I am an atheist thread 4

[phooney]

Interesting though, that most people if they do indeed to that rational methodical search that you describe tend to end up in the religious beliefs of their parents.

I too may be guilty of this, as neither of my parents harbour any particular beliefs about God as far as I can discern. However, neither has this resulted in me believing there is no god. I just lack that belief, and I like to think that I have evidence for those things that I do believe in, though some beliefs may be out of my control, like such personal axioms as “I exist”.

Why has nobody here been able to bring forth any actual evidence? You mentioned before in your (what I was assuming was somewhat tongue in cheek) post that the atheists will ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit with their preconceptions, but I’d like to think I’ve discussed anything discussable that has been brought forth (at great length sometimes) in a rational and reasonably fair way. The only thing that I haven’t done as yet is put a book about that eucharistic miracle that was mentioned (because when I asked for a book recommendation on the subject nobody gave me one) on my wishlist and also I have not yet purchased that “Life of Christ” book you recommended, or the “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” that Pax recommended. The reason for this is that I am still finishing up a backlog of other books I’ve bought and also, those two books only seem available from american sellers on amazon.co.uk, I’ve been waiting for them to show up from UK sellers. The “Life of Christ” book has now done so and is likey to be in my next set of purchases.

I just want some evidence that doesn’t evaporate into the ether just before it is shown to me.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

phooney, just because you don’t like the evidence, or even because you have plausible arguments against some aspects of the evidence (such as Josephus), don’t claim that none has been shown.

1. Lanciano
2. Fatima
3. Josephus and other ancient historians
4. Gospels
5. Personal testimonies
6. Philosophical arguments (free will, reason, first cause… any others that I’m not thinking of offhand?)
7. Fulfilled Old Testament prophecy
8. Apostolic martyrdom

Probably the weakest among those is Josephus, because of the widely accepted interpolations within it. Personally, when I looked at it years ago, I came the conclusion that Josephus’s original probably included info on the crucifixion of Jesus, minus the messianic bits. But there’s certainly wiggle room there.

Lanciano - to my knowledge, nothing has been offered other than blind disbelief.
Fatima - a couple people have made a claim that it was a unique incidence of mass hysteria. Me, I think this just changes one explicable miracle (Mary’s intervention) to an inexplicable miracle. A couple people have grumbled about the mechanism of the miracle, which is obviously unknown to us.
Gospels - maybe this hasn’t been discussed much on this thread. Ehhh, leave it aside for now, I’m too tired.
Apostles - no one has offered any plausible explanation for why eleven out of twelve apostles (counting Paul) went willingly to martyrdom without denying Christ, other than the theory that they actually saw the risen Lord.

Now, if none of these trips your trigger, that’s fine. But I am so tired of the claim that no evidence has been offered, just because you don’t like it. It seems to me that the objective evidence is stunningly one-sided.

God bless!

Oh, and Happy Feast of Divine Mercy!

 

[lkddav]

Now, if none of these trips your trigger, that’s fine. But I am so tired of the claim that no evidence has been offered, just because you don’t like it. It seems to me that the objective evidence is stunningly one-sided.

God bless!

Oh, and Happy Feast of Divine Mercy!

Hello NE

You are correct, none of these trips my trigger. The evidence for your god had been presented. It’s not that I don’t like it or any other atheist. The fact is that 4 billion people on this planet do not accept your evidence.

If the evidence was so stunning wouldn’t everyone on the planet be a Christian?

One third of the world’s population are Christians. What about the other two thirds. Are they all wrong and the Christians right?

Have you ever entertained the thought that you may be wrong?

Out of 6.7 billion people on the planet about 4 billion think you are.

Tator bless !

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Hello NE

You are correct, none of these trips my trigger. The evidence for your god had been presented. It’s not that I don’t like it or any other atheist. The fact is that 4 billion people on this planet do not accept your evidence.

If the evidence was so stunning wouldn’t everyone on the planet be a Christian?

One third of the world’s population are Christians. What about the other two thirds. Are they all wrong and the Christians right?

