|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
bluegenes writes: If you saw someone else's child drowning, you'd probably go to some level of risk, and certainly discomfort, to save it. We might rationalize that kind of behaviour as part of our moral code on one level, but it's also advantageous to our species to be like this, especially if you've already had your own children. The kid you rescue is more important to the genes, and the future of the species. I think that it is important for those of us that are able to support the third world. (And no I'm not saying that only Christians do this.) A large part of our givings go to Africa in attempt to alleviate poverty and disease. Frankly we are in a world that is runing short of resources. It would be in the best interest of my descendants if the people of Africa were to disappear and leave the resources available to my descendents and my culture. I might add that your point is conjecture in the same way that my point is. This is an example of us both coming to conclusions based on non-scientific evidence.
bluegenes writes: It is to the advantage of our species and our genes to be like that. We are a cooperative, sociable animal. We don't need the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to be that way. To empathize with other humans, even other animals, mammals particularly, is natural to us. A species that produces "good Samaritan" characters certainly has an advantage from it. In the first place my faith and my lifestyle are not based on the promise of heaven. You may choose to believe that or not. I became convinced of the truth of the Christian faith and I see in God a god that I want to serve. I don't believe that only Christians will be part of God's New Creation anyway. I don't agree that your last statement fits with the idea of "survival of the fittest".
bluegenes writes: The Hebrews certainly had myths, as Lewis says, and the myth of the Hebrew tribe being special (the chosen people) was invented by Hebrews. Or, they were actually given divine revelation.
bluegenes writes: I think this phenomenon is called "racism" these days. Not at all. They weren't chosen to be a superior people. They were chosen for vocation. This does not make them any better than anybody else. God actually chosen a group of people that were nearly always dominated by their stronger neighbours. They were called to be a serveant people to lay the path for a serveant King and Messiah. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
crashfrog writes: If the cause cannot be known, then it's not appropriate to simply "come to our own conclusions", because that just means jumping to conclusions that aren't supported. If we lack the knowledge of something, the proper response is to say "we don't know yet" and leave it at that, or try to find some rigorous way to answer the question; if that's not possible, then that doesn't obviate our responsibility not to claim more knowledge than we actually have. The proper response when something is not known is to say "I don't know", not "I know it's God." That just doesn't make any sense. We also have a fundamental difference. You are firmly convinced that God is unknowable whereas as I am firmly convinced of the opposite. We come at this discussion from entirely different perspectives that our irreconcilable. Are my views scientific. Of course not. Can I prove them in anyway that would satisfy you. No. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nator writes: No, I (we?) fill it with "we don't know." You might as well pile on as well. I have no problem with that but when you say you don't know then presumably you are leaving open the possiblity of the supernatural.
nator writes: How can you tell the difference between natural phenomena that we haven't figured out yet, or may never figure out, and supernaturally caused phenomena? Basically there is no way. I did write in a post further up the thread about how I see science determining what things are and how they became that way but I don't see science as determining why things are the way they are. As I said genetics may explain how we experience emotion but I don't see it explaining why emotions exist. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Ringo writes: Not at all. I have examined reports of "divine revelation" and found them all to be unreliable. I welcome any reports of true divine revelation. Just don't expect me to swallow them indiscriminately. I don't. What would it take to convince you that an example of "divine revelation" was reliable? It isn't something that can be tested empirically.
Ringo writes: It may not be "positive evidence" but the abject inability of believers to communicate their "revelations" to unbelievers seems like a pretty good reason for atheism. I could tell you about my own experience but that wouldn't cut it. I can't prove it in any way shape or form. I could use the example of St. Paul. He had a revelation that completely changed his life. Do you accept it. No. If it happened the way he said it did then it was a revelation from God. You presumably either believe he is lying or mistaken. Nothing I or anyone else can say will convince you otherwise as near as I can tell. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Ringo writes:
The point is that we have a personal testimony of divine revelation. The evidence that it is true is that he completely devoted his life to Christian service and that as a result of what was largely his work the Christian church became established amongst the gentiles. Why couldn't he be mistaken? You have personal testimony, you can see the change in his life, and you can see the impact of it. That however is not enough for you to be convinced that it was divine revelation. What would it take to convince you. Empirical evidence? There never will be any. We have a choice to make. Do we beleive it or not? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Ringo writes: That doesn't answer the question. Why couldn't Paul have been mistaken? People devote their lives to lost causes all the time - treasure hunters, UFO chasers, cryptozoologists.... How does devotion to an unsupported premise improve it? I didn't say that he couldn't be mistaken. The results of his life's work are still very evident today though, so I'm just suggesting that might be an indication that he was on to something.
Ringo writes: Of course not - no more than the story of Alladin convinces me of magic lamps. Why should it? What results do we see from anything Alladin did?
