quote:

---

In discussion, I am not appealing to proofs I'm appealing to reason.

---

Personally, I don't think you know what reason or proofs are.

quote:

---

The athiests postion can't be proven (I think), it can only be reasoned. So reason is the canvas for discussion - not proof.

---

However, IMO, you do need to support your reasoning though. You are very quick to tell people they are wrong or that their view is unreasonable or not logical, but when asked to show support as to why, you jump to the I'm-not-providing-proofs-I'm-only-appealing-to-reason excuse. Even to reason we need facts whether true or assumed to make a conclusion. You fail to provide that support for your reasoning.

quote:

---

Your desire to discuss what constitutes a Christian, although a valid an important one, would divert to far away from the core of the issue.

---

I do not wish to discuss what constitutes a Christian. I already showed you that Christians can't agree on what constitutes a Christian.YOU made the claim that my Christian was not a true Christian and that since his journey led him to atheism, that his belief was not true.You made vague references to Bible support for that claim. I asked that you provide the specific verses that support your statements. That's not asking for proof. That's asking that you support your statements which you attributed to the Bible.In your battle against atheism you have alluded many many many times to the need to believe and desire to know God for his presence to be made known. Start at the destination you said and take the journey.I showed you an example of someone who did start at the destination, he had the belief, he had the desire, but the journey took him away from belief.In my Christian's mind he believes he is saved, he is a Christian, he is seeking a closer union with God, but the journey took him away from belief.So your reasoning is flawed. That is what we are discussing.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Science cannot explain why human beings exist. Nor can it tell us why we are self-conscious individuals.

---

I disagree. I think that science is starting to better understand the function of the human brain since it began studying it. Consciousness is likely a consequence of our very complex, powerful brains which are capable of very abstract thought.

quote:

---

Science can tell us a great deal about our physical make-up. Science cannot explain why the mind exists and functions as it does.

---

I disagree. Cognitive Psychology studies and develops theories regarding this very subject.

quote:

---

Science can enable man to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capable of wiping out the entire human race. Science cannot remove the causes of war by changing peoples attitudes and behaviour

---

I disagree. People used to believe that people with smaller brains were less intelligent, or that women were less intelligent, or that people with African features were less intelligent, but science demostrated eventually that this was wrong, and attitudes began to change.

quote:

---

Science can study the results of human behaviour. Science cannot explain the principles involved. It can say nothing about love, justice, freedom, beauty, goodness, joy or peace. It cannot assess ethical values or moral principles, nor can it distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

To say that science can offer explanations for everything within human experience is to ignore every moral question that has ever been raised.

---

I don't think that most science-minded people would ever say that science can determine aesthetics or morality. [quote]Science can specifically study and analyse trends in religious belief and behaviour. Science cannot supply any reason why either should exist.[quote] I disagree. Any human behavior can be studied from an Anthropological or SocialPsychological viewpoint. For example, do you know what Cargo Cults are?

quote:

---

But billions over the years have believed in God.

---

And a flat earth.

quote:

---

Millions of those have been sane. rational, intelligent, thinking, initially-skeptical people. They are evidence and their evidence demands a verdict.

---

Are the millions of people who believed in a flat earth also evidence of a flat earth?

quote:

---

A reasoned verdict. Science cannot offer any explanation for it.

---

Sure it can.When we don't understand the natural cause for something, we attribute the cause to a magical, supernatural cause.Also, religion is a great justification for control of others; it is a great way to enforce social behavior and rules.

quote:

---

Because God, in the face of the above, is not at all an unreasonable place to start a quest.

---

OK.What God?

quote:

---

Man has conscience.
Man is eternal.
Man fears death.

---

You skipped one:"Man tries to explain the cause of everything he experiences."If Man cannot see how something could have happened naturally, he invents a magical cause, often in the form of Gods.And as our understanding of nature has become greater with the aid of scientific inquiry, god has shrunk.Once, He was directly responsible for almost everything; earthquakes, floods, lightning, conception, drought, etc.Now God and gods have been reduced to tinkering with a few molecules here and there.Have you ever heard of the God of the Gaps fallacy?