Have you ever entertained the thought that you may be wrong?

Out of 6.7 billion people on the planet about 4 billion think you are.

Tator bless !

Argument from majority opinion? Please yourself, my friend.

There are lots of reasons for the world’s diverse beliefs. Some people have not been exposed to the evidence. Some have personal reasons for being unwilling to consider the evidence objectively. Some believe, but deny it for various reasons.

Have you ever entertained the thought that you may be wrong?

Yes.

 

[phooney]

@NaturalEnquirer

phooney, just because you don’t like the evidence, or even because you have plausible arguments against some aspects of the evidence (such as Josephus), don’t claim that none has been shown.

Allow me to qualify my statement a bit better, sure in some sense everything that has been presented must logically be evidence for something but once we look at anything in depth at some point theists (from the low level trolls to the authoritative popular apologists) seem to have to say “you just have to have faith. In god. In MY god. Yep, he’s the one that made it happen that way” or alternatively on my side, there are often trains of argument where I must get to the point of “I don’t know” because perhaps there isn’t enough evidence yet. Neither of these current end points do I consider to be a rational basis for the formation of a belief, yet that is exactly what seems to have been done by yourselves.

It just looks like wishful thinking.

1. Lanciano. Lanciano - to my knowledge, nothing has been offered other than blind disbelief.

Refresh my memory what this was all about?

1. Fatima. Fatima - a couple people have made a claim that it was a unique incidence of mass hysteria. Me, I think this just changes one explicable miracle (Mary’s intervention) to an inexplicable miracle. A couple people have grumbled about the mechanism of the miracle, which is obviously unknown to us.

I’m not sure if it was all that unique. X number of people all gathered in the same place expecting something divine. And staring at the SUN. It’s not that mysterious that it appeared to dance around, we’re not supposed to stare at the sun, you can do great damage to your eyes that way. Did you see the photo that I posed from the newspaper report of that day? Instead of taking a photo in the sky, the photographer took a photo of the crowd of people, suggesting to me that that was the most remarkable thing there that day. Or perhaps the magic photos didn’t develop well, who knows? If you’re trying to say the sun came down to earth and dried up the ground, then no that didn’t happen. Am I calling those thousands of people liars? Maybe some of them are, but are you calling the other millions in the world who saw the sun NOT come down and dance around liars? If you’re saying that wasn’t the mechanism of the miracle you also, as per your quote aren’t venturing any hypotheses as to what DID happen and how we, as those that weren’t there, are supposed to verify this other than through blind faith.

1. Josephus and other ancient historians
   Probably the weakest among those is Josephus, because of the widely accepted interpolations within it. Personally, when I looked at it years ago, I came the conclusion that Josephus’s original probably included info on the crucifixion of Jesus, minus the messianic bits. But there’s certainly wiggle room there.

There’s also contentions that the references to Jesus were later redactions by the church, much like (if I recall correctly) Alexander the Great visiting Jerusalem.

1. Gospels
   Gospels - maybe this hasn’t been discussed much on this thread. Ehhh, leave it aside for now, I’m too tired.

OK.

 

[phooney]

1. Personal testimonies

People can say ANYTHING, anecdotal evidence (yes I’ll give it that status) is pretty useless for this particular endeavour. Of course a lot of them agree to a certain degree, such personal testimonies are hardly examples of independent thought, or are vague enough to match many interpretations. Imprecise and unreliable.

1. Philosophical arguments (free will, reason, first cause… any others that I’m not thinking of offhand?)

I think the free will arguement is interesting, not really evidence for God though, and yes I admit that I still have more to read about this. You mentioned that you’d done some reading on emergeance since we first discussed it, any book recommendations on that? Reason? Has this even been brought up in these threads as an argument in itself? Sorry if I’ve missed it or forgotten, refresh my memory if you like. First cause… asserting your god as the arbitrary termination of a otherwise potentially infinite regress doesn’t have any relation to the real world. ANYTHING could be merely asserted.