Ringo writes: That's a pretty poor basis for any belief. It's either true or it isn't. The fact that you discount divine revelation is a pretty poor basis for disbelief. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Ringo writes: The same results we see from anything Paul did. In both cases, we have an unverified story. If some people attribute results to "what Paul did", that doesn't make it true. Not proof in the empirical sense but evidence which should be taken into account as to his credibility.
Ringo writes: You're not paying attention. I don't discount divine revelation. I just don't swallow hook-line-and-sinker every unsupported account of divine revelation. You say you don't discount it but you haven't given me any criteria for a divine revelation that you would accept. I can't remember now if you consider yourself agnostic or atheist. If you are Atheist then it would seem to me you would consider divine revelation impossible.
Ringo writes: Complete lack of any evidence is an excellent basis for disbelief. But I don't believe that there is complete lack of evidence. I've indicated sevreral things that I consider non-empirical evidence. You just don't accept it as evidence. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nator writes: David Koresh did something similar with his life, you know. As did the Buddah, Sun Myung Moon, and Joseph Smith. Did all of these people have real divine experiences? How can we tell? We have been given wisdom and reason. I believe that God intended us to use it. I think that you have to look at their legacy. I think we have to consider what they say as compared to what we observe. When you look at the teachings of the Buddah I tend to think that he was given divine revelation. As for Moon he may well have had divine revelation initially but I would suggest that he got off track as he went along. I have my doubts about Joseph Smith. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Ringo writes:
Why not? We have consciousness. That is a fact. Why? Just because the conclusion can't be tested empirically doesn't mean that you can't form opinions about it.
Why should non-empirical "evidence" be taken into account? Ringo writes: If somebody rang your doorbell and claimed to be Napoleon, what crieria would you need to accept his word? Since he's standing right in front of you, he's already one up on God, isn't he? So when you say that you believe divine revelation is possible you limit it to revelation that is physical. Do you believe that if God exists that He could plant thoughts into people's heads.
Ringo writes:
The fact that the universe exists is pretty evident but we interpret that evudence differently. evidence has to be evident. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nator writes: So, we are to assume that you are correct in your judgements? Why should we do that? Absolutely not, just as I'm not obliged to assume that you are correct in yours. We are to make up our own minds. I have no illusions that I am going to convert any of you to my way of thinking. I just see this as a discussion about how we view life and the reasons for it. Actually, the fact that we have a curiosity about these things at all is an indication that there is a god.
nator writes: (You do realize that the Buddha founded a religion that does not ascribe to the idea of there being a God, don't you?)
Yes I do. But he also taught that we are to love our enemies, care for the poor etc. That is what I believe was revealed to him. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nator writes: Why on earth would curiosity about our social behavior indicate anything at all about the existence of any supernatural anything? We evolved to be social animals with really freakishly large, powerful brains. We can think really complicated, abstract thoughts. The reason we have curiosity about such things is because we are smart enough to have such a thought and also the ability to articulate it to others. It is an enormous, completely uneeded leap to conclude the existence of your view of the Christian God from humanities cognitive abilities. First off, my statement was that I see the fact that mankind has always looked beyond itself is an indication that there is a god, but it does not tell us anything about that god. That thought only leads to theism, it does not lead to Christianity. One comes to Christianity in a completely different way.
nator writes: What, do you think it takes divine intervention for someone to figure that stuff out? Frankly I read the Book of Buddha but I know nothing of his society, but in the case of the early Jews it represented a very different world view than that established by their more powerful and sophisticated pagan neighbours. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nator writes: People who don't claim to believe in God aren't really "fixated" on God. What we fixate upon here at EvC is the poor logic and faulty reasoning used by most believers to try to prove God's existence. Such as GDR's idea. Look nator. Where have I ever said that my view represented any proof of God's existence. Read my keyboard. -- I CAN'T PROVE IT!!!Everyone here gets asked to give reasons for why they believe as they do. Just because people don't come to the same conclusions as you is not proof of faulty reasoning. GDR writes: but in the case of the early Jews it represented a very different world view than that established by their more powerful and sophisticated pagan neighbours.nator writes: OK, but so? Why does it require divine intervention for someone to have an idea that maybe we should be kind to each other? I did not say that it requires it, I just believe that it makes more sense than anything else. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
bluegenes writes: Evolution is evidence for evolution, and against the Genesis type creationism. I would venture to say that the vast majorities of Christians over the years would say that if you think that is the case then you are not reading the Genesis story of creation correctly. Through the ages from St. Augustine to CS Lewis and today to N.T. Wright contend that to be the case. Even the 1st century Jewish historian said that Moses wrote Genesis using allegory and metaphor. I'm not a biologist so I'm not the least bit qualified to critique evolutionary theory but I'm certainly not going to dismiss it because of the Bible. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NosyNed writes:
That is correct. My point is that he used the phrase "the Genesis type of creationism". I'm just saying that the a proper reading of the "Genesis type of creationism" does not contradict evolution. He is agreeing with what you say; what is incorrect is the creationists reading of the bible. So evolution is evidence against creationism of a literal genesis type. Which is what I read you as saying. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
