RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/13/09 at 08:00 PM | Reply with quote | #46 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
That is what happens when Christians insist that people MUST believe--without evidence. It's emotional and intellectual abuse. Peace comes with letting go of God and trusting that if he exists he will understand. And just living life the best one understands.
No offense or condescension intended, but this sounds more like "apatheism" rather than atheism. This is more of an emotional issue than an evidential. I've never heard anyone say you must believe sans any evidence. What types of evidences do you mean? Philosophical, empirical, historical, etc.? Or just empirical? I'm truly sorry for the obvious pain you have. But I must say, regardless of afterlife consequences (that is to say, even if there were none), this is an important question in your life. If one were truly apathetic, then one would not be on this forum. The truth is you probably do care. And that is encouraging.  |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/13/09 at 08:00 PM | Reply with quote | #47 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEBut I am big on the burden of proof for atheists as well as theists. No one escapes, mwuhahahaha and other such evil laugh-words. 
I am an atheist. I gave you three or four "burdens of proof" (depending how the fourth is evaluated) from a social scientific perspective. You have not yet responded to it. If you truly mean what you say here, i.e. that all atheists need to provide a burden of proof, then it seems to follow that you will evaluate all the burdens of proof provided by atheists in this thread.
I will be interested to see your response to my facts drawn from life, esp. Number 3. No. 3 is based on scholarly anthropological studies, biographies, autobiographies, personal testimonies by Christians and people of various other religions, etc.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/13/09 at 08:04 PM | Reply with quote | #48 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: Originally Posted by RandyE
All I mean is that if one "should" believe something, it means that logic dictates it is at least more plausible than its opposite or negation (at the very least, inductively), or that it is deductively inescapable. But now you've switched from "should" in a context of accepting a burden of proof, to "should" in a context of accepting the truth of a belief. Those are rather different contexts. I'd appreciate it if you would explain the "in order to" in the context of accepting a burden of proof.
The key words are "to regard it as true," describing the purpose of the burden of proof. You should do this "in order to" provide a reason for believing. This reason would be logical, and at least more plausible than its negation.
|
| Loading... | |
ubi2002
Registered: 11/30/08
Posts: 486
|
| | 10/13/09 at 08:27 PM | Reply with quote | #49 |
|
Quote: You missed my point. If you know you're right, you won't be offended no matter what the other guy does or says.
This is clearly false. Going back to the analogy on my previous post, if I knew that my friend existed, I would still be very offended at someone who makes fun of this friend. You treat God as if he is only an idea for Christians. For Christians, he is someone that we love, just as we love other people. Also, even if God was just an intellectual position for Christians, they would still be offended. I see those who "know" evolution to be true get offended when creationists make fun of the idea of evolution.
Quote:
accuses them of every conceivable crime known to humanity (Rom. 1).
I think Romans 1 is talking more of the pagan worshippers of their time than atheists.
Quote: I don't think you were here yet back then.
I was! Just lurking around reading others' posts without registering
Quote: I note that you do not presume to address my strongest argument for no god--the third one.
I didn't because I did not have much to say. In that argument, you only tackle primitive views of God. It has no relevance to how I view God.
Quote:
Nor do you offer a positive answer as to what or who this God really is. All you do is tell me that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about. Christians tend to be like that.
Please don't generalize Christians that way. Many atheists outside of this forums fit this description:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rann9SLUZyw, but I don't put generalize them into this image. Anyways, I do know what you're talking about.
If I recall, it was you who ignored my post after you agreed to discuss the kalam argument. See here: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=35590510&postcount=90.
Also RandyE added few things: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=35592614&postcount=92.
It was you who avoided our discussion about God. Anyways, I'm not motivated to discuss with you all that much, since I don't think you will ever be convinced. You do not seem as open minded as other skeptics here, such as wonderer and tcampen.
|
| Loading... | |
RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/13/09 at 09:22 PM | Reply with quote | #50 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
PROOF FOR NO-GOD
1. Christians go berserk when their god is challenged. Christians constantly ridicule atheists in their sermons and everyday conversation.
Quote:
2. These forums are supposed to win the atheists over to Christ with the reason of faith, yet what has happened in the year and a quarter since I've been here? If God existed, Christians would have brought forth convincing arguments to silence the atheist voice, as WLC advertises.
I'm not sure of any place that WLC has advertised "silencing the atheist voice."