1. Fulfilled Old Testament prophecy

The only prophecy that has been discussed at length here was with Socrates4Jesus, regarding the destruction of Tyre, I recall that I showed how ultimately ambiguous and inaccurate that prophecy was, and gave 5 (or 6?) points that I considered quite essential to the assessment of biblical prophecies. If you’re talking about old testament prophecies that are fulfilled in the new testament… please. I think higher of you than that.

1. Apostolic martyrdom
   Apostles - no one has offered any plausible explanation for why eleven out of twelve apostles (counting Paul) went willingly to martyrdom without denying Christ, other than the theory that they actually saw the risen Lord.

The more I read the more inclined I am to think that the apostles (with the possible exception of Peter, more reading required) are metaphorical literary creations, perhaps representing the twelve tribes of Israel or something like that. Alternatively, plenty of people have died for their religion without seeing the ‘risen lord’ all that is necessary is that they believed. You don’t have to convince me that theists believe in God, I understand that already, what I’d like you to do is present reasonable evidence FOR your god to me.

Now, if none of these trips your trigger, that’s fine. But I am so tired of the claim that no evidence has been offered, just because you don’t like it. It seems to me that the objective evidence is stunningly one-sided.

Well no, none of it trips my trigger so far, but it’s not that I don’t like it, I’m just not emotionally attached to the preconception of God as you are. None of this points to a God without first believing in a God, and that’s not the order I plan on making my rational formations of belief in.

God bless!

May rationality be with you!

Oh, and Happy Feast of Divine Mercy!

It was a nice pizza I had, thank you. Also, when I asked for them to not put on pineapple and mushrooms, they let me replace those toppings with chicken. Good times!

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

May rationality be with you!

It was a nice pizza I had, thank you. Also, when I asked for them to not put on pineapple and mushrooms, they let me replace those toppings with chicken. Good times!

Whoa whoa whoa. I’m sure it’s an axiom of logical argument that you can’t make a claim to rationality, and then say that you prefer chicken over pineapple, with regard to pizza toppings. I don’t remember for sure, but I think it was Plato who said “Pineapple r00lz, chicken dr00lz.”

I’ll look that up later.

 

[justinthemartyr]

People can say ANYTHING, anecdotal evidence (yes I’ll give it that status) is pretty useless for this particular endeavour. Of course a lot of them agree to a certain degree, such personal testimonies are hardly examples of independent thought, or are vague enough to match many interpretations. Imprecise and unreliable.

I think the free will arguement is interesting, not really evidence for God though, and yes I admit that I still have more to read about this. You mentioned that you’d done some reading on emergeance since we first discussed it, any book recommendations on that? Reason? Has this even been brought up in these threads as an argument in itself? Sorry if I’ve missed it or forgotten, refresh my memory if you like. First cause… asserting your god as the arbitrary termination of a otherwise potentially infinite regress doesn’t have any relation to the real world. ANYTHING could be merely asserted.

The only prophecy that has been discussed at length here was with Socrates4Jesus, regarding the destruction of Tyre, I recall that I showed how ultimately ambiguous and inaccurate that prophecy was, and gave 5 (or 6?) points that I considered quite essential to the assessment of biblical prophecies. If you’re talking about old testament prophecies that are fulfilled in the new testament… please. I think higher of you than that.

The more I read the more inclined I am to think that the apostles (with the possible exception of Peter, more reading required) are metaphorical literary creations, perhaps representing the twelve tribes of Israel or something like that. Alternatively, plenty of people have died for their religion without seeing the ‘risen lord’ all that is necessary is that they believed. You don’t have to convince me that theists believe in God, I understand that already, what I’d like you to do is present reasonable evidence FOR your god to me.

Well no, none of it trips my trigger so far, but it’s not that I don’t like it, I’m just not emotionally attached to the preconception of God as you are. None of this points to a God without first believing in a God, and that’s not the order I plan on making my rational formations of belief in.

May rationality be with you!

It was a nice pizza I had, thank you. Also, when I asked for them to not put on pineapple and mushrooms, they let me replace those toppings with chicken. Good times!

