God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

How long would you believe a scientific theory if you were told you could not test it? Not long I imagine. Yet, this is what you ask.

---

We're not talking about science. Unfortunatley you have made the deliberate decision, based upon no evidence, that only what you can detect empirically exists. Prove yourself correct. Or are you only as "deluded" as I am, running with no evidence?

quote:

---

I am sure you are aware of my problems with nos. In that light, I can only conclude that this quip is meant for no purpose but to injure.

---

At the time, if you had posted anonymously, I would have assumed you *were* Nos because your posts are so much alike (support nothing, be brief, be acerbic). Right now you're actually putting forth an effort. Maybe this will continue. If not, you're no better at this than Nos. This was something of an ad-hominem, but I stand by it.

quote:

---

You can't truly believe that quip had substance? The problem is THE FINDING, not the walking with.

---

And you know how to find Him, don't you?But you won't. You won't give up your lifestyle. You won't give up your pride, because you have elevated yourself so far above the "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest" Christians you could not bare to be a Christian, even if you were not "evil", "stupid", or "dishonest".

quote:

---

Think about this. To walk with God, you have to find him, to find him you HAVE FIRST TO WALK WITH HIM.

---

So you're trying to make it circular, huh? Well like you said, to walk down the street you have to find it first. I presume you got to work on Friday morning...so you don't have to walk or drive on it first.

quote:

---

And you take the childish attitude that since I disagree then I must not have looked.

---

I have my doubts.

quote:

---

In fact, I quite respected you.

---

No you didn't. I'm one of those "evil", "stupid", "dishonest" Christians you talked about on your website. And it's not just me that's "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest", it is: me, my family, my friends, the people I go to church with, and most everyone I associate with. I might have pointed out some of your flaws but I didn't talk about your parents, now did I John? Did I talk about whatever sibling(s) you might have? Did I talk about whatever children you might have or will have? Did I talk about your girlfriend? Did I talk about your colleagues? Did I talk about nearly your entire family back at least five generations? Did I?I think I'm being generous with you.

quote:

---

I do not gamble.

---

Nor do I.

quote:

---

Not against god, but against human irrationality.

---

If you say so. If there is a God, what distinction do you think He makes between attacks on himself and attacks on his followers?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-08-2002]

PE,I've attempted one analogy and will now try another.Suppose you have a modern art museum, and one of the exhibits is a cardboard box on an ornate marble stand, roped off from crowd. This exhibit is from a famous artist, who mostly specializes in extremely complicated (read: weird) pottery but has a nefarious sense of humor¹. But of course, the gist here is that we don't know what, if anything, is in the box. People in the crowd speculate. Being modern art nobody can really describe the putative work but several suggestions float about regarding its general nature based upon the artist's previous work: It's a vase, it's a stein, it's a pot, it's a statuary. Nobody can really agree what it is, there are nearly as many hypotheses as there are observers.Suddenly a new idea emerges. Somebody says, "We don't have any evidence that anything is in the box at all!¹ Therefore the box only contains air!" This group then ridicules the others for their unsubstantiated belief in a work that they insist does not exist. The group is then polarized between people who insist the box is empty and people who insist there is something hidden within.Evaluate the logical validity of this view. How is the "Box is Empty" camp superior to the "Something Hidden" camp?Are the "empty-box theorists" any higher up on the scale of reason than the others? Are they justified in ridiculing the others for their lack of evidence, when they themselves have no evidence?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-08-2002]

quote:

---

The point is, whatever is in the box, it may astonish them in an artistic and cultural context, but it would take something special to defy all the laws of nature or be something completely outside the realms of the audience's physical experience and worldview.