It also seems as though your premise is "if God exists, then people would be convinced." How many? All of them? Some of them? A majority? The problem here is that people's accepting of an argument does not validate or negate it.
Quote: 3. Before I ever came to these forums, I investigated everything humans (across time, geography, culture, and religion) have ever called "god" and there are natural explanations for all of these "gods." This includes the Judeo-Christian God or God of the Bible. Neither the natural sciences, nor the social sciences, have yet been able to produce any evidence whatsoever that would indicate the existence of a supernatural realm.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "natural explanations for all of these gods." Do you mean that our origins of knowledge of these gods can be traced to a definitive time? If so, this would only indicate origination if there were some evidence that this was a new concept. I'm still not convinced however, that this tells us anything about God's existence, and here's why: how we know something does not necessarily tell us the truth of whether something exists! As for natural sciences not picking up supernatural, I'm afraid that's a category mistake: if it were measured and quantified naturally I'm not sure that it would then be counted as supernatural! If you really meant to imply that there are no good reasons to think the supernatural can happen, this is simply begging the question (since you are attempting to prove God does not exist, but supernatural is only impossible if He does not in fact exist).
I know this can be an emotionally charged topic, so I'm trying to be sensitive here.
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/13/09 at 10:01 PM | Reply with quote | #51 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ubi2002Quote: You missed my point. If you know you're right, you won't be offended no matter what the other guy does or says. This is clearly false. Going back to the analogy on my previous post, if I knew that my friend existed, I would still be very offended at someone who makes fun of this friend.
That just proves your emotional immaturity. If I were offended everytime someone said something nasty about someone I cared about, I would have been insane with offense ages ago. One must learn to rise above such paltry emotionalism.
Quote: You treat God as if he is only an idea for Christians.
So long as you provide no evidence for said God, that is all he is. Your distant friend will have a name, a country of birth, a DNA, etc.
Quote: For Christians, he is someone that we love, just as we love other people.
Evidence, please. What exactly is it that you are in love with? A feeling? An idea? Your faith community? You cannot just call it "god" and be done with it. "God" consists of something. Otherwise you don't know that it isn't just air or thought. I have never heard of anyone feeling love for thin air.
Quote: Also, even if God was just an intellectual position for Christians, they would still be offended. I see those who "know" evolution to be true get offended when creationists make fun of the idea of evolution.
Your immaturity is showing young man. Evolutionists can be just as immature.
Quote: Quote:
accuses them of every conceivable crime known to humanity (Rom. 1).
I think Romans 1 is talking more of the pagan worshippers of their time than atheists.
You can invent that argument if you like. It says they don't want to retain God in their mind. People who don't retain God in their mind tend to be atheist. In other words, that is what atheist means so far as I understand the meaning of that word.
Quote: Quote: I don't think you were here yet back then. I was! Just lurking around reading others' posts without registering
Ok.
Quote: Quote: I note that you do not presume to address my strongest argument for no god--the third one. I didn't because I did not have much to say. In that argument, you only tackle primitive views of God. It has no relevance to how I view God.
Sorry, you are badly mistaken.
Quote: Quote:
Nor do you offer a positive answer as to what or who this God really is. All you do is tell me that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about. Christians tend to be like that.
Please don't generalize Christians that way. Many atheists outside of this forums fit this
Hmmm. I see a double standard. In one sentence you tell me not to generalize about Christians. In the very next sentence you say "many atheists..."
I remember posting about the Kalam, but I have not been able to find the thread again so I assumed it died. I'll have to look at this link.
Quote: It was you who avoided our discussion about God. Anyways, I'm not motivated to discuss with you all that much, since I don't think you will ever be convinced. You do not seem as open minded as other skeptics here, such as wonderer and tcampen.
Don't be deceived by appearances! I don't know for sure about tcampen--or myself at all times--but I'm fairly sure about wonderer. I do feel sorry for you if "convincing athteists" is your only goal for engaging atheists on these forums.
You say I avoided your discussion about God? Please be aware that I cannot spend all my life on these forums. I've been sick the past few days so that I couldn't be on the forums at all. I forget when I was here last. It was not intentional avoidance--especially not if the topic was God. You tend to post a few posts, then you go away. By the time I get back on the forums, it is possible that the threads are buried.
I am not replying to every last point in this post because you seem to be really upset about a lot of stuff. I think there was some misunderstanding and unintentional offense. Hopefully this is now cleared up.
