Calling all agnostics and atheists

[AgnosTheist]

There is something call free will, peopel make the world the way they want. God respect that, and we have free will, this misfortunes happening only back up the fact that there must be divine justice otherwise what is the meaning of life for the people in those situation that you mentioned above?

How can you say that God intervenes when we are able to do anything we want? Where is the intervention?

Without a true justice everything lacks a true reason and meaning.

i see meaning from a different angle. all these ‘evils’ are necessary for human maturity. life is trial & error. like we know that slavery is wrong because humanity went through it and felt the injustice. Through hitler the world have learned the price of facism and racism. Through scandal have the catholic church learned the wrongness of protecting the predator priests.

 

[jimmy85]

How can you say that God intervenes when we are able to do anything we want? Where is the intervention?.

you have free will you can do whatever you want that is allowed in the laws of your country.
God intervene by revelation and in the history, he dosent take away your freedom but he give you a path to choose, so that you can be better and good. anyway if you are a good person even if you dotn follow religion you will be following part of that path.

i see meaning from a different angle. all these ‘evils’ are necessary for human maturity. life is trial & error.

Let me guess a human maturity would be one in which religions dosent exist?, it will be like the perpetual peace.

Well good luck with that. generalizing, agnostics and atheists dont seem to cling to any morality althought, I reconize that there are terrific atheists and very nice agnostics, but when we generalize about people it is different. One must have moral principles otherwise society aint gonna get better, and that means that we wont get any real human maturity at all in society, until we cling to a good and well defined moral principles.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Hear-says, myths & rumours. nothing more.

What you read in the bible is not any more credible than ‘preserved’ ‘eye witness accounts’ of Mohammad miraculously making date fruits dance, splitting the moon, and creating water out of thin air. Nothing more credible than those witnessed Joseph Smiths golden tablets.

Incredible claims require much more than plain old OBSCURE witnesses, heard from the friend of a friend of a friend of somebody.

Mohammed disclaimed the ability to perform miracles.

Joseph Smith claimed to have translated tablets from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Now any Egyptologist could tell a fake text with confidence, unless the fraudster was also a skilled Egyptologist. So the absence of the original is supicious.
When we look at the English version, we see something interesting. Old texts, like the opening chapter of Genesis, or Beowulf, consist of long concatenations of “and”. The Book of Mormon is written in periods. It shows all the signs of having been composed by someone from a literate culture.

Not all claims are of equal value. Catholicism is unique amongst religions in not collapsing when scholarship brings its razor to bear.

But we see how the “no evidence” argument goes. Now the evidence is obscure and at fifth hand. Just a post or tweo ago it was “no objective evidence”. What happens the “no evidencer” gradually makes his definition of “evidence” tighter and tighter until we are left with the “writing on the Moon” argument - surely God could just demonstrate His existence?

 

[MerryAtheist]

But we see how the “no evidence” argument goes. Now the evidence is obscure and at fifth hand. Just a post or tweo ago it was “no objective evidence”. What happens the “no evidencer” gradually makes his definition of “evidence” tighter and tighter until we are left with the “writing on the Moon” argument - surely God could just demonstrate His existence?

I think you are confusing me with AgnosTheist. I made the “no objective evidence” argument to which, I can’t help noticing, you haven’t responded (pardon me if I don’t consider the above a real response). You’ll note I have not changed my argument; I haven’t “tightened” the definition beyond reasonable level. Simply provide some objective evidence for something, anything, beyond this existence that does not a priori presume faith.

Clever rhetoric aside, I don’t see you offering answers, only posing strawman questions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Mohammed disclaimed the ability to perform miracles.

Indeed he has, and so what about those supposed ‘eye witnesses’ in the hadiths? The point is obscure ‘eye witnesses’ are not reliable.

Not all claims are of equal value. Catholicism is unique amongst religions in not collapsing when scholarship brings its razor to bear.

Actually more and more people are seeing its collapse. all those bible errors. bible inconsistencies. scholarly evidences of manipulation. that the vatican had recently cautioned catholics from taking it as literally historical.

But we see how the “no evidence” argument goes. Now the evidence is obscure and at fifth hand.

There is still no FANTASTIC evidence that can support the fantastic claims of every religion. Nada. ZERO.