---

The box can represent the supernatural. Everything outside the box represents the laws of nature as we understand them in our daily lives. The ones that believe something is in the box are the equivalent of those who believe there is more to our reality (including the laws of nature) even though they have not seen these laws violated. The ones who believe there is nothing in the box are those who assume that the only "things" in the universe that exist are those that can be empirically verified, and therefore, the laws of the universe can never be suspended, though they have no evidence of this.There is a very famous Sagan quote, though I'm sure he would roll over in his grave for my using it: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".To be absolutely convinced that there is nothing beyond what can be empirically defined is no better than to be convinced that there is something outside the empirically defined; neither side has empirical evidence anyway. Further, I feel it is better to believe and be convinced that I have subjective and personal evidence for my beliefs than be equally convinced that there is no God and yet admit that I have no evidence at all to back myself up. The superscript was only an internal reference between the "box is empty" claim and the artists' sense of humor.

quote:

---

If I told you I had a pet gorilla, you probably wouldn't believe me but if I showed you a photo and ownership documents you might. If I told you I had a pet velociraptor then you'd probably want to check it out for yourself, and even if you saw it, you'd probably be checking for robotic components. And even then you'd think I must have drugged you....you'd go through and eliminate every single natural cause to convince yourself that what you were seeing was for real.

---

Well hopefully I would do the same if you showed me the pet iguana, to be consistent. Otherwise, I would show a bit of observer bias.I don't like the analogy because you seem to be going out of your way equate God with something incredible in order to try to demonstrate that the notion of God is incredible. Dinosaurs aren't like God because they leave fossils and are biological entities. IE, a population of dinosaurs is more likely to leave evidence than God, and God does not necessarily leave evidence at all. To find a surviving dinosaur is much more improbable than there being a God because paleontological searches have failed to find velociraptor fossils above the K/T boundary and living velociraptors have not yet been found, though most of the globe has been settled.No such empirical search can be mounted for God, as atheists are so happy to point out.Plus, the analogy loses its steam based upon the worldview of the person. The dinosaur analogy only works because we were taught from a young age that velociraptors and their friends are extinct. If we had dinosaurs around, then we wouldn't wonder at your pet. If there were no evidence that there were no dinosaurs (not exploring most of the world and not finding the K/T layer where dinosaurs terminate) around then a pet dinosaur would be credible, would it not? To see the animal would be exciting but it would not necessarily be sufficient to cause a great sense of self-doubt.

quote:

---

You seem to take offence when you think Gene knows what you think.

---

I know what John thinks. He parades it around in public view, here and on his website.

quote:

---

I'll gladly admit the possibility of non-empirically verifiable something-or-others

---

Then what is the basis for your claim that there is no God? Are you ready to admit that you do not know, and that the atheist uses as much faith as a theist?

quote:

---

There is nothing self-contradictory about atheism.

---

I agree. But there are internal self-contradictions in some of the arguments you have been using:There is no God because God cannot be verified empirically.To make the statement: There is no God empirically true you must have evidence to support it. But then: cannot be verified empirically poisons the well. One minute you're demanding evidence, the next you are insisting there is none and can be none.Do you or do you not agree that if you demand evidence before you believe in God you must demand evidence that there is no God before you believe there is no God, in order to be consistent?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-08-2002]

quote:

---

I do not make the claim that God has been proven empirically to not exist.

---

Then why do you make so much of the claim that God has not been proven empirically to exist? Is that not inconsistent?

quote:

---

How is it that we know that Santa Claus does not exist?

---

Because it's testable. Adults found out a long time ago that to keep the belief alive in their children they have to do the shopping, the wrapping, and the sneaky placement under the tree. Otherwise, no fat elves sliding down chimneys.However, as I do not yet have a family of my own I have not actually tested this. I must believe on the testimony of adults that should know that there is indeed no Santa Claus. My nonbelief in Santa Claus is actually faith-based, just like the belief of the atheist is faith-based. It doesn't make me wrong, but it does require that I have no room to go around poo-pooing faith, now doesn't it?Of course, I can make a direct argument from the evidence: All presents under the tree have a source known by the parents.This is direct evidence against Santa Claus. And if you like, we examine satellite reconaissance of the North Pole.

quote:

---

The Easter Bunny?