All I am saying is that there does not appear to be any good evidence for the existence of a god. It is entirely rational to not believe in something for which there is no good evidence.

Alternatively, we can kick the ball into touch with a theory. Theories may satisfy - but not if you want a definitive. Which is possibly why some, when it comes to vital questions, go looking for something which offers such answers rather than "it could be" and "it may be" and "current research shows that". Something that is not as narrowly confined to the total of possibilites that science is. Science is great a picking needles out of haystacks. But some want to know where the haystack came from. Agreed. Religion can be shown to be a man-made entity. It evolution contains infinitely more data than that for biological evolution. Debunking Religion says absolutely nothing about the existance of God. To say that would be to say that the hoaxs and mistakes which have occurred during the history of the religion of biological evolution are proof that biological evolution itself is foundationless. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that? If you picked a particular God at the start you would be making the same mistake as abiogenesis adherents make in their 'science'. By presupposing particular intitial condition, you subject your results to the charge of unfounded presumption - you found all you limited yourself to finding. Only when you had your model of God reasoned out for yourself should you perhaps then go looking at the God which best fits your model. Basic scientific methodology my dear Schraf

It is entirely irrational to say there is no good evidence when you haven't looked for the evidence on its terms. A birdwatcher who goes crashing through a shopping mall screaming "ARE THERE ANY LESSER-SPOTTED BASHFULWIDGERDO'S HERE!!" might claim after much looking that there isn't any. The bird watcher who realises that his job is to assemble a model of what might allow him to observe said creature and who then applies said model - in the woods, is likely to succeed - if such a creature exists.An appropriate search is always required to obtain any evidence of anything. Appropriate Chiroptera, appropriate. Where would evidence of God be found? That is the question. Not forcing Science/Empircal to do what it patently can't do

True, man was once at the hub of a wheel and all he could know was that Goddidit. Now man has forged out along the spokes of the wheel - only to find at the end of every spoke, an all encompassing rim, to which every spoke leads. Silence at the end. Mystery at the end. "We cannot know"What man does then, caught as he is on the horns of a dilema "I must know" and "I don't know" is to speculate wildly. And that is not Science. That's a Religion called Science.God is the rim of the wheel and everything inside it is a result of Goddidit. Knowledge of how Goddidit doesn't shrink God, it reveals the nature and creativeness of God s'all.God of the Gaps indeed...

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

Hello, iano.Alright, then, what sort of evidence do I look for? When I find this evidence, how do I determine whether it really is indicative of god as opposed to some other explanation?

What's the purpose in that?

Decision/Game Theory, as well as the genetic predisposition of a social animal. (Those who were predisposed to behaviors which were not conducive to living in a group were selected against, as humans are not suited for solitary existence.) Prove it. Any genetic predisposition towards liking to die would kinda be selected against. Let's count the number of invisible aliens that have been verified to exist. Hmmmm... I'm stuck at zero. Pointless exercise. It couldn't even be said that it was done on purpose. If it's assumed it was done on purpose, there are an infinite number of possible reasons for it to have been done. So, it's a task that would take infinitely long to accomplish, and all it would accomplish is to list an infinite number of possible gods. I see that you haven't a clue as to what it means to be an atheist.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-24-2005 12:27 PM

I know, I know. you don't have to tell me again. H.M.S Objectivity is bravely charting the finite oceans of the Universe of All There Is to Know. And up there in the crows nest, helping no end in its navigation, is himself, Petty Officer Seraph. Putting down his favorite edition of Alison in Wonderland, our intrepid explorer raises his eyeglass to scans the horizon once again only to cry out for the umpteenth time: "LAND AHOY... not because there is any...but because no cause is cause a plenty"Shiver me timbers it does not...

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8