The PLAIN evidences that christianity can conjure for itself is pathetically plagued by obscurity and inconsistency.

surely God could just demonstrate His existence?

there should be a good balance between faith & reason. sadly all religions today are substancially lacking in the latter. if only the originally authored gospels & epistles were preserved to this day, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I think you are confusing me with AgnosTheist. I made the “no objective evidence” argument to which, I can’t help noticing, you haven’t responded (pardon me if I don’t consider the above a real response). You’ll note I have not changed my argument; I haven’t “tightened” the definition beyond reasonable level. Simply provide some objective evidence for something, anything, beyond this existence that does not a priori presume faith.

Clever rhetoric aside, I don’t see you offering answers, only posing strawman questions.

Here’s what you said.
Post one,

no objective evidence

Post two.

“No objective evidence” was the operative term, with the emphasis on “objective”.

Post three

To be sure, there is plenty of evidence for something more, but it is evidence born of speculation, poetry, and/or imagination, and certainly not objective, non-biased evidence. To argue otherwise is to loosen the meaning of evidence to the point where it is synonymous with “I believe”.

Now it is generally acknowledged that the Book of Mormon is philosophically shallow, which isn’t something said of the Christian gospels. That’s powerful evidence that the gospels are different in quality from the Book of Mormon. However there is no measurement you can make of “philosophical merit” which is really “objective”, like a temperature reading in physical science. However neither is it “speculation, poetry and/or imagination”. Interesting that you regard the last two as boo-words.

Bascially you are tightening and tightening the “objective” get out, until it becomes “there is no evidence to which I cannot invent some objection”. Which is actually a valid point. But it is not quite the strong one that “no objective evidence” in the first post implied.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Bascially you are tightening and tightening the “objective” get out, until it becomes “there is no evidence to which I cannot invent some objection”. Which is actually a valid point. But it is not quite the strong one that “no objective evidence” in the first post implied.

It is far from unreasonable to require non-biased evidence before determining for oneself the validity of others’ claim that there is existence after death. Such an important matter demands at minimum a basic level of proof that any reasonable person can accept. Objective evidence, that is, evidence that is not colored by bias, that does not require faith in order to be accepted, and is easily grasped by the average intelligent person, is the type of evidence needed. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

You contend that I am changing my definition (and in the process attributing to me words and opinions that I have not said and do not hold), but it is simply not true. I only wish to make you understand the simplicity of my request; in doing so I utilize several different means of saying essentially the same thing: “Please show me the objective evidence of existence beyond death.”

I’d prefer not to go round and round with this sort of unproductive discussion, so I will withhold further posting in this thread until you offer something a bit more concrete.

 

[Dispector]

It is far from unreasonable to require non-biased evidence before determining for oneself the validity of others’ claim that there is existence after death. Such an important matter demands at minimum a basic level of proof that any reasonable person can accept. Objective evidence, that is, evidence that is not colored by bias, that does not require faith in order to be accepted, and is easily grasped by the average intelligent person, is the type of evidence needed. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

The only objective evidence that is not colored by bias is mathematics. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any objective evidence for my belief of God or an afterlife. Nor, do I believe the Bible to be a holy book based on what it says about itself. That would be illogical. I believe because of situations in my life that have propelled me to believe.

However, Einstein’s theological perspective was very interesting. Although he did not believe in a personal God he pointed out the order found in the universe. Not sure if you’ve read anything on his perspective, but it may be one of the more concretely based theological perspectives out there. He said that while mathematics answers what works it does not answer “how” or “why” it works. I find it an interesting question.

In regards to the faith part… faith has been one of the most difficult things in my life, but it has most certainly been the most rewarding.

You contend that I am changing my definition (and in the process attributing to me words and opinions that I have not said and do not hold), but it is simply not true. I only wish to make you understand the simplicity of my request; in doing so I utilize several different means of saying essentially the same thing: “Please show me the objective evidence of existence beyond death.”

I’d prefer not to go round and round with this sort of unproductive discussion, so I will withhold further posting in this thread until you offer something a bit more concrete.