---

The Easter Bunny is in exactly the same boat as Santa Claus, just on a different day.

quote:

---

Do you require evidence to not believe in grey aliens among us?

---

I do not deny the possibility. I do require evidence to believe there are definately no grey aliens amongst us.

quote:

---

Or to not believe in purple elephants?

---

I require evidence to believe there are no purple elephants. Have you checked all elephants? If not, the possibility is still up in the air. To claim there are none is a position based upon faith.

quote:

---

Or Borg in the breakroom?

---

Your breakroom may be different from mine. To claim there are or are not Borg there is to make a faith-based assumption. Some assumptions require more faith than others. I don't think God requires nearly as much as this because we know the Borg are a product and tradmark of Paramount Studios and no-one has ever made a claim that they are real. Purple elephants are more reasonable.And finally this is testable. The concept of Borg lurking in your office building is absurd because you've been all around your office building and many others like it and never found Borg there. Finally, there are millions of people in similar office buildings who have not found Borg. The concept of Borg infestation is testable and has generated only negative results.

quote:

---

Or fire-breathing dragons?

---

Leaves evidence, same as the Borg, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

quote:

---

The same reasons I apply to your god

---

All of the above are hypothetical *physical* entities, and each is testable. God is not necessarily a physical entity here on Earth and is not testable in the same sense, as you so gleefully like to point out.

quote:

---

You are perfectly capable of applying this logic to anything but your own faith.

---

Unfortunately John I don't understand the logic you are trying to use:I don't believe in God because anything that cannot be tested empirically does not exist.I don't buy that. There's no way for you to prove it. It's a non-falsifiable belief and you know it. What if I were to use your reasoning in the sciences? We could throw out most of theoretical astrophysics (for example) in one brutal sweep.

quote:

---

Have you noticed how the faithful have to do all the work? Raise the money, build the buildings, sing the songs, write the books?

---

What are you talking about? You mean, God doesn't build the buildings?You know enough about Christian theology to know we have an explanation for that. God does not "prove" Himself because God wants you to go looking for Him. Surely you know that. I bet you don't like that, but you know it.

quote:

---

that you disbelieve in Santa for precisely the same reasons I disbelieve in your God.

---

Actually I disbelieve in Santa for several reasons (and I would use a bulleted list if I knew how):(1)My parents told me so a long time ago (2) lots of people have gone to the North Pole and not seen anything, and if I wanted to I could probably log onto TerraServer and check myself (3) the media and culture and television spend a lot of time on this subject, that parents perpetuate the myth is an inside joke and they wouldn't if there were no Santa Claus.Note the physical evidence Claus would leave if he were real.

quote:

---

Funds in the church coiffers have an identifiable source.

---

That's true. However this is a strawman. Santa Claus, by definition, leaves gifts. God does not, by definition, fund the church.

quote:

---

Claiming that since you have no kids that your disbelief in Santa is faith-based is nonsensical and diversionary.

---

Sorry if you don't like it but it is true. Most of my disbelief is faith-based, just as your disbelief in God is faith-based (by definition, because you have no evidence there is no God).

quote:

---

Do you believe everything until it is proven wrong?

---

No, but I find it terribly unwise to deny the possibility. And I think it is absurd to snub your nose and ridicule those who believe, when you have no evidence they are wrong. (And even worse to goad them for their lack of evidence, when you yourself have none.)

quote:

---

By your grey-alien logic, you must not deny the possibilty that Allah is the true God, that Zeus is King of the hill, that Osirus died for our sins?

---

All of these are possibilities. I do not spend my time trying to convince the local Muslims that Allah is not the true God. Nor would I try to convince followers of any Greek or Egyptian gods.

quote:

---

Santa's workshop is invisible. Don't you watch the cartoons that run around this time of year?

