Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

[spidergoat]

When you say appear before you, is it safe to say that a definition of God for you would be a corporeal being with the qualities of omniscience or omnipotence? How do you visualise this God?

Appear doesn't necessarily mean corporeal. If it can do anything, it could appear in the flesh or not at will. It's safe to say that I'm sick of religious people evading the question by defining God out of any quality that could be used as evidence. It's a process of intellectual natural selection, any qualities of God that could be subject to testing becomes unpopular. A typical example is the question of prayer. Does it work? If it does, you could see the results statistically. The favorite saying of theists is, he works in mysterious ways. So don't even try to figure it out, it's mysterious (and it always will be if we have anything to say about it).

 

[greenberg]

So what does it mean when atheists ask for evidence of God, if a phenomenon, merely by happening, is classified as natural?

I don't know.

However, I suspect the real issue behind this demand for evidence is actually psychological and has to do a lot with
1. the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists, and
2. the reasons why a person should believe in God in the first place.

And as these two things are rarely settled, the focus of the theist/atheist debate shifts to something else that is more or less remotely connected with the two issues, but which seems it might be easier to settle, like the issue of evidence.

Those two issues mentioned above are worth several threads in their own right, though.

 

[Nasor]

Its just interesting to me that most atheists have a vision of a magical God who is bound by empiricism.

I don't understand what you mean here. "Empiricism" is deciding what is true based on observation. I don't think god is "bound by empiricism". I simply use empiricism to decide what to believe. The things that I listed were examples of strong empirical evidence for god's existance.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't know.

However, I suspect the real issue behind this demand for evidence is actually psychological and has to do a lot with
1. the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists, and
2. the reasons why a person should believe in God in the first place.

What are your observations on the above?

And as these two things are rarely settled, the focus of the theist/atheist debate shifts to something else that is more or less remotely connected with the two issues, but which seems it might be easier to settle, like the issue of evidence.

But evidence of what? Magic?

Those two issues mentioned above are worth several threads in their own right, though.

Explain

I don't understand what you mean here. "Empiricism" is deciding what is true based on observation. I don't think god is "bound by empiricism". I simply use empiricism to decide what to believe. The things that I listed were examples of strong empirical evidence for god's existance.

So if I were to say I will not believe in a black hole until it swallows a puppy before me, you would consider this a reasonable example of empirical evidence?

 

[Nasor]

So if I were to say I will not believe in a black hole until it swallows a puppy before me, you would consider this a reasonable example of empirical evidence?

Watching a black hole swallow an object (like a puppy) would be very good empirical evidence that black holes exist, yes. Exactly how much evidence it takes to get you to believe in black holes is up to you. Personally, I would require less evidence than that since black holes are predicted by the laws of physics, and the laws of physics have been tested many times. Since I believe in the laws of physics (due to the great amount of empirical support for them), I tend to believe in the things that they predict.

So far as I know, there is no similar set of empirically-tested laws or principles that strongly predict the existance of a god.

 

[greenberg]

However, I suspect the real issue behind this demand for evidence is actually psychological and has to do a lot with
1. the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists, and
2. the reasons why a person should believe in God in the first place.

What are your observations on the above?

I have many. I'll reflect on them and start a thread.

And as these two things are rarely settled, the focus of the theist/atheist debate shifts to something else that is more or less remotely connected with the two issues, but which seems it might be easier to settle, like the issue of evidence.

But evidence of what? Magic?

Like I said, the demand for evidence seems to be a secondary issue.
Take for example a bad marriage, and the spouses going out for dinner. No matter how good the dinner might be, it won't fix the bad marriage. The good dinner is secondary. Unless they first fix their marriage, the good dinner won't do much for them, and they won't be able to enjoy it.
In the theist/atheist debate, the issue of evidence is like that good dinner - it doesn't really make a difference because there is some greater issue that needs to be dealt with first.

 

[greenberg]

Watching a black hole swallow an object (like a puppy) would be very good empirical evidence that black holes exist, yes.

But how could a person actually watch a black hole swallow a puppy?
For this, the person would need to be close enough - but if close enough, the person would be swallowed too. Who knows what happens then ...

 

[Nasor]

But how could a person actually watch a black hole swallow a puppy?
For this, the person would need to be close enough - but if close enough, the person would be swallowed too. Who knows what happens then ...

