I am an atheist thread 4

[_A]

You guys are beautiful. There was a team of medical professionals working on this.

This is what is known as an anecdote. If you had any evidence, like the names of the doctors (by the way, I have never been told by a doctor what he believed with respect to religion - what an odd thing that these doctors all told your patient…)

Now that you think you have dodged the requirement that you support your outrageous claim, why not go on to insult some atheists?

your comments express ignorance about this process. You also are ignorant about my professionalism and integrity. I revealed something to you that is a mystery and a turning point in my life. I am happy it happened.
What your assumptions exhibit is a pessimism that I lived in for a long time. In your atheism you are isolated in your automated response to an unknown concept of God that in some mysterious way drew you to this site

Great. If you have nothing to back up your story, I will just assume it is invented, too.

Now let’s see here. Since most people have a religious belief, then having a religious faith is a regular claim. Since most are not atheists then the atheist claim is the extraordinary claim.

Atheism claims nothing except a lack of belief. If you believe, why not say why you do? Show us what evidence you have.

Since you positively asserted that there is no God, then it is time for you to provide extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim.

I said that they were all made up. Then I amended it to ‘all the gods I have heard sound made up’.

If a person claims that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence.

Right, and if someone (like YOU) claims that a god does exist, then that someone can offer evidence, or risk appearing very gullible.

Besides, if God could be ‘trotted out to do tricks’, He wouldn’t be much of a God, eh?

Yup. If your god could have any observable effect on the real world, it would stop being just a story used to frighten youngsters.

Arguments for - and against - the Christian God don’t exactly lend themselves to the sort of evidence you’d expect in the latest issue of Nature. It’s a question of philosophy, of reason, of interpreting and exploring what we see in the natural world, considering, and reflecting upon it.

That god you worship has exactly the same effect as any other invented god. If there is a difference with your god, perhaps we could start looking there…

Not to mention the ‘everyone is born an atheist’ canard. Everyone is born illiterate, infirm and without full control of their bowel movements too.

If someone lacks belief, they are an atheist. That’s it. You are (likely) an atheist with respect to Zues, or Krishna…atheists like me just believe in one less god than you do.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Why should you do anything? He has his life, you have yours. Be grateful you have one another, despite your differences.

Just so ya know, nearly everyone who abandons a belief in a literal, personal God does so not because he doesn’t read enough scripture, but because he reads too much.

People who read the Bible often are more likely to become Atheists, rather than less likely. Once you’re familiar with the details, it becomes impossible to take seriously. Either you redefine your religion as myth and metaphor (as I do) or you toss it completely.

It’s a good thing for me that all the priests, bishops, and deacons in the world don’t know scripture. Otherwise the Church would close up shop!

 

[Ronald_E]

I have just returned from my morning Rosary Run and I was shown that I have expressed my love for my faith in anger. If I have offended anyone, I am sorry.
In quantum physics it is postulated that nothing exists in isolation and that the whole is the sum of its parts. In 1997 at the University of Geneva an experiment in quantum mechanics demonstrated that when two identical photons were emitted by a calcium atom in opposite directions they reacted in similar ways when only one of them was being stimulated. The experimenters could find nothing connecting them.
Our bodies emit energy in the form of light, and, to take the experiment to a level of human interaction would mean for me that whatever my dominant disposition is either consciously or unconsciously affects others.
Christ stated that if we harbor anger against another human being even if it is not expressed externally we have harmed him and we are required to make amends.
I will no longer participate in this encounter because the smallest amount of hostility contributes to the hate and fear that create our world at the present time.
God Bless All of You.
Ron

 

[phooney]

Sure… you can affect somebody that way… if somehow you and that other person both happen to be made out of positive and negative virtual particals that arose from the same vacuum fluctuation, somehow escaped annihillating each other almost instantly and assuming also that your moods were completely dependent on the spin of said particles.