Unfortunately and to the dismay of some religious folks there is no “concrete” evidence (and by “concrete” I presume you mean scientifically proven results that can be reproduced in a laboratory setting). Nor do I claim to have any concrete evidence. However, not to be nit picky (okay just a little ), but when you said “existence beyond death” did you mean “conscious existence beyond death”?

Respectfully,
Mark

P.S. Thanks for being a brave Atheist and coming on the boards.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Thank you for that straight answer, Dispector. What you describe is essentially the position I held as a Catholic - that it takes faith to believe in existence after death (and yes, I mean consciousness - the survival of the mind).

My view is that religious belief is primarily experiential and not objective. Most people have faith first and foremost because of what they perceive as personal encounters with the Divine. Reason and logic and proof come into play as a means to describe and convey a sense of that experience to others. Because of this, it is impossible, in my view, to “prove” in an objective way that there is conscious existence beyond death, that the soul is real, and that God exists. One first needs faith to believe such things.

As for me, obviously, I no longer believe my experiences of the divine were real. As a result, I have no basis for belief in life after death, the soul, or God.

But I see we have strayed far from the original topic of this thread… Sorry about that.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Because of this, it is impossible, in my view, to “prove” in an objective way that there is conscious existence beyond death, that the soul is real, and that God exists.

If someone could raise a clinically dead person back to life, that would be objective enough. But since miracles arent real, then it truly is impossible to prove religion in an objective way.

 

[davidv]

If someone could raise a clinically dead person back to life, that would be objective enough. But since miracles arent real, then it truly is impossible to prove religion in an objective way.

There are several documented examples of this having happened. However, many have disparaged the sources and claim them to be falsehoods. So, what are we left with?

 

[AgnosTheist]

There are several documented examples of this having happened. However, many have disparaged the sources and claim them to be falsehoods. So, what are we left with?

Its a well documented fact that people sometimes wake up in the Morgue, but what we need is somebody that has been clinically confirmed as dead for at least a day. How about Pope John Paul II? That cannot be ignored.

 

[davidv]

Its a well documented fact that people sometimes wake up in the Morgue, but what we need is somebody that has been clinically confirmed as dead for at least a day. How about Pope John Paul II? That cannot be ignored.

How about Lazarus?
Or Tabitha?
Or the Centurians servant?

 

[AgnosTheist]

How about Lazarus?
Or Tabitha?
Or the Centurians servant?

just stories. good only in times of ignorance. nowadays we need something that can be verified without bias.

 

[davidv]

just stories. good only in times of ignorance. nowadays we need something that can be verified without bias.

To you maybe. Not to many others. Who are the “we” here?

See what I mean about disparaging the sources?

 

[AgnosTheist]

To you maybe. Not to many others. Who are the “we” here?

the increasing numbers of secular people like me, and the people that are losing faith in religion.

See what I mean about disparaging the sources?

i see what you mean. we have different standards for ‘sources’.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

It is far from unreasonable to require non-biased evidence before determining for oneself the validity of others’ claim that there is existence after death.

Now the evidence needs to be “non-biased”. That’s possible in some subjects, like biochemistry, much more difficult to arrange in others like history.
You are getting fussier and fussier.

Creationists play exactly this game. They claim there is “no evidence” for evolution. What they mean is that you can’t demonstrate evolution in a test tube in a lecture theatre.

You are conscious. My explanation for that would be that, although your brain is made of atoms that behave exactly like other atoms, that isn’t the whole story. Whilst it falls short of a proof that any type of consciousness exists after death, it does mean that there is reason to think that it might. That’s evidence, as clear as you could hope for. However you will claim it is “not concrete”,

 

[a_priori]

Can natural selection explain why all things eventually die? Why has there never been a species of animal, or any other life on earth for that matter, to evolve to live forever? I would think that this would be the ultimate goal of evolution - to evolve to live forever!

The premise is fundamentally flawed. How can you proclaim that something lives forever? How do you know it won’t die eventually? Forever is a long time.

 

[theistgal]

The only objective evidence that is not colored by bias is mathematics.

Just had to add - I work for an accounting firm and I can tell you that even mathematics is not all that objective!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The premise is fundamentally flawed. How can you proclaim that something lives forever? How do you know it won’t die eventually? Forever is a long time.

There are organisms alive on this Earth which are at least three and a half billion years old.

And half of them die every twenty minutes.