Are you an atheist? (3 Viewers)

[Rabbie]

Look I know Torres is good but he is just a gifted footballer.

Brian

On the subject of Liverpool football You may be able to confirm this story.

Seemingly in the sixties there was a poster in Liverpool saying "What will you do when Jesus comes" and somebody had added "Move St John to inside left"

Another one in a similar vein was during the 70's a poster said "Jesus Saves" and the grafitti artist had added "Kenny nets the rebound".

 

[Pauldohert]

I have heard them before - but appreciate the reminder.

I think it amy be lost on those who see football as predominently played with the hands!


I really really have, honest! I have seen him, I know where he lives. The results can be reproduced.

 

[Alisa]

The argument has been made many many many times on this thread that by definition we cannot have evidence of god, because he either doesn't want us to know he exists, or we can't comprehend the evidence of his existence, or he is in a different dimension, or whatever. I think Sagan's thoughts on the subject were misconstrued - obviously absence of evidence is not proof of non-existence - hence the black swan story. Just as obviously, absence of evidence is not proof of existence. Lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence. Now given the current state of human knowledge (complete lack of evidence), are you seriously telling me that it is more rational to think that the lack of evidence is more likely to be a result of existence rather than nonexistence?

Let's say for the moment that you are right (although I don't agree), that even IF god exists, humans will never be able to discern any evidence of his existence, that there will never be a measurable (by humans) effect of his existence on the world. Then I ask you, why bother believing in him at all? What is the point? If he will never have any affect on us, then it won't matter whether we believe in him or not, and not believing in him would make us all a lot better off (no religous wars and such).

 

[Alisa]

Posts like 253 from Pauldohert are impossible to refute without being disrespectful of him and so do little to advance the debate.

How is it disrespectful? Is it disrespectful to question whether a schizophrenic is truly being stalked when he thinks he is?

 

[Pauldohert]

Just cos I am paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me!

 

[Rabbie]

How is it disrespectful? Is it disrespectful to question whether a schizophrenic is truly being stalked when he thinks he is?

just my personal view but I feel it is disrespectful to suggest that someone is mentally ill without having met him. His other posts suggest he is perfectly sane.

 

[Mike375]

Alisa,

I think you miss a couple of fundamentals.

People who believe in, allow for etc. a supernatural fall into one of two base categories:

1) Those who think a supernatural is a possible for missing solutions. I would be in this category. Unlike yourself I allow for supernatural and non supernatural solutions. You say....Let's say for the moment that you are right (although I don't agree), that even IF god exists, humans will never be able to discern any evidence of his existence, that there will never be a measurable (by humans) effect of his existence on the world. Then I ask you, why bother believing in him at all? Are you suggesting that if we think a supernatural is the solution but becasue we may never see the supernatual etc. then we should go with a solution that we think is wrong.

2) Those who equate a supernatural with an after life. This category will also involve category 1 traits/beliefs but category 1 does not necessarily involve themselves with this category. Since the supernatural is being related to an after life then an appearance during life on earth is irrelevant. In addition the fundamentals of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is faith. If the supernatural is seen here on earth then faith is no part of the equation.

Belief in a supernatural does have benefits and they can be demonstrated. But you have closed yourself off from that avenue. There are very few occupations that have the level of education of the medical specialist yet a very large number of them believe in a supernatural. However, their extremely high level of education should tell you that belief in a supernatural is for free.

 

[Alisa]

I don't "believe in it"......it is a default position.

