My Beliefs- GDR

No. But that wasn’t my point. Here is the wiki link on Bigfoot that you used.

quote:

---

The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.

---

Obviously you are drawing a parallel between being atheistic on Bigfoot and being atheistic on God. So you are saying that you discount the existence of God. If you have already discounted the existence of God prior to considering whether the resurrection is historical or not it becomes difficult to objectively look at the case for the resurrection.A theist however does not discount the existence of a god and is then open to coming to his/her conclusion on whether or not the resurrection is an actual historical event. There are millions of theists in the world who do not believe the resurrection is historical but I doubt that there are any atheists who believe that it is.I’m not denying that there are all sorts of personal and cultural factors that enter into what people believe but that is true for people of all faiths and atheists alike. Sure, but why is it that only one group can decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify belief. I know that you and oni disagree but I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify my faith. But yes, it is a faith. Because, at least at this point in time it isn’t a scientific question. I agree that scientifically there is no evidence other than for what we can read in ancient documents such as the Bible. The question can be considered from a philosophical POV or an experiential POV but not a scientific one.

You're right, it's not. However, the definitions I've given are about as widely accepted as I think you'll find. Since atheists are as such by way of being freethinkers, you are unlikely to find any two that agree on everything. All it takes to be an atheist is answering no to the question of "do you believe in god". There is no doctrine of atheism, there is no book. There isn't anything binding atheists together. It just so happens that many of "us" do agree on a lot more topics.So it would do you well to find out what someone believes before assuming what they believe. So as long as you've been here debating this shit with atheists, you never bothered to find out what we actually believe? What would you think if I had some twisted notion on what christians believed? What if I ascribed Faiths beliefs onto yours? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

It does in the beginning, too. And the middle.

I think that if you read back over this thread you'll see that trying to pin down what the atheists on this forum actually believe is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. It isn't for lack of trying that I haven't pinned down what they believe. I spelled out my beliefs right in the beginning.

It's really quite simple, atheists don't believe that there's a God. All the rest is word play.Where you're getting confused is by assuming that atheists are arriving at that non-belief as a matter of faith, then gathering the evidence to support it - the way you and pretty much all belivers do. (Which is why you are constantly being accused of putting the cart before the horse and why you are erroniously accusing atheists of doing the same.)Many - most - of the atheists I know started with the same beliefs as you have - including me - then gradually discovered that the established religions were manmade, political constructs, that their teachings and practices were often corrupt, harmful and repressive and that the bible was actually a set of myths being debunked daily by advancing scientific knowledge.Then of course there's all the other religions and belief systems that mankind has now and have discarded down the centuries indicating that if a God does exist, it is highly unlikely to be the one that any single indivual is randomly born into.So formal religions can be shown to be purely human constructs with nothing but extremely weak evidence to support them - in Christianity's case, a single book written thousands of years ago by fallible men.That leaves the issue of whether any god exists - or existed - 'in the beginning' who no longer takes an interet in us and is quite separate from man's own created ideas of religion.This is where many atheists stop. We can't know the answer to that so atheists, being rationalists, tend to leave that open and it THEN becomes a matter of opinion whether to take the final step and dismiss the entire concept of a God.Some then use the legal concept of reasonable doubt to make the next step in dismissing God entirely. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean that you have to be sure beyond all conceivable doubt, it means that you don't have to consider the totally improbable.You'll note that this thought process does not start with it's conclusion - 'there is no god therefore the resurrection didn't happen' - the way yours does ('there is a god therefore the resurrection happened'). It starts by considering the ideas and evidence for and against religions as a whole, then moving onwards.I've never met an atheists who wouldn't change his mind in actual evidence was found though - of course they would, that's what being a rationalist means. So if you want to try to change an atheist's mind about the resurrection you have to present the evidence for it and it must start without assuming the conclusion that god exists.