REPLY-The same could be said for your thoughts, your experience. Yours is the exception, and not the norm, there fore you have far more to prove as far as the non existence of God.

Reason? Your’s IS the “god” of reason. insufficient at best. There is no such thing as self sufficiency.

Your assertions are but mere, and the minority worldwide.

The prophecies of the messiah being fulfilled in under 33 years(over 350 of them) is beyond comprehension, whether that be your comprehension, or Einstein’s. You can excuse yourself from this topic since it is beyond you.

The apostles are literary metaphorical creations? There is more evidence for the apostles, historically, than there is for evolution, for your theories on life and matter and atheism itself.

And as far as rationality, what is “rationality”, where did it come from, is it real? How can you purport it when you cannot prove it? please define it extensively.
again, reason is your god, and is found very wanting. You have faith in your reason and rationality, yet you cannot explain them or where they come from or if they are even reality. What IS “reality”? What is “what”? What is “is”
What is “creation”, you said it. Where does the term come from, except for the bible?

I can use your circular and faulty god of reason all i like too. But it will never be sufficient.

 

[phooney]

REPLY-The same could be said for your thoughts, your experience. Yours is the exception, and not the norm, there fore you have far more to prove as far as the non existence of God.

Except one can’t prove a universal negative, and I am not trying to. It hardly seems worth responding to you if you haven’t figured out by now that I don’t have a positive belief in the non-existence of god. The burden of proof is firmly with yourself.

Reason? Your’s IS the “god” of reason. insufficient at best. There is no such thing as self sufficiency.

What are you even saying here?

Your assertions are but mere, and the minority worldwide.

As per your opening paragraph here, I think you’ve demonstrated that you haven’t bothered to read what my assertions are. Yes there are more theists than atheists at the moment, is that a thinly veiled argument from popularity you are trying to pull on me?

The prophecies of the messiah being fulfilled in under 33 years(over 350 of them) is beyond comprehension, whether that be your comprehension, or Einstein’s. You can excuse yourself from this topic since it is beyond you.

That would also excuse the extreme vast majority of the human population from comprehending this as well you know. Almost certainly including yourself. Where were they fulfilled? In the new testament? I think higher than that of Natural Enquirer… I’m not sure about you.

The apostles are literary metaphorical creations? There is more evidence for the apostles, historically, than there is for evolution, for your theories on life and matter and atheism itself.

Sure there is.

And as far as rationality, what is “rationality”, where did it come from, is it real? How can you purport it when you cannot prove it? please define it extensively.
again, reason is your god, and is found very wanting. You have faith in your reason and rationality, yet you cannot explain them or where they come from or if they are even reality. What IS “reality”? What is “what”? What is “is”
What is “creation”, you said it. Where does the term come from, except for the bible?

I’m no longer sure whether you’re talking with me, or ranting at some fictional generic atheist that you created in your own mind, or were told about atheists from somewhere else.

I can use your circular and faulty god of reason all i like too. But it will never be sufficient.

The problem for you is that you can’t disprove reason and logic without using reason and logic, thus shutting yourself down without me even having to get involved. Want some more rope?

 

[lkddav]

Argument from majority opinion? Please yourself, my friend.

No, it’s an argument from facts and reason.

There are lots of reasons for the world’s diverse beliefs. Some people have not been exposed to the evidence.

Most people have seen the evidence for your god and chose to believe their own.

Some have personal reasons for being unwilling to consider the evidence objectively. Some believe, but deny it for various reasons.

If the evidence was there people would be worshiping your god. Denying it would be insane considering the consequences.

les

 

[MattG]

This is directed to the faithful atheists reading this, who do not believe that God exists.
What is believed, therefore, about existence? In John 1:3-5, “All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”

On Television, recently, several episodes of Universe were seen and this statement that I’m only able to paraphrase was heard, “If it must exist, it will be proven to exist.” The discussion had been about worm holes, time travel and the several paradoxes that those ‘realities’ will create. However, “If it must exist ……to exist,” is a creature explanation of God.