I think this is the very heart of the issue for me. Humans have always used the supernatural as the default explanation for anything that seems inexplicable at the time. Like I said before, throughout human history, supernatural explanations have continually given way to scientific explanations, but never the other way around. Therefore, I do not accept the supernatural as the default position. The default position, in the absence of evidence, should be "We don't know". We don't know the origin of the universe. We don't know how life began. We don't know a lot of things. We are only human after all. I have a hard time seeing how my default position is arrogant, or contains hubris. I think it is the ultimate act of humility to admit what you don't know.
In contrast, the default position that you and others seem to be advocating is one or more of the following:
-My god is the only god and I am going to believe in him no matter what.
-My god is the only god and I am going to kill you because the culture that I was born into believes in a different god than the culture that you were born into.
-I don't know whether god exists, but my parents/priest/reverend/etc. told me that he does, so I believe it too.
-There is a really old book that says god exists so I believe he exists.
-I have strong emotions when I think about god, so I believe he exists.
-I am uncomfortable with not knowing how the universe began, therefore I choose to believe that there is a god.
-I don't know whether there is a god, but according to what other people who came before me have said, there might be, therefore, I am going to devote resources (time, money) to an organization that seeks to propogate and spread this belief even though this belief has brought pain and destruction to the world for thousands of years.

I believe that each of these positions contains quite a bit of arrogance. I think it takes quite a high opionion of oneself to take any of the above positions.

 

[Alisa]

Belief in a supernatural does have benfits and they can be demonstrated.

What are they?

 

[dan-cat]

Now given the current state of human knowledge (complete lack of evidence), are you seriously telling me that it is more rational to think that the lack of evidence is more likely to be a result of existence rather than nonexistence?

No, rather that to qualify this lack of evidence as a solid grounding to decide on the infinite, is incorrect.

Let's say for the moment that you are right (although I don't agree), that even IF god exists, humans will never be able to discern any evidence of his existence, that there will never be a measurable (by humans) effect of his existence on the world. Then I ask you, why bother believing in him at all? What is the point? If he will never have any affect on us, then it won't matter whether we believe in him or not, and not believing in him would make us all a lot better off (no religous wars and such).

Based on your supposition, you may as well ask if it's better not to believe in the truth.

 

[Pauldohert]

It would seem, that those who refute the possible existence of God, because there is no evidence aren't looking too hard.

"I have seen him. I really have seen him, I can show you how to see him, I can reproduce the results."

Really those from a scientific standpoint should have asked how, if they were genuinely interested in evidence, and how to reproduce the results.

Why have they not? Presumably their mind is made up, that anyone who claims to have evidence is either a nutter, a windup merchant,schizophrenic or is talking of something else completely.

So if God manifests himself only occasionally in non supernatural form. The scientists have just routinely dismissed/missed the evidence before them, rather than no evidence existing.

QED

 

[Alisa]

So if God manifests himself only occasionally in non supernatural form. The scientists have just routinely dismissed/missed the evidence before them, rather than no evidence existing.

What evidence?

Based on your supposition, you may as well ask if it's better not to believe in the truth.

But given the lack of evidence that you have previously admitted, on what basis do YOU know what the truth is?

 

[ShaneMan]

I believe that each of these positions contains quite a bit of arrogance. I think it takes quite a high opionion of oneself to take any of the above positions.

and implying that someone who does believe in God is either unintelligent or is not very well educated may have a level of arrogance to it also.

 

[Alisa]

just my personal view but I feel it is disrespectful to suggest that someone is mentally ill without having met him. His other posts suggest he is perfectly sane.

You missed my point. I wasn't suggesting that he was insane. I was trying (ineptly I guess) to illustrate a double standard: Why is a religous vision afforded a different status than any other vision?

 

[Pauldohert]

So cos I had no evidence yesterday - I can't have evidence today.

Yet more of an indicatation, that should evidence come forward , that since there was none yesterday - you would dismiss it!

 

[Mike375]

Quote:
I don't "believe in it"......it is a default position.

I think this is the very heart of the issue for me. Humans have always used the supernatural as the default explanation for anything that seems inexplicable at the time.

I had "believe in it" in quote marks. In other words I did start with a belief and then set out to prove or justify that belief. You will find that position common to many other things. For example, some people might start with Excel but are ultimately forced to do Access.


Like I said before, throughout human history, supernatural explanations have continually given way to scientific explanations, but never the other way around.

Not so on big issues such as the universe, start if life etc.

Therefore, I do not accept the supernatural as the default position. The default position, in the absence of evidence, should be "We don't know".