As for me ever being "convinced"--if anyone would provide irrefutable evidence for God's existence I would obviously accept it as true. I would have no choice. I think the same would apply to wonderer. But all you did was scold me for not being what you wanted me to be; you did not provide evidence for God.
Randy asked what kind of evidence I'd want. Any kind works, but it has to be evidence. Some Christians have a misguided idea re what constitutes evidence. Evidence is: A+B=C. It always works that way and it never works any other way. You can set up the situation any-which way you want and A+B always equals C. That, and that alone, is evidence. That kind of evidence has not yet been provided to me for God's existence. That, by the way, is the scientific method.
I had been going to say more but I forget what it was. I had to go do something else in between and I forget what it was so I'll have to leave it at this.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
ubi2002
Registered: 11/30/08
Posts: 486
|
| | 10/13/09 at 10:24 PM | Reply with quote | #52 |
|
Rs, I was speaking for christians who do get offended and react to ridicle of God. After trying to have discussions with atheists on youtube (bad idea), I have learned to control my emotions. However, I was giving the reason why chirstians tend to react.
Quote:
Evidence, please. What exactly is it that you are in love with? A feeling? An idea? Your faith community? You cannot just call it "god" and be done with it. "God" consists of something. Otherwise you don't know that it isn't just air or thought. I have never heard of anyone feeling love for thin air.
Like Platinga, I think that our experience of God is sufficient for us to hold our belief in him. It is very hard to explain this experience with words on a forum however.
Quote:
Your immaturity is showing young man. Evolutionists can be just as immature.
Exactly! The fact that some christians react to ridicule of God does not disprove God. Rather, it shows that some are emotionally vulnerable. It does not have anything to do with the validity of one's beliefs (as shown in the evolutionists who react to ridicule of evolution).
Quote:
Hmmm. I see a double standard. In one sentence you tell me not to generalize about Christians. In the very next sentence you say "many atheists..."
Sorry. I was rewriting the whole post since my internet was accidently closed. I meant to put I personally think before my sentence.
Also, sorry for accusing you of avoiding my posts. There you see that I still need to work on controlling my emotions, but I'm still young and have lots of time to work on it. But it does bother me that you write from a higher standing, as if you don't let your emotions influence how you write. From what I can see in some of your posts, you are very emotional about these topics, and the emotions leak into your posts. I think nobody can fully control their emotions and bias from influencing their thinking and words. Sorry if I'm wrongly assuming again.
|
| Loading... | |
tcampen
Registered: 03/09/09
Posts: 1,201
|
| | 10/14/09 at 02:29 AM | Reply with quote | #53 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by tcampenQuote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by tcampen
The simple claim that God does not exist because one has not been shown sufficient reason to conclude otherwise does not shift the burdern to that person to prove she is right. It is not a truth claim, it's just one's personal position based on whatever criteria they have to conclude something exists. It is the proponent that something exists that has the burden to demonstrate that it does it fact exist. That is a truth claim.
Now, if one were to claim "X God cannot exist", then you do have a truth claim, for it is proposing something that is necessarily true. This is distinct in form and intention from the first position above.
Hey tc You're right that it does not shift the burden of proof, but a burden of proof must be upheld by the one who says God does not exist. You say the one who says God does not exist is not making a truth claim: so they are not saying "it is true that God does not exist?" Your first sentence of the quoted paragraph indicated otherwise. Now, they may say "I do not believe God exists," and thus express only an agnostic viewpoint, bearing no burden of proof because they don't claim to know anything one way or the other. They could say "I believe God does not exist," but then it still would necessarily entail the claim "God does not exist" is true, requiring a burden of proof. Your right, the statement, "God does not exist" is a truth statement in the most technical sense. But I suspect many say that in a colloquial way, meaning "I don't have reason to think God exists." When people say "Fairies do not exist," do we really expect them to prove it? Not at all. We understand we're talking about the postiion that one doesn't have reason to think they exist, so they don't think they do.
...Again, when the position is based on a lack of reason to think something exists, how can that ever shift the burden in any respect?