 

[_A]

I will no longer participate in this encounter because the smallest amount of hostility contributes to the hate and fear that create our world at the present time.
God Bless All of You.
Ron

I think Ronald opted out because we embarrassed him by asking for evidence backing up his ridiculous story about the woman with the bleeding hands and a bunch of atheist doctors .

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I think Ronald opted out because we embarrassed him by asking for evidence backing up his ridiculous story about the woman with the bleeding hands and a bunch of atheist doctors .

What a mean thing to say. Why would you assume he’s lying about his motivations? Maybe he meant exactly what he said – the tone of these conversations is ugly, and he didn’t like it. I don’t blame him.

 

[_A]

What a mean thing to say. Why would you assume he’s lying about his motivations? Maybe he meant exactly what he said – the tone of these conversations is ugly, and he didn’t like it. I don’t blame him.

Well, he was asked to offer evidence supporting his fairy-tale and he instead left.
Without offering any evidence.
He said many things which read like lies, and he was called on them. Should we just accept his lies? I know that many here are accustomed to accepting statements without asking for evidence, but I am not. If someone tries to pass of a fairy-tale as fact, I don’t mind pointing it out.
He doesn’t have to leave, of course, but if he stays, I would prefer he hold up his end of the debate, instead of refusing to provide more info and then leaving like he has been injured.
It’s a good thing lying isn’t a sin, or he would have something to worry about.

 

[Brady_W]

Hey guys (and gals), I’m new to this forum thing, so forgive me if I say something which has already been covered, I was going to try to read all of the posts to catch up on the conversation, but uh there’s a lot ha ha.

Anyways, I’m not atheist, but I like to talk about God, so hopefully you will all accept me coming into this conversation.

First off I noticed there was a lot of “onus of proof” conversation going on. I’m inclined to think it lays with the atheist. My reasoning is that 99% of all civilizations, of all times, have believed in one sort of god or another, so it seems a bit, uh “snobberish” to say that onus of proof lays with the theist. It seems that our society thinks that they were all stupid, and only our current civilization is capable or proper reasoning. I don’t think that Socrates would approve of that, nor St. Thomas Aquinas.

Secondly, I’ve always thought that if I were an Atheist, I’d save my money up, and travel over to Europe. Then I’d check out some of these miracles. Like incorrupt bodies of the Saints. St. Bernadette who died in 1879 lies incorrupt at St. Gildard Convent, Nevers, France. Or St. John Vianney who died 1859 lies incorrupt in Ars, France. And many others.

I don’t propose this as logical proof of God, but still it seems to me, with a question this important, I’d check it out.

I say the question is important, why? I’ll use Paschal’s wager. Four scenerios are possible.

1. There is a God, we choose to believe in Him. We gain heaven, the beatific vision, life everlasting in the presence of God.
2. There is not a God, and we don’t believe in Him. We lose nothing, we also gain nothing.
3. There is not a God, and we believe in Him. We gain nothing, we lose nothing.
4. There is a God, we choose not to believe in Him. We lose heaven(everything), and gain Hell (great).

This is not a proof, but a skeptical, but still practical way to look at it. That is all for now I think, but I think I may post more later.
God Bless,
Brady

 

[LaMar]

First off I noticed there was a lot of “onus of proof” conversation going on. I’m inclined to think it lays with the atheist. My reasoning is that 99% of all civilizations, of all times, have believed in one sort of god or another, so it seems a bit, uh “snobberish” to say that onus of proof lays with the theist. It seems that our society thinks that they were all stupid, and only our current civilization is capable or proper reasoning. I don’t think that Socrates would approve of that, nor St. Thomas Aquinas.

This is a good point.

It was I who brought up the idea that the burden of proof lies with he who asserts something. That’s just common sense, right? If someone says something exists, then it’s the prerogative of that same person to give some evidence of it.

There are ways around this that some believers will try to invoke. St. Anselm’s ontological argument was an attempt to address it. (That’s one of my own personal favorites).

Thomas Aquinas wrote a work called Summa contra Gentiles (which is probably a reworking of Ibn-Rushd, as I’m coming to realize only now) that addressed it, but the deconstruction of that very work would later provide lots of fodder for unbelievers, and go on to drive a wedge in the idea that God can be perceived at all.