The scientific conclusion regarding Bigfoot is that it is a case of myth, embellishment, delusion, hoax, wishful thinking, Chinese whispers and all sorts of other deeply evidenced human proclivities and failings rather than a real phenomena. But it is the point being made by Oni and it is the reason he made the Bigfoot comparison in the first place. The point being made is far more generic than that. Unicorns, leprechauns, demons, devils, djinns, genies, fairies, goblins, zombies, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, your God, Faith’s God, Allah, zombies, vampires, ghosts, virgin births, Hindu milk miracles, faith healing, resurrections, Mohammed splitting the moon, the Loch Ness monster, alien induced crop circles, BigfootI could go on. But I think you get the idea. The point being made applies to all claims which are based on hearsay, assumptions and ‘cart before the horse’ circular reasoning. It's not about starting from any belief based premise. It's about evidence. Think about the scientific conclusion regarding Bigfoot:

quote:

---

The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.

---

This is NOT 'cart before the horse' thinking. Nor is it so when applied to the resurrection. If there were objective evidence of the resurrection it would give both the resurrection as a historical event and biblical claims about God more objective credence. Nothing has been "discounted" to the extent that the presence of objective evidence cannot overturn any conclusion. No carts have been put before any horses. Evidence has simply been requested and no evidence aside from hearsay has been forthcoming Try to stop thinking in terms of either acceptance or rejection. Try to think in terms of evidence. Remember Bigfoot:

quote:

---

The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.

---

The Bigfootist will see every savaged animal carcass and every dissappeared person as evidence of their unevidenced belief. This is not a cause for celebration. Those other theists have other carts to put before other horses. That they refuse to put your particular cart before your particular horse is really neither her nor there in terms of justifying evidence based conclusions. The whole reason we apply scientific reasoning and methodologies is to draw conclusions which are more reliable than those derived from such purely personal factors. It's not about one group dominating opinion. It's about the methods of knowing and reasoning that are being applied. When we want reliability we seek scientific conclusions rather than ones derived unashamedly from personal bias. That's what the atheists here are seeking to do. Your conclusions are indisputably derived from logically fallacious circular-premise-based thinking. You seem to accept this. By adopting the first two you have ended up in the logically fallacious position that you have put forward here. This is not an advertisement for such modes of thought. A historical book written by humans about a guy who came back from the dead is very much a scientific question. And much like Bigfoot the evidence points towards reasons other than veracity for the existence of such a story.

Uh. ... no.. THere weren't 6 eye witnesses who wrote the Gospels. The Oldest of the Gospels, Mark, according to tradition, was written by a disciple of Peter after Peter died (In around 64 c.e.) Matthew and Luke copied him. John is of a different tradition all together, and later written.Matthew and Luke wouldn't have had to copy Mark if they were eye witnesses.

THere might have been. However, the evidence external to the bible is very suspect. There has been a lot of manipulatin, and lies about it, and most of it comes from the second century or later.. with Josephus being very corrupted by modification, and therefore unreliable.

They are?? Wow.. That must mean you believe in dead people walking around, and all that sort of stuff.As for Luke, he admits he is writing down stories from people who came before. There is some evidence that he used Antiquities for a historical source, so that means he was probably written in the early part of the 2nd century.. not very reliable , now is that?

You've been a member here for 8 years with over 3,000 posts and you still have the very basics wrong? Doesn't look like you are trying very hard or find out what the other side thinks or believes.But yes, finding out the beliefs of atheists is a trying task because "atheist" only describes one very minute aspect of "our" beliefs. Most all atheists only reach the atheist conclusion AFTER identifying as skeptics or freethinkers and are skeptics or freethinkers first and atheists only as a result. Skepticism is the worldview, atheism is the conclusion.