---

It's been a few years, but I don't recall an invisible workshop in any of the cartoons. That was never a part of the myth as I understood it. But there are any number of ways to check for physical evidence: prints in the fireplace, that sort of thing. The only way to make Santa leave no evidence is to basically deify Santa, to turn him into a god. And that defeats the purpose of your example, doesn't it?

quote:

---

But there is no hard evidence against it, so the possibility is there that there could be Borg in the break room.

---

Don't be ridiculous. You know that the Borg, like Santa Claus, and unlike God, will leave physical evidence. Is the ambient temperature of your building about 80 degrees Farenheit? Do the snack machines appear to have been gutted for parts? Are the conversations around the water bottle getting really dull?Plus other office buildings have never reported Borg. So while there is an infinitesimally small possibility of a Borg infestation of your office building, it is highly unlikely because: (1)Borg would leave evidence and (2)Borg would probably infest other office buildings as well.The problem here is that you are deliberately choosing absurd analogies. Your problem is that these analogies are absurd for the very reason that they contradict what we know from our senses. They would leave physical evidence if they were real, but there is no physical evidence, so they almost certainly are not real.God would not necessarily leave physical evidence, so God is not contradicted by our senses, therefore God is not absurd (no matter how much you would like to make Him absurd through bad analogies).

quote:

---

Exactly. I have never found anything to indicate the existence of a god either.

---

But God does not necessarily leave evidence like the Borg would.

quote:

---

While one may not ever see god, there should be clear evidence of 'magic.'

---

Really? So you believe that belief in God is not non-falsifiable?Secondly, you believe that God can be empirically proven?Well great design an experiment.

quote:

---

It is then reasonable to believe in Slimy?

---

Yes, though I have a problem with your use of "dimensions".Also, Slimy the Gnome may not be it's name. It's somewhat contradictory because "Gnomes" are creatures that are supposed to exist in three dimensions and "Slimy" defines a sensory state, and this entity cannot be detected by our sense. It's name might be Thor, Allah, God, or a lower entity like Michael, or may something from Hell like Lucifer. Aside from "Slimy the Gnome" being internally inconsistent I cannot prove that it does not exist, and I don't think I would waste my time thumbing my nose at Slimy's believers, especially if I have no evidence against "Slimy the Gnome".Your analogies are getting better though. Eventually as you move away from the physical you will move closer to God-like attributes in your analogies. You will have to, in order to avoid physical evidence.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-10-2002]

quote:

---

So it is ok to throw reason out the window then?

---

I'm not the one throwing reason out the window. I'm asking you that if you have no evidence for or against God is it logical to claim that God does not exist? Further, is it logical to stomp the ground over "evidence" when you yourself have none? I'm asking you to admit that you are arguing from a faith-based position.From my perspective, your outright dismissal of anything you don't have direct sensory experience with is unreasonable and your logic full of holes.

quote:

---

And what we've got is sensory data.

---

Yeah you've got that but how do you know that it can account for everything that is? That's quite a presumption, and one I am unwilling to make.

quote:

---

Assume I take the leap of faith, how do I choose between your god and any other?

---

You ask me a lot of questions you already know the answer to.

quote:

---

Prove a negative? You know how ridiculous this claim is. Prove that Valhalla doesn't exist. Ok. Done. Prove that green fairies don't exist. Ok.

---

I'm not the one snotting my nose at people who believed in Valhalla or green fairies. I would like to think I'm a little bit wiser than that.Plus, what if (simply for the sake of argument) Valhalla and Judeo-Christian Heaven are simply partial descriptions of the same place?

quote:

---

? The fact is that you don't know what my lifestyle is and so you are just blowing smoke.

---

I've seen your website so I have an idea.

quote:

---

It is hard to take you seriously.

---

Likewise, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

I can walk outside and find a street WITHOUT having to believe in it first.