It’s a dialectic that goes back and forth now, as it has for a thousand years. The important thing to do is to enjoy it, regardless of which side you’re on.

(And if you really can provide some convincing evidence for the existence of God, I’ve got a thousand dollars for you. )

 

[phooney]

Welcome to the discussion, Brady.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Well, he was asked to offer evidence supporting his fairy-tale and he instead left.
Without offering any evidence.
He said many things which read like lies, and he was called on them. Should we just accept his lies? I know that many here are accustomed to accepting statements without asking for evidence, but I am not. If someone tries to pass of a fairy-tale as fact, I don’t mind pointing it out.
He doesn’t have to leave, of course, but if he stays, I would prefer he hold up his end of the debate, instead of refusing to provide more info and then leaving like he has been injured.
It’s a good thing lying isn’t a sin, or he would have something to worry about.

I don’t understand your standard of proof. First you say that the person making a positive claim (for instance, “I witnessed a miracle”) must provide vidence, or you won’t believe it. Fine.

But then you turn around and make a positive claim (as Pax recently called you on), such as “This guy is a liar”. And yet you have no evidence to support this positive claim.

Seems kind of hypocritical. So much for that “golden rule” business.

 

[Minnie31]

Hey guys (and gals), I’m new to this forum thing,
I say the question is important, why? I’ll use Paschal’s wager. Four scenerios are possible.

1. There is a God, we choose to believe in Him. We gain heaven, the beatific vision, life everlasting in the presence of God.
2. There is not a God, and we don’t believe in Him. We lose nothing, we also gain nothing.
3. There is not a God, and we believe in Him. We gain nothing, we lose nothing.
4. There is a God, we choose not to believe in Him. We lose heaven(everything), and gain Hell (great).

This is not a proof, but a skeptical, but still practical way to look at it. That is all for now I think, but I think I may post more later.
God Bless,
Brady

Welcome!

Let me ask you this: how do you choose whether or not to believe? You either believe something or you don’t or you remain undecided. I never knew it to be a choice, like choosing what color socks you’ll wear today. Now, let me ask you: is it acceptable in Paschal’s wager to pretend to believe in God and follow whatever “necessary” rules there are to follow to hopefully gain access to heaven, assuming there might be one? Would that work?

 

[Brady_W]

Hi Minnie,
I can tell you how I choose what to believe. Usually through logic and reason. So, no I don’t think its allright to pretend to believe in God’s existence, and hope to receive the reward. Now both of these sentences seem to contradict Paschal’s wager. They do. But if you read what I wrote in my first post, I did not pose them as a proof of God. In fact I don’t really like the argument myself. The reason I chose to put it there was basically just to imply that the question of whether God exists or not is an important one, then if I were an atheist, realizing how important the question is, I’d save up my money and go check out those incorruptibles.

There are a number of things I don’t like about the wager in itself. I am Catholic, and don’t really think its wise to believe in God because of a wager. But it could be a starting point. No the main point was to point out the importance of the question.

God Bless,

Brady

 

[phooney]

As a Catholic, what have you done about saving up your money to go investigate the incorruptibles that weren’t from a christian faith?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

As a Catholic, what have you done about saving up your money to go investigate the incorruptibles that weren’t from a christian faith?

I’ve only read a little about the incorruptibles, but I haven’t heard of any similar claims from other faiths. I’ve heard of a couple instances where something was explicitly done to retard decomposition (either before or immediately after death). But I haven’t heard of spontaneous incorruptibility outside of Catholic and Orthodox saints.

Have you?

 

[Brady_W]

This post is addressed to LaMar:

I have a technical question for you guys, If I want to respond to LaMar’s last post, how do I do the quote thing to put what he said in my post? ha ha, I’m not so great with computers. Dang farm kids.

