C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Well for your sake, I hope you will cry out for God at the actual moment of your death.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
This was said on this forum in a pridian discussion:
So I guess even if some folks stood up and said, “Yes, I am willing to die saying that Atheist A in Foxhole B never once reconsidered his atheism” that wouldn’t mean anything at all.
It doesn’t make what he professes true.
I hope folks see this really weird double standard. “I believe things that I read on the internet based on nothing at all…not even a relationship with the author of this testimony”…and “Hey, folks can die for something they profess, but it still could be a myth.”
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Having to deal with the reality of the end of one’s life can bring a lot out of people For some it brings about the realization that tomorrow isn’t guaranteed and the inhibitions against those things that the person may have wanted to say to friends and loved ones sometimes dissolves. As you’ve pointed out priorities change. And it may bring motivation to try to act in a manner to make a difference. Things that had been issues before may become insignificant.
For some those last days may be spent saying the things that one decides are important to say to friends and loved ones. But for some it can also bring out anger, feelings of being dealt a bad hand, and treatment that can be damaging to the relationships the person had dealt over life. It can be hard to predict what dealing with one’s own death or the death of a loved one will bring out of a person.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Very true. It’s really dying before you perceive it is your time that is so hard. Once one has made peace with dying, it’s usually a smooth transition from life to death.
B
Bradski
Guest
It would make them absurd if anyone actually asked for them. I’m pretty certain that no atheist on this forum has done so. If you can find someone who has actually demanded such a nonsensical thing, then let’s hear about it. We can all write to him to tell him he’s an idiot. Give us a quote. Post a link.
The two things are not even close to being connected.
If someone tells me that they believe something, or do not believe it, then I will accept what they say unless I think that there may be a reason why that person is lying. I may think that they are right or I may think that they are wrong. But that, in itself, is completely irrelevant. If you say that you believe in God, then I am not going to ask you for proof of that. Why would I think that you were lying? If I say I am an atheist, then I expect you to believe that without ‘proof’. Why would you think that I was being dishonest?
So if someone writes that they are an atheist and have never called on God for help in a dire situation, then I will accept that because I have zero reason for thinking that they might be lying. Just as if someone says they would die for a cause or a belief. There are plenty examples of many people doing just that. I do not doubt the sincerity of the beliefs of those people. It’s there for all to see. But that DOESN’T mean that what they believed in was true.
Just like the guy in the foxhole. He may be certain that calling to God will be of no help whatsoever and he may die believing that. But it doesn’t make what he believes to be true.
B
Bradski
Guest
I think that’s true. I don’t think that I’ll have a problem shuffling off when I get old and decrepit. But if it comes too early I will not go gently into that good night:
youtube.com/watch?v=2DLqN1RvfUc
In passing, Thomas lived a few streets from where I used to live.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Why does it have to be on this forum?
Here’s links to multiple atheists who have made this demand, in some shape or form:
alternet.org/story/154774/the_top_10_reasons_i_don’t_believe_in_god
ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/why_atheist.html
michaelshermer.com/2005/06/why-i-am-an-atheist/
And if you listen to Trent Horn’s latest podcast on Catholic Answers forum there was an atheist there who declared who wouldn’t believe in anything that wasn’t unfalsifiable.
I can get you the link if you’d like.
Don’t have time to do that now.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, you are correct.
I was merely stating that these 2 things are such peculiar beliefs that are 2 sides of the same coin.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Let’s stop this nonsense right now, luv.
I have already professed and proclaimed that I do believe you, based on our relationship, when you say that you believe there are indeed atheists in foxholes.
What I DO NOT BELIEVE is something completely different.
I DO NOT BELIEVE, until you can provide proof, that these men and women in the link provided actually remained atheists in the scenarios aforementioned.
I have NO EVIDENCE to support their claim that they are atheists, and I have NO EVIDENCE to support their claim that they were in a near-death situation, and I have NO EVIDENCE that they actually didn’t cry out to God when they were in this alleged near-death experience.
Now, if you want to claim their testimonies as evidence (PR, you actually do have evidence! You have this link! And you have their stories!), then, you’re going to have to accept the testimony of the 4 gospel writers, no? (You have this link! You have their stories!)
For surely you see the double standard you’d have in telling me to accept one thing as evidence while also saying, “The testimony of these men is not evidence”, yes?
B
Bradski
Guest
You were asked if you knew anyone who had made ‘demands for empirically based, reproducible, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating God’s existence’. Your words, not mine.
None of those links do that in any way. Not in the slightest. Not in any shape or form. They are simply explanations as to why each writer does not personally believe in God. There are no demands for empirically based, reproducible, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating God’s existence at all. I would still be interested to see if there any demands out there.
I can’t think of any better evidence for someone beliefs than their written testimony. You may think that what they believe is incorrect, but you are going to have to explain why so many people would purposely lie.
Your argument, such as it is (you have no proof that what these people say about their beliefs is true), means that you cannot trust a single thing anyone on this forum says about their beliefs either.
Where is your proof that Christine actually believes what she posts? Where is your proof that ThinkingSapien is trustworthy? Where is your proof that Aloysium is a Catholic? You don’t need any proof because you quite rightly would ask, if proof were demanded, what on earth would be the reason for them lying about what they say they believe.
S
Solmyr
Guest
This is all true, but the problem is not that simple. We generally accept other people’s mere words as sufficient evidence as long as the proposition is trivial and irrelevant. If someone claims to be an atheist, and claims to have been in a dire life-and-death scenario and claims to have stayed an atheist, these claims are irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. One can accept or discard the claims without any consequence. (Now to assert that everyone who ever made this claim is a liar is a serious claim, so it is reasonable to demand more evidence).