In Exodus, 3:12 He answered, “I will be with you; and this shall be your proof that it is I who have sent you: when you bring my people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this very mountain.”
3:13 “But,” said Moses to God, “when I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ if they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?”
3:14 * God replied, “I am who am.” Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.” (Emphasis added) The emphasized quote is for me the answer about existence asked, above.

Jesus, about himself said, in JN 8:12 “Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.””

About love, another topic discussed, Jesus said in JN 15:13, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

JN 15:17 This I command you: love one another.”

This is not a definitive post that will dispel doubts, but about those not much more need said:

If the belief , Atheism, is true, then all the adherents of it are forced to never know with 100% surety that it is true. When the end comes that will be it. For those of us with belief in God have Faith that the eternal happiness promised will begin or has already begun that continues with the end of our mortal existence forever. Perhaps, it should be our Hope with Charity, that when those without this Faith learn of their error, it will be good for them, too. It is mine.

 

[Armor_of_God]

but if you only want to stick with what is comfortable, then you are going to miss out on those truths which don’t conform to whatever your preconceptions of reality are.

Well said! Precisely what I would say to you. We ain’t so different, after all!

 

[Pax]

Well, most people allege that they are religious, which includes the sales people, the wealthy (some of them), politicians, who both lie and become wealthy–many people. There are very few rich and successful atheists who are ‘out’. If believing in a supreme being worked to promote ethics, we’d be living in a very ethical world! ALL of our politicians allege that they believe in a deity, and some of them really do, such as Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. The vast majority of the peoples of the world are religious and many of them are very religious! Yet the world is a lousy place. Religion often leads to immorality and at best, does not appear to be a disincentive to evil, at least not for most persons.

Your definition of atheist is incorrect. An atheist does not believe in a deity. That is all. You assert that an atheist is amoral. I assert that there are strong moral and ethical standards for good conduct that don’t depend on belief in a deity. Cooperation is essential to success in any society. Upholding the social contract is the basis for civil behavior and when this breaks down, everyone suffers, including the wealthy. It’s getting harder and harder to cheat all the time, witness Gov. Spitzer in NY. For those successful cheaters in our society, you can bet that many of them are religious. One can use belief in a deity to justify any evil. It doesn’t serve anyone’s purpose to be known as an atheist.

You sound very cynical and embittered.

Psychopaths have a fundamental flaw in their psychological makeup when recognizes no other authority but themselves. Belief in a deity would not help them.

You and A should both read my post over again. I am not cynical or embittered. Likewise, I am not making any particular claims about any particular atheist. Likewise, I am not arguing that athiests automatically act immorally. I have merely argued that there is no reason for them to do so.

None of you have disproved my contentions. Until you can show me why it is that a sufficiently intelligent, careful, and assertive person cannot game your so called system of “cooperation,” I will remain utterly unconvinced.

Please try again…I find your answers to be off my point.

Your arguments concerning people claiming to be religious but acting badly proves nothing. Those same poeple would probably act with even less restraint if they had no moral guide posts. One could also make the argument that their religious claims are nothing more than a failed sham to camoflage their true intentions. They failed because of poor decisions and general incompetance. Likewise, your comments about the governor of NY and his problems offer nothing in response to my contentions. Frankly, I find Spitzer to have acted “stupidly” as well as badly. He is a terrible example for you to use in an effort to refute my point.

I used psychopaths as an example of highly intelligent people doing whatever they want and getting away with it. They are an example of just how far a person can go in breaking rules and getting away with it. I made no judgments about how I personally feel about psychopaths. Please understand the purpose and reasoning behind my statements.

I would also point out that it really doesn’t matter if you think that you are a good person with moral standards as an atheist. It could be argued that you are doing so only because the cooperation that you engage in is necessary for you. It could be argued that you lack the vision of those that are capable of breaking out of your view and system of cooperation.