Anyways LaMar,

I think you and I are saying the same thing a little differently here. You say the onus of proof on the person who asks the question. I agree. But I think clearly throughout history, as I said before the accepted position was that of the Theist. Therefore, the onus of proof has to be on the atheist, for he is the one asking the question of pretty much all men from all civilization.

You said you’d give me a $1000 for some evidence of God. With all of this talking of onus of proof and whatnot, I assume you are talking of logical evidence. A good logical proof. Because philosophy seems to be the language you are talking. (which isn’t necessarily a great thing for me, I’m not a great philosopher, I’m a college student studying to become a doctor.) Is my assumption correct.

God Bless,
Brady

 

[Brady_W]

Phooney,

You guys are quick, I just posted that ha ha. Anyways, as I said I’m a college student with not much money. Although I have put away about four-thousand dollars to make the trip. At any rate, like Natural Enquirer, I’ve not heard of any incorruptables who aren’t Christian, but its a good point, maybe I’ll research that and go visit them too, if there are any.

God Bless,
Brady

 

[phooney]

I’ve only read a little about the incorruptibles, but I haven’t heard of any similar claims from other faiths. I’ve heard of a couple instances where something was explicitly done to retard decomposition (either before or immediately after death). But I haven’t heard of spontaneous incorruptibility outside of Catholic and Orthodox saints.

Have you?

Well, I haven’t read all that much about them either to be honest, but it is yet another interesting thing to look into. I looked them up on Wikipedia all those months ago when they were first mentioned in this thread, they gave a couple of examples of this phenomena in other cultures.

One thing I don’t remember seeing is any description of precisely what tests were allowed to be performed on the corpses in either christianity or the other cultures, so I’m not sure how the validity has been ascertained or discredited in any cases. I can understand that doing such tests is a touchy subject, due to it being on the dead bodies of, at the very least, much respected individuals.

Is there any material you can point me to that you found informative?

 

[LaMar]

This post is addressed to LaMar:

I have a technical question for you guys, If I want to respond to LaMar’s last post, how do I do the quote thing to put what he said in my post? ha ha, I’m not so great with computers. Dang farm kids.

Anyways LaMar,

I think you and I are saying the same thing a little differently here. You say the onus of proof on the person who asks the question. I agree. But I think clearly throughout history, as I said before the accepted position was that of the Theist. Therefore, the onus of proof has to be on the atheist, for he is the one asking the question of pretty much all men from all civilization.

You said you’d give me a $1000 for some evidence of God. With all of this talking of onus of proof and whatnot, I assume you are talking of logical evidence. A good logical proof. Because philosophy seems to be the language you are talking. (which isn’t necessarily a great thing for me, I’m not a great philosopher, I’m a college student studying to become a doctor.) Is my assumption correct.

God Bless,
Brady

The burden of proof isn’t upon the person asking the question, but upon the person proposing the answer.

That makes sense, right? I can’t definitively prove a two headed unicorn doesn’t exist someplace in the universe without scouring it and recording my findings.

Re: the old Roman legal codes, it can be analogized to our Habeas Corpus tradition. Suppose I accused you of killing a stranger? The logical thing to ask me is “where’s the body”? No rational person would expect you to prove that you didn’t kill someone, someplace. It’d be my responsibility to build a body of evidence (or an actual body) to bring to a jury.

So, if someone proposes there is a God, it’s his responsibility to bring him forth, or at least bring forth some evidence (a plague of locusts on my town, for instance). Same concept.

I don’t personally like Pascal’s wager, but check this out.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
I think this one is a little bit better, but that’s just personal taste.

By doctor I assume you mean physician. That’s great! I wasn’t smart enough for medical school. I’m glad there is going to be another conscientious doctor someplace, who bothers to think about the important issues of life, whether or not I agree with him.

 

[phooney]

You know, I just realised that on my recent trip to Rome I took a photo of one of the supposed incorruptibles, and I didn’t even know it at the time.

This website overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm

Lists Pope St. Pius X as one of the incorruptables. I just zoomed in on my photo, and I have to say he isn’t looking too good guys.