Watch from a long way away with a good telescope, if you wish. Or sit just outside the event horizon of the black hole in a space ship with a very strong engine, so that you can hover near the edge and not get sucked in. Does it matter?

 

[greenberg]

the dynamic point comes when one realizes that the responsibility of suffering lies with us - IOW we made the choice to come here just like a criminal makes the choice to go to jail by doing crime - it is not the state's fault for constructing a jail

I have seen this argument before, but I cannot accept it.

I have made the choice to come here?
How come I have no memory of it?
Why would I have made such a choice?
If I have made such a choice, what does this say about the state I was created in, and about my Creator?
I think only an evil person would deliberately choose to come to samsara.

And the responsibility for suffering is a delicate issue - Considering the law of karma, the fourfold formula that applies for each present moment (this is the Buddhist version):
1. When this is, that is.
2. From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
3. When this isn't, that isn't.
4. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
- cause and effect relationships can be very complex. Results can come about that we have never intended, but they can come about as results of many other things that we did intend and do, but which seem to have nothing to do with the result in question. E.g. if I end up with a tapeworm infestation, this does not mean I have ever intended to get a tapeworm infestation. I could have gotten the tapeworm simply by stroking a dog, and completely unaware that the dog was carrying tapeworms, or by tying my shoelaces that have picked up tapeworm eggs as I was walking down the street, or wherever.

This is why I am inclined to think that "falling away from God" perhaps never was a deliberate choice, but more a getting carried away by lack of wisdom.
But I don't see why a good God would create humans who lack wisdom.

the first point is a bit off (by misuse of our independence - namely the desire to be separate from god - we have come to this world.

Why would a good God create beings who desire to be separate from God?

basically that comes from deconstructing the bodily concept of life - it is not that a person get rabies - it is the body of the person that gets rabies -

But it is still up to the person to deal with the state of being ill.

thats the body for you - makes you wonder why we invest so much hope in it

Because it's all we seem to have. We identify with the body per default.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

sowhatifit'sdark,



It hasn't been reached, it always was, with a few acceptions (from my experience anyway).



Jan.

I have never seen so many threads on the topic, nor so much name calling and snideness. You were on the front lines earlier, so I can see how your experience may not have changed much, but I think what you experienced personally has spread out: more threads, more individuals on both sides.

 

[Norsefire]

Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

Same thing

 

[iceaura]

Its just interesting to me that most atheists have a vision of a magical God who is bound by empiricism.

We're just taking your word for it.

If you have some other kind of God to propose, we can take a look. The "magical being with empirical consequences of its existence" description seems to cover the lot so far.

 

[S.A.M.]

We're just taking your word for it.

If you have some other kind of God to propose, we can take a look. The "magical being with empirical consequences of its existence" description seems to cover the lot so far.

So what would you consider evidence for/of God?

 

[spidergoat]

Why do you believe in God?

 

[S.A.M.]

Why do you believe in God?

This thread is about atheism.

 

[Norsefire]

Why do you believe in God?

Why do you not believe in God?

I think it's just a way people view their existence; the origins of existence will always be a mystery. Some believe in the big bang theory, others in a divine creation, others in intelligent intervention, and yet others in something else entirely.

 

[Pete]

Are you going anywhere with this SAM, or are you just collecting data?

 

[Pete]

Why do you not believe in God?

I think it's just a way people view their existence; the origins of existence will always be a mystery. Some believe in the big bang theory, others in a divine creation, others in intelligent intervention, and yet others in something else entirely.

Do you believe in a deist God, a God that is only an explanation for the origins of existence?
Or, do you believe that God intervenes in the world - answers prayers, inspires prophets, or facilitates miracles?

 

[Michael]

If the Gods (or Xenu) are real they could theoretically be empirically knowable if they chose to be so.
There is no empirical evidence of Gods or Xenu.
There is no rational reason for my belief in Gods or Xenu.

Probably no one here believes in Xenu. Some people do but I don't recall a Scientologist here. For Xenu we are all atheist. What would an aXenuist consider robust evidentiary support for the postulate of Xenu?

RE: GOD and how would I know if there was a God?

It could simply make me God and then I would inherently know it was God.

Pretty simple really,
Michael

 

[(Q)]

So what would you accept as evidence of God?

Since gods are invisible and undetectable, I would have no idea what would constitute evidence to support their existence.

You would need to define those characteristics and/or properties that are visible and/or detectable before an assessment can be made warranting evidence to the gods existence.