I appreciate your honesty. One can tell you really do think deeply about this issue. I agree that people just say God does not exist, when in reality they simply mean they lack belief. One of the main reasons we do not expect people to bear a burden of proof for fairies non-existence is epistemological: no one I've ever heard of (of a reasonable age) believes in fairies, at least as far as I know. Now, if I was involved in a conversation with someone who genuinely believed in fairies, a few things would happen: 1. I would demand some evidence (philosophical, evidential, credible eyewitnesses, etc.). 2. I would have to consider then whether I simply lacked belief in fairies at this point, or whether I posited the non-existence of fairies. 3. Based on my decision, I would then be either agnostic concerning fairies, or bear a burden of proof on my own. "Burden of proof" does not necessarily mean deductive inescapability. It can mean inductive, or an argument that is more plausibly true than false. 4. I would also rebut their arguments. Now if I never talk to someone who genuinely believes this, there is no point in bearing a burden of proof--there is no one to prove it to!
How does this translate to the God conversation? If an atheist were never to encounter someone who believed in God, then he would bear no burden (at least none beyond what he had presumably borne in coming to his own conclusion). But if he did, the choices outlined above would apply.
As far a agnosticism, that would be an accurate desciption of me for the most part, but that only acknowledges a willingness to remain open-minded about anyone's claims. It does not mean I have been convinced to conclude such exists, only that I have found that such is not currently (or inherently) knowable.
In my life and world travels, I have encountered people of many, many different belief systems. Why does the fact someone believes something put any burden on me whatsoever?
__________________
I do not believe in a personal God. - Albert Einstein |
| Loading... | |
RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/14/09 at 06:55 AM | Reply with quote | #54 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Randy asked what kind of evidence I'd want. Any kind works, but it has to be evidence. Some Christians have a misguided idea re what constitutes evidence. Evidence is: A+B=C. It always works that way and it never works any other way. You can set up the situation any-which way you want and A+B always equals C. That, and that alone, is evidence. That kind of evidence has not yet been provided to me for God's existence. That, by the way, is the scientific method. When you say A+B=C, isn't this simply saying the conclusion flows from the premises? If not, then what does it really mean? If so, then that kind of evidence undoubtedly has been provided. What you probably mean is that you do not accept that C flows from A and B, or that either A or B are true. Otherwise, you would be forced to accept at least some kind of God. |
| Loading... | |
RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/14/09 at 07:05 AM | Reply with quote | #55 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampen
That's an interesting position. So we have to look at the tens of thousands (if not more) of organized spiritual beliefs out there to figure our which ones we can reasonably exclude? That sure seems like a lot of unnecessary work to me. I know there are high level scientologist who may very well believe in a war between alien civilizations some 80 billion years ago, but I don't feel inclined to refute such beliefs. Am I wrong for this? Do I have an affirmative obligation to?
...Why does the fact someone believes something put any burden on me whatsoever?
That leads us to 2. Can we know something to be true before evaluating all possible alternatives? I think the answer is yes. One does not have to go through every religious belief system in order to know which one is right! If one finds the right answer to 2+2, he needs not to know or evaluate every false answer; he only needs to know that the right answer is 4 and anything opposed to it is false.
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/14/09 at 05:14 PM | Reply with quote | #56 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Randy asked what kind of evidence I'd want. Any kind works, but it has to be evidence. Some Christians have a misguided idea re what constitutes evidence. Evidence is: A+B=C. It always works that way and it never works any other way. You can set up the situation any-which way you want and A+B always equals C. That, and that alone, is evidence. That kind of evidence has not yet been provided to me for God's existence. That, by the way, is the scientific method. When you say A+B=C, isn't this simply saying the conclusion flows from the premises?
No.
A=toy on table
B=pushing toy over edge of table
C=toy fall on floor (out of my reach if I am baby in highchair)
A=hot stove
B=putting hand on stove
C=injured hand from excessive heat
A=busy highway
B=running onto the highway without looking, right in front of a semi-trailer truck
C=getting hit by a truck
A=situation
B=action, method, what is done to the thing in the situation
C=effect caused by the action or method or "doing"
Give me this kind of cause-and-effect formula for the existence of God.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
ubi2002
Registered: 11/30/08
Posts: 486
|
| | 10/14/09 at 06:27 PM | Reply with quote | #57 |
|
This ABC thing is such a specific requirement for evidence. Are you implying that all truth fits into this ABC formula?
Give me this kind of evidence for evolution, atheism, existence of the real world, Big Bang, multiverse, string theory, the need of equal rights for all humanity, injustice of sexism/racism .... etc
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/14/09 at 06:52 PM | Reply with quote | #58 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
PROOF FOR NO-GOD
1. Christians go berserk when their god is challenged. Christians constantly ridicule atheists in their sermons and everyday conversation. I did not know these were addressed to me, but here goes. I'm assuming the argument is "if God existed, then people would not take offense if He was ridiculed." I'm not sure why we should take that as true, nor why people's reactions could dictate the existence (and contrapositively why God's existence would necessitate uniform action). Similarly, as one who has listened to literally thousands of sermons, I can count on one hand the number mentioning the word "atheist" specifically, and I can't think of more than two or three times the preacher has said something that can even be taken as offensive. Bottom line, it is hardly constant, and even if it were, no rule of inference would mean God did not exist.