Your answer is example of you being unable to see out of your corner of the room. The person who allows for the supernatural also considers all the solutions you consider.

We don't know the origin of the universe. We don't know how life began. You were going real strong on Dawkins.

Because of my interest in reptiles and dinosaurs I have have considered other variations on evolution, I am not in lockstep with Dakins or anyone. My allowance for a supernatural solution also has takes me "out of the box" to consider variations for a non supernatural solution.

We don't know a lot of things. We are only human after all. I have a hard time seeing how my default position is arrogant, or contains hubris. I think it is the ultimate act of humility to admit what you don't know.

I think accusation was because of you indicated no atheists lacked education and extended that as an illustration of why America had a lower percentage of atheists/ From memory your first post mentioned something about it being understandable due to the US education system.

In contrast, the default position that you and others seem to be advocating is one or more of the following:-

My god is the only god and I am going to believe in him no matter what.

I do remember saying anything even remotely like that.

My god is the only god and I am going to kill you because the culture that I was born into believes in a different god than the culture that you were born into. -I don't know whether god exists, but my parents/priest/reverend/etc. told me that he does, so I believe it too.-

Again, I do not remember saying anything even close to that. My posts have been very non religious. I have even used phrases like....a god with God like abilities.

There is a really old book that says god exists so I believe he exists.
-I have strong emotions when I think about god, so I believe he exists.
-I am uncomfortable with not knowing how the universe began, therefore I choose to believe that there is a god.

Are you sure you are reading the correct thread?

-I don't know whether there is a god, but according to what other people who came before me have said, there might be, therefore, I am going to devote resources (time, money) to an organization that seeks to propogate and spread this belief even though this belief has brought pain and destruction to the world for thousands of years.

You are obviously mixing this thread up with a similar thread, perhaps on another site.

 

[Alisa]

So cos I had no evidence yesterday - I can't have evidence today.

Huh?
Where did you get that?

 

[dan-cat]

But given the lack of evidence that you have previously admitted, on what basis do YOU know what the truth is?

I don't know, I simply admit that the infinite is beyond my boundary of perception like a great number of other things. To deny the possibility would be to claim that I have the rational capacity to go beyond my own sphere of perception. I make no such claims

 

[Alisa]

For example, some people might start with Excel but are ultimately forced to do Access.

Hey! Some people just like access better!

Not so on big issues such as the universe, start if life etc.

My statement IS true. I have asked before and I have asked again, name one example where something that science has explained was later found to be supernatural.

Your answer is example of you being unable to see out of your corner of the room. The person who allows for the supernatural also considers all the solutions you consider.

Not so. See my concession last night. It is not that I don't consider the supernatural to be a possible solution. It is that I disagree that it should be considered the DEFAULT solution.

I think accusation was because of you indicated no atheists lacked education and extended that as an illustration of why America had a lower percentage of atheists/ From memory your first post mentioned something about it being understandable due to the US education system.

I never said that no atheists lacked education. Please lets stay civil and not misquote eachother. In my first post I was alluding to the intelligent design movement in the U.S., which seeks to undermine teaching science in public schools.

My god is the only god and I am going to believe in him no matter what.

I do remember saying anything even remotely like that.

I didn't mean to imply that you personally had said that. It is the last option on the poll, and people have chosen it.

My god is the only god and I am going to kill you because the culture that I was born into believes in a different god than the culture that you were born into. -I don't know whether god exists, but my parents/priest/reverend/etc. told me that he does, so I believe it too.-

Again, I do not remember saying anything even close to that. My posts have been very non religious. I have even used phrases like....a god with God like abilities.

Again, not you personally. Here I was refering to the root of the conflict between Iraq and the U.S.

As far as the other ones, yes, those are arguments that have been put forth on this thread.

 

[Alisa]

I don't know, I simply admit that the infinite is beyond my boundary of perception like a great number of other things. To deny the possibility would be to claim that I have the rational capacity to go beyond my own sphere of perception. I make no such claims

Yes! That is what I am saying! So if we don't know, why can't we just admit that we don't know? Why must we create an imaginary god to fill in the spaces?