I’m not even convinced that your worries about society breaking down are correct. There will always be those that are cooperators par excellance and there will be those that are totally dependent upon them. There will always be those that don’t require much cooperation and they will game your system and surge ahead in satisfying their desires. If they are smart about it, they are successful and no one is the wiser. The only indications of their success are found in the goods and services that they receive beyond those of the masses.

I hope this begins to clarify my point.

 

[Pax]

If the evidence was there people would be worshiping your god. Denying it would be insane considering the consequences.

les

Well, there are a lot of people that believe in Christianity. In fact there are far more Christians than atheists. Are you serious about getting into some sort of numbers game?

 

[Excelency]

God will never give you something you cant handle, even if some people might choose to end their own life prematurely.

Do not get me wrong believing in God doesn’t mean I don’t seek knowledge in helping people in other ways, that don’t have to do with religion, but I always have it present in my mind that God is all around us.

God may never give you something you can’t handle but the rest of the world sure likes to stick it’s orr in the water and complicate his work. Things happen that God would not have happen and this is not his will. Athiesm is a tool of satan and predators are focusing on young people. The media allows so much alternative and degenerate thinking that degenerates become heros of counter thought. Since they have more influence on young people than can be controlled by parents, the effect is an errosion of morals before they have a chance to take hold.

 

[phooney]

Oh, very nice.

 

[Cathy]

God may never give you something you can’t handle but the rest of the world sure likes to stick it’s orr in the water and complicate his work. Things happen that God would not have happen and this is not his will. Athiesm is a tool of satan and predators are focusing on young people. The media allows so much alternative and degenerate thinking that degenerates become heros of counter thought. Since they have more influence on young people than can be controlled by parents, the effect is an errosion of morals before they have a chance to take hold.

A beautiful mystery of God, which is impossible for my finite mind to fully grasp is that He is still sovereign at the same time He grants us the freedom to oppose His will in our own lives. I recently heard it said that nothing promotes chastity like unchastity (meaning the consequences of unchastity are so miserable that it helps people to finally recognize the benefits of chastity). I think that is true, and that the same is true for atheism, from which I once suffered.

Thanks to God for His unfathomable Divine Mercy.

 

[_A]

None of you have disproved my contentions. Until you can show me why it is that a sufficiently intelligent, careful, and assertive person cannot game your so called system of “cooperation,” I will remain utterly unconvinced.

Please try again…I find your answers to be off my point.

If you can’t see all around you that cooperation pays off much more than the alternative, I can only restate that you have not provided any examples of this being true. Cooperation has given us space travel, the internet and the RCC. Give us your examples of non-cooperation being more successful, OK?

I used psychopaths as an example of highly intelligent people doing whatever they want and getting away with it. They are an example of just how far a person can go in breaking rules and getting away with it.

I wonder if you think they are just evil, perhaps possessed by demons, or if you think they are ill…

 

[Schultzz]

God may never give you something you can’t handle

but the rest of the world sure likes to stick it’s orr in the water and complicate his work. WOW! WHAT A FREUDIAN SLIP!!

Things happen that God would not have happen and this is not his will. Athiesm is a tool of satan and predators are focusing on young people. The media allows so much alternative and degenerate thinking that degenerates become heros of counter thought. Since they have more influence on young people than can be controlled by parents, the effect is an errosion of morals before they have a chance to take hold.

Well, here you are AGAIN. You asked me to continue to correct your spelling errors. Repeat after me, OAR, not orr.
Atheism may or may NOT be a tool of satan. It certainly is a choice for people to make. Did you bring your soap box with you? I can see you seem to have some intelligence, and perhaps you also have some knowledge, but there is a reason why you try to pick fights with people who don’t agree with you. Can you tell me what that is?

 

[lkddav]

Well, there are a lot of people that believe in Christianity. In fact there are far more Christians than atheists. Are you serious about getting into some sort of numbers game?

Hello Pax

The fact is that two thirds of the world’s population is not Christians.

WHY? Just as Atheist, they do not find enough evidence to make them believe that Christianity is true.

This is no numbers game at all, just facts. If there was enough evidence, the whole world would be Christians.

les