On the other hand, when someone utters a claim of tremendous importance we “owe” it to ourselves to demand more evidence than just a few words. The maxim of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs” is not precise. ALL claims need the same amount of “proof / evidence” - theoretically, of course -, but for small, irrelevant claims we gladly forego the process in the name of expediency. It would be a waste of time and energy to demand a detailed set of evidence for minor, irrelevant claims.
We use the same process in the justice system. For serious, life-and-death scenarios we demand “evidence beyond any reasonable doubt”; for less important claims we are satisfied with “preponderance of evidence”. The importance of the claim is what decides the weight of evidence we demand. There are people who do not (and maybe cannot) understand this… as such it is a waste of time to try to have an intelligent conversation with them. At least that is my opinion.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Let’s not be fundamentalist here.
I was simply offering a hyperbolic example of the atheistic position of “Science Alone” and the “I won’t believe anything unless it can be proved by Science” and “I reject anything that must be believed based on Faith”.
And all of the links I provided do exactly that.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think the best meme regarding one’s approach to death is that of the saints.
St. Therese of Lisiex is said to have answered, in response to the question “What would you do if you know you were going to die on Thursday” with “On Thursday? Well, on Thursday I tend the roses, so I guess that’s what I would do.”
B
Bradski
Guest
Fine. But if you come across examples of ‘demands for empirically based, reproducible, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating God’s existence’, feel free to post them.
I keep having to repeat myself. I said: ‘I can’t think of any better evidence for someone beliefs than their written testimony’. I did not say that written testimony is proof that what they believe is true. It is proof that they hold those beliefs.
If someone writes that they believe that aliens are amongst us, that they think Elvis lives, Mohammed rode to heaven on a winged horse or that Jesus rose from the dead, it is evidence that they believe those things. It is NOT evidence that what they believe is true.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I hope though that you wouldn’t expect me to follow your paradigm of acceptance what someone on a website says, just because he says it.
I require some evidence first.
Perhaps I have a relationship with someone, and that’s enough evidence I need to believe what he says.
Perhaps I know the person’s mother, and that’s enough evidence I need to believe what he says.
Perhaps I saw empirically sound, peer-reviewed, reproducible data which confirms what he says, and that’s enough evidence I need to believe what he says.
But just because someone says it on the internet?
Nah.
I don’t have enough faith for that.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Egg-zactly.
And when you say you believe that there are indeed atheists in foxholes, I accept you on your word.
That doesn’t necessarily make it true.
But I accept that you believe it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Here’s a different atheist (than the one I referenced earlier) on Catholic Answers Live making the claim “If you can’t prove it with science, you ought not believe it”:
Listen to “Dorian” around 28:53
catholic.com/radio/shows/why-are-you-an-atheist-11540#
D
DrTaffy
Guest
So…
Summary so far:
The theists make the positive assertion that there are no atheists in foxholes.
They provide no evidence to support this assertion
Bradski, Mike from NJ and others provide actual examples of atheists in foxholes
The theists present no evidence to discredit these claims
The theists then demand evidence for this evidence, despite the fact that the burden of proof is in fact still on them
One suspects that they would then demand evidence for the evidence for the evidence
PR sees this as a ‘double standard’. Well, I agree, just probably not as she meant it.
Personal testimony, online or in a book or elsewhere, is evidence but not proof. One then weighs the evidence against the claim being defended to judge whether it is more likely that the evidence is false or misleading or that the claim is true.
On that basis I would say that the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes is well and truly disproven, especially as no evidence has been presented to support it, nor even to prove that the examples of atheists in foxholes are either false or at least suspect.
Likewise I judge that the ‘evidence’ (including things like logical proofs, as well as testimony) does not come close to justifying belief in God or a literal interpretation of the Gospel stories. Hence, I am atheist.
But I don’t claim to prove that there is no God, hence I am agnostic as well as atheist.
Actual explicit demands for ‘empirically based, reproducible, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating God’s existence’, not just criticisms of the current evidence for God, as you have provided so far.
And yet that is a much stricter paradigm than you would have us apply to the Gospels. Why does the God proposition get held to a much looser standard than any other?
Summary so far:
The theists make the positive assertion that there are no atheists in foxholes.
They provide no evidence to support this assertion
Bradski, Mike from NJ and others provide actual examples of atheists in foxholes
The theists present no evidence to discredit these claims
The theists then demand evidence for this evidence, despite the fact that the burden of proof is in fact still on them
One suspects that they would then demand evidence for the evidence for the evidence
PR sees this as a ‘double standard’. Well, I agree, just probably not as she meant it.
Personal testimony, online or in a book or elsewhere, is evidence but not proof. One then weighs the evidence against the claim being defended to judge whether it is more likely that the evidence is false or misleading or that the claim is true.
On that basis I would say that the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes is well and truly disproven, especially as no evidence has been presented to support it, nor even to prove that the examples of atheists in foxholes are either false or at least suspect.
Likewise I judge that the ‘evidence’ (including things like logical proofs, as well as testimony) does not come close to justifying belief in God or a literal interpretation of the Gospel stories. Hence, I am atheist.
But I don’t claim to prove that there is no God, hence I am agnostic as well as atheist.
No doubt you can provide examples of such demands? :ehh:
Actual explicit demands for ‘empirically based, reproducible, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating God’s existence’, not just criticisms of the current evidence for God, as you have provided so far.
Glad to hear it. Progress is being made.
And yet that is a much stricter paradigm than you would have us apply to the Gospels. Why does the God proposition get held to a much looser standard than any other?
I don’t know any of the four evangelists, nor their mothers, and we’ve already covered the emprirical proof.
- Status