---

That depends on how big your lawn is, and how lazy you are. If you don't know a street is there, and you live a quarter mile off into the woods, and you didn't know if a street were there, you might never get to work. In fact, if you had no memory of the day before, you would have no empirical evidence of the street...therefore, by your logic, there would no street, therefore, you would never be able to leave your home.And if you wander about aimlessly, in a big circle, only halfheartedly, or look in the wrong places, you could wander a long time. Say, 20 years? Long enough to give up.

quote:

---

You fault me because my opinions are contrary to those of most of your acquaintances?

---

No, actually, I fault you primarily because you think I, my family, my friends, and my fellow worshippers are "stupid", "dishonest", "evil", "abusive", and some other things.
I fault you on a few other points because I believe you to be immoral, and maybe a few other things I won't go into. However, it is primarily because of your apparent bigotry that I fault you.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-10-2002]

quote:

---

The comment was a response to gene's insinuations that athiesm is the easy way out.

---

It is. It makes moral values optional. It relieves you of striving to walk with God. It excuses you from searching for God. It's what happens when you give up.

quote:

---

I cannot appeal to a BOOK for guidance. I can read books, and I do, but I cannot appeal to a book.

---

You can (and probably do) appeal to books for guidance. Philosophers have been writing books on atheism for years now. You can have role models, like Gould, and you can have "churches" (support groups and atheist political orgs) to prop up your beliefs. In short, you have everything we have, except God.

quote:

---

A book told me so does mean something. That's a pathetic rebutal.

---

Agreed. "Rebuttal" is giving the comment too much credit. Until Nos482 showed up such behavior was unknown from the local atheists. S/he set a bad precedent and the others, remarkably, seem to be following.

quote:

---

In reply, I made numerous comments to your post--

---

Comments such as: and

quote:

---

It is there for anyone to read.

---

Much like the religious intolerance posted on your website.Perhaps you would like to make more substantial comments in the future? You sound so much like Nos right now.

John's Religious Intolerance: Those are not intolerant? Really?Well let's try an experiment. Take "Christians are dishonest" and replace the "Christian" in that phrase with "Jew" and see if it's something you would not be embarrassed to say amongst civilized people. Take your phrase, "The worst people I have ever known have been Christians" and replace "Christians" with "Muslims", and see if you would ever be caught saying something like that in front of somebody important. You're not a bigot? Are you sure of that?As for pedophilia, you think it should be legal, as you wrote this article saying that the age of consent should be moved down, and you wrote an article entitled "The emancipation proclamation for pedophiles in which you advocate that the House is wrong in opposing a lowering of the age of consent. It's there for the analysis of anyone who would like, let them decide if you are a religious bigot and if you write articles that try to pass off pedophilia as tolerable.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-11-2002]

quote:

---

In other words, the second statement is conditional on the mythology of the Bible. The first statement isn't.

---

Fair enough, I'll let it go.

quote:

---

Being an indian is genetic, being a christian is a choice.

---

Are you saying there is no such thing as religious intolerance? Or that there is no such thing as religious bigotry?

quote:

---

If I criticize the religion of the Incas' is that racist? Nope. Criticize Koresh's followers? Nope. The Hari Krishna's? Nope. Taoist's? Nope. Wiccan's? Nope.

---

There is a difference between being critical of a religion and calling its followers "stupid", "evil", or "dishonest". If you called the Hare Krishna, Taoists, Branch Davidians, Incas, or Wiccans, "stupid", "evil", or "dishonest" because of their religious preferences you would still be a religious bigot. It's not the same as saying Koresh himself were any of those things, then you are judging an individual instead of a stereotype. I'm sure you heard about the evangelical Baptists who have been saying nasty things about Muslims and Mohammed on television and the vast public outcry that followed their brazen display of intolerance. What you are doing is not any better. You're just like them! You are on an evangelical mission to advance your religion and you're utterly convinced that everyone else is "deluded". You've been fighting "monsters" for a long time, and you know what I'm insinuating with this.And just for the record: I called you a bigot. I did not call you a racist. The examples I suggested you interchange with "Christian" in your hate-mongering statements were "Jew" and "Muslim", neither of which necessarily implies race.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-11-2002]