I wish it were that simple. Hooah gave this site to look at. Athiest vs. AgnosticAs I said there seems to be a great deal of fluidity The cart before the horse issue was in reference to the resurrection. Using your definition of atheist means that God does not exist and therefore the resurrection is a non-starter as there is no god to make it happen. AS a theist I am open to the idea that the resurrection is a possibility. I just do not see how I am putting the cart before the horse. I am not saying because I believe that there is a god(s) that I believe in the resurrection. Well as I and others have pointed out several times it isn't a single book but a collection of books but you know that.I don't disagree with most of what you wrote. However, just because religions are human constructs does not make them right or wrong either partly or in whole.I am a theist, for reasons I stated in the OP. I believe that the concept that life has intelligent origins is far more plausible than the belief that life does not have an intelligent first cause. If I am correct and we are the result of an intelligent prime mover then I believe it is more plausible that this intelligence would maintain an interest in what he/she/it has created than not. I'm not a deist.As I have said previously I believe that God connects with us through our hearts, minds and imaginations. Over the centuries, through socialization our collective understanding of God continues to evolve. It is also my contention that much of our understanding of God is formed by our natural world. We understand the difference between good and bad behaviour and we can see the ramifications of good and bad behaviour in this life.Now I agree that in this case I'm putting the cart before the horse. So yes, in a sense it is putting the cart before the horse but I don't see it necessarily as a criticism. I am not going to be able to discern what it is that I believe about God in books, (the thoughts and beliefs of others), or in nature unless I have at least a minimal amount of faith that a god(s) exist in the first place. I’m wondering if there is anyone you would consider agnostic.I don’t know that what I believe is true, and in fact I have no doubt that much of what I believe is wrong. We all have a world view and I’d I say that in that sense we are all theists. As Dylan said, you have to serve somebody. My worldview has become based on my Christian faith. You have a world view that is based on your life experiences, your interaction with others etc. From that you have formed a code that you try to live by. That code in effect has become your god. Whether or not you live up to that code all the time is a separate issue. I certainly don’t live up to my code of conduct all the time.The point is that we don’t KNOW that our world view or code of conduct is the way we should conduct our lives or not. Is there a better code? Who knows? We live by our own individual codes by faith and those individual codes become our gods.I think that just because we can’t KNOW the truth about God and whether or not He exists that we should reject it on those grounds isn’t a particularly strong reason to give up on the idea of God. But I started by considering the ideas and evidence for and against religions as a whole, then moving onwards. It is just that we came to different conclusions after our considerations. I think that I’ve done that but I agree that the evidence isn’t conclusive. However, do you consider that the resurrection is possible if there is no god?

Well I know that Faith thinks I'm a heathen and you guys think I'm deluded so at least I've made a start.

It could have been done by a necromancer. Or achieved by the use of pixie dust. Or maybe a genie. Or magical undetectable moonbeams. Or maybe a Bigfoot tribe meditating thousands of miles away is responsible for any resurrection that occurred.The number of unevidenced causes that can be cited for unevidenced events is literally infinite.

Not a single atheist on this site or in this thread has used a definition of atheist that says "there is no god". YOU, on the other hand, have.I ask again: how would you feel about us if we continued to accuse you of believing the flud actually happened or some other such nonsense even though you've made relatively clear your basic belief set? You'd think particularly low, eh? Each event (the resurrection and the existence of a god) have the same evidence: none, so each event is a non-starter. As soon as you provide evidence for either, "we atheists" will examine those events and determine if they are worthy of belief. As oni stated earlier: we start from Ignosticism and have no position until you provide a claim. When all you've got is hearsay and your sayso, we have no reason to believe or accept and continue on as if you were talking about some other unevidenced phenomena.It may not matter much, but you used to be one of the more respectable christians here. That respect is slowly dwindling away in my eyes.

It IS simple. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. There are different ways of saying that and there are differing nuances, but in the end, it boils down to that. There's no reason to make it complicated. Absolutely not.An atheist has concluded that god [ABE: probably] does not exist based on the evidence he has available to him. If new evidence for the resurrection came to light that showed it to be fully true, then it would be obviously be evidence of supernatural intervention and it would lead to a re-appraisal. I really don't understand why you are failing to understand this. I understand that, but you say that without the resurrection, you would doubt that the particular god that you believe in existed because the resurrection provides the reason for the story - it's the maguffin.
So to you the cart and the horse are the same thing - god rides on the horse; there's no cart. I don't have much time for nit picking and word mangling - anyone that is agnostic doesn't believe in god so they are by definition atheists.Mostly what people that call themselves agnostic mean is that they believe in a sort of God but not necessarily a theistic one or one that differs (usually in nice ways) from the characters in biblical stories.But usually I think that they say it without thinking much about it - they've mostly rejected formal religions but haven't given up the desire to have someone on a cloud smile on them and like to sing a carol at Christmas. Well again, by definition, a resurrection is supernatural, so it's a cart before horse question - again.But if the question is instead, 'what evidence supports the story of the resurrection and what alternative explanations are available to us?' Then you approach the issue is a less question begging way and - at least in my case - arrive at the firm conclusion that it did not happen.Edited by Tangle, : anti-pedantismEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.