@Jan Ardena --
If I've missed something please state it directly, as your condescending tones don't have any effect on me.
I'll put this simply if I can. When we look to confirm the existence of a phenomenon we look for evidence that it is there, in some cases this means that we must model the effects of the hypothesized phenomenon and look for said effects as the phenomenon itself isn't detectable by our instruments(vacuum fluctuations are an excellent example of this). If the model contains effects that are not there(such as the aether model of the universe) then we know, for a fact, that the proposed phenomenon is either nonexistent or our model is flawed(at which time we correct our model). In the case of the aether model we discovered that it was hopelessly flawed and unfixable, so we threw it out, the aether doesn't exist. This is an example of absence of evidence in fact being evidence of absence, as I said earlier, the evidence that
should have been there isn't and thus we know that the phenomenon doesn't exist.
In the case of the god hypothesis we have a plethora of models to choose from, and some can be ruled out right off the bat due to logical impossibilities(such as an omnipotent god) and internal inconsistencies(such as an omniscient god who gives us free will). Other models, such as the deistic god who merely created the universe and then just left(or died), can be discarded due to irrelevance. Now we can compare the effects of the models we have left to the world we observe to see if they match up. If they do then we have evidence that a god exists, if they don't then we either have to revamp our models or conclude that none of the gods we made models for exist. And after some ten thousand years of model revision and testing we have yet to find a single god model that fits with the reality we observe. By this method we can observationally rule out certain gods(though not the possibility of a god we don't have a model for).
As for the condescension in my tone, it's well deserved. This is a
basic scientific principle here, one that even school children in most countries are aware of. That you are either not aware of it or are deliberately ignoring it to save your belief from skeptical inquiry is shameful.
For me, there is no problem, science cannot approach spirituality.
Thank you for proving Darwin right on this one. You
believe that science can't tell us anything about spirituality yet you have no rational basis for such a belief. This just brings me back to a point I made in my first post, that ridicule is the only weapon we have against unintelligible propositions(thank you Jefferson).
How can you know that science must be mute on this subject when it's mute on no other? How can you posit such a thing without even attempting it? All you've done is attempt to wall off one of your cherished beliefs from the light of skeptical inquiry. This is the epitome of being closed minded. I don't have a single belief, cherished or otherwise, that I am not willing to submit to critical thought and skeptical inquiry and then willing to discard should it be shown to be in error. That is what being open minded really is.
We are also rapidly discovering that "spiritual" or "mystical" experiences, those things which theists and spiritualists bang on about like it's the greatest thing in the world, are merely the result of certain brain states and can easily be achieved without any reliance on spiritual or religious mumbo jumbo. We're learning this both through drug trials(many drugs bring about the
exact same sensation as religious and spiritual experiences) and through neurological studies of people undergoing such experiences. I, personally, can achieve that sense of "oneness" that Buddhists are always going on about merely by examining my thought processes in explicit detail. Doing this brings about the realization that the "I" in our thought processes("I think this" and "I feel that") doesn't really exist, it's something of a cognitive illusion created by our model making brain. We're actually learning a whole hell of a lot about spirituality from science, something you'd know if you hadn't closed your mind to that possibility.
It can however improve our understanding of the material world, which can be of helpto some of us (namely westerners) in our search for truth.
Oh wow, the old "truth is relative" and the old "there are different kinds of truth" canards rolled into one, you're good.
I suppose if I keep taking my car to the florist for it's M.O.T., my persistence will result in a bona-fide certificate, because I really tried.
Won't it?
And a straw man argument, way to go. You're quickly surpassing even my most ridiculous opponents in the logical