When I decide the reliability of a person's report--such as your report of the sermons you have heard, I tend to take a look at the person's credentials. In other words, I look at how reliable their reports are of things that I do know. In this case, you claim not to have known that this post was directed to you. That is suspect, given that you were specifically asking atheists for proof for no-god.
I announced that I am an atheist. I titled that part of my post PROOF FOR NO-GOD in caps so that you could not miss it. The fact that you now claim to have not known that it was for you tells me that you are a very poor observer of human behaviour, and therefore not a reliable reporter of what sermons you have heard.
Conclusion: Just because you claim not to have heard ridicule of atheists or the word atheist in the sermons you have listened to is no guarantee that you haven't. You probably just didn't remember because it was so common.
Quote: Quote:
2. These forums are supposed to win the atheists over to Christ with the reason of faith, yet what has happened in the year and a quarter since I've been here? If God existed, Christians would have brought forth convincing arguments to silence the atheist voice, as WLC advertises.
I'm not sure of any place that WLC has advertised "silencing the atheist voice."
That is my words but the meaning is obvious.
Quote: It also seems as though your premise is "if God exists, then people would be convinced." How many? All of them? Some of them? A majority? The problem here is that people's accepting of an argument does not validate or negate it.
God, as Christians and the Bible portray him, is not an argument but a real entity. God, as Christians and the Bible explain him, leaves his evidence all over the place and leaves no one "without excuse." We are not talking about a "convincing argument," we are talking about "acknowledging what is real." I have yet to see this evidence that apparently exists.
Show me the evidence so that I can see it.
Quote: Quote: 3. Before I ever came to these forums, I investigated everything humans (across time, geography, culture, and religion) have ever called "god" and there are natural explanations for all of these "gods." This includes the Judeo-Christian God or God of the Bible. Neither the natural sciences, nor the social sciences, have yet been able to produce any evidence whatsoever that would indicate the existence of a supernatural realm.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "natural explanations for all of these gods." Do you mean that our origins of knowledge of these gods can be traced to a definitive time?
No.
Quote: As for natural sciences not picking up supernatural, I'm afraid that's a category mistake: if it were measured and quantified naturally I'm not sure that it would then be counted as supernatural!
According to the Bible and Christians, the supernatural overlaps directly with the natural in measurable ways. John 14:10 says "If you love me, keep my commandments." Christians therefore measure each other's "love for the Lord" by their behaviour in the natural body. There are a number of verses like this, esp. John 14:21, John 15:10. 1 John 2:3 & 4 uses the keeping of commandments (presumably in the natural body) as proof of knowing Jesus.
There are also verses promising peace to those who "keep these commandments," or "do those things." See for example Phil. 4:4,6-9, Isaiah 26:3: ?Thou wilt keep him in perfect?? peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee. Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life." Those who believe in these [beatitudes] are blessed--some translations say "happy," also a positive feeling.
Peace, incidentally, is a psychological function that can be measured with electronic technology and also via observation of behaviour, and with paper and pencil tests administered by psychologists.
The "keeping of commandments" manifests in everyday living behaviour, decisions, and in plans that impact life for future generations. It manifests in speech, in dress, in diet, in every facet of human life, depending on how an individual understands his or her God's commands. Every religion believes that keeping the commandments brings peace now, or in the hereafter. The "keeping of the commandments," however, always refers to this life on this planet.
For this reason, it logically follows that social scientists study people who "keep the commandments" of various religions. It also logically follows that individuals who keep the commandments of a specific religion expect peace to follow their obedience, and that if said peace does not follow a very long period of obedience that they begin to doubt the validity of the promise.
It further follows that if people of all religions and of no religion--including atheists--demonstrate the same level and quality of peace and inner well-being as do Christians, we conclude that the Christian message has nothing to offer in this life. Evaluate this over against the many promises in the Christian sacred text that "keeping the commandments" (which includes spiritual exercises such as prayer, worship, Bible reading, meditation, having faith, etc.) does indeed manifest in superior peace. I think you must admit that here in this interface there is a very broad overlap between the natural and the so-called supernatural.
That's just a quick over-view of the verses I could easily find. There's LOTS more in Christian theology, hymns, sermons, worship services, etc. that manifests in everyday natural life that can be and has been measured. An in depth study of other religions shows the same results. A study of the behaviours brought on by this "keeping of commandments" across religions forms a very distinct pattern. You don't want to know what that pattern is or what it implies.
That was the social sciences, not the so-called natural sciences, but they are based on the natural or physical world and life of humans.
Quote: If you really meant to imply that there are no good reasons to think the supernatural can happen,
You express it wrong. The supernatural either exists or does not exist. It cannot "happen."
Quote: this is simply begging the question (since you are attempting to prove God does not exist, but supernatural is only impossible if He does not in fact exist).
You're stating this backwards. At least, this is backwards to how I stated my research question. I asked: Does the supernatural exist? If not, then God and hell cannot exist. If so, then and only then is there a possibility for the existence of God.
Stating it that way allowed me to observe nonChristian religions and to compare a larger number of people across a larger number of situations. In other words, my horizons opened up and my view was not so narrow. My study left me with much information but without answers at the time. Later, when I felt better informed, I drew on this information as evidence that there is a human inclination (strongly buttressed by overwhelming inner experience) to believe in the supernatural but that it all begins and ends in the human psyche.
There is MUCH I am leaving out in this post. You don't want to know it anyway. And if you do, you can visit your local secular comparative religions library.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
tcampen
Registered: 03/09/09
Posts: 1,201
|
| | 10/14/09 at 06:53 PM | Reply with quote | #59 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by tcampen
That's an interesting position. So we have to look at the tens of thousands (if not more) of organized spiritual beliefs out there to figure our which ones we can reasonably exclude? That sure seems like a lot of unnecessary work to me. I know there are high level scientologist who may very well believe in a war between alien civilizations some 80 billion years ago, but I don't feel inclined to refute such beliefs. Am I wrong for this? Do I have an affirmative obligation to?
...Why does the fact someone believes something put any burden on me whatsoever?
It seems there are two issues here, and I think we can clear them up. 1. If someone believes something, you are right: they bear a burden of proof, and your simple lack of belief does not require a burden of proof. But if you make the truth-claim that "not-X," you must bear that burden in dialogue with a proponent of "X." If you simply lack belief, you are not judging the truth values of "X" or "not-X," so that you simply only have to evaluate evidences provided by either side.
Quote: That leads us to 2. Can we know something to be true before evaluating all possible alternatives? I think the answer is yes. One does not have to go through every religious belief system in order to know which one is right! If one finds the right answer to 2+2, he needs not to know or evaluate every false answer; he only needs to know that the right answer is 4 and anything opposed to it is false.
I understand this position. But within the context of God, tt seems to me like one is trying making their personal subjective position an objective reason to exclude all other claims. Furthermore, and I know I'm going out on a limb here, I don't think that even if you were correct about your concept of God that would necessarily exclude the Buddhist claim of such metaphysical reaslity. (This is where my agnosticism rears its ugly head.) It seems to me the divine could very well be big and powerful and mysterious enough to fullfill the truth claims of many different faiths as true, even if how that is possible is not clear in our minds. (Yeah, I'm borrowing from Catholic trinity theology here, but you get the point.)
I guess I just don't see anyone, inlcuding myself, being able to come to confident enough conclusions about God to warrant excluding any that differ by implication.
__________________
I do not believe in a personal God. - Albert Einstein |
| Loading... | |
ubi2002
Registered: 11/30/08
Posts: 486
|
| | 10/14/09 at 07:32 PM | Reply with quote | #60 |
|
I second RandyE. My pastor does not even talk about atheists. I think atheists were mentioned twice by him in my 5 years with him as my pastor. Churches I've been to focus their sermons on God and our walk with him, so we usually don't atheism. The twice that my pastor mentioned atheists were when he said that most christians who lose their faith do so in their university years, so we should be on guard. The other I can't remember now, but it was definately not a ridicule.
The claim that christians ridicule atheists jsut as much as atheists ridicule christians is not supported. Meanwhile, if you want to see atheists ridicule God and Christians, just look through youtube... I do have to say that there are quite a number of YECs who ridicule those who believe in evolution (who are not all atheists by the way), but not nearly as many as those who believe in evolution and ridicule creationists.
|
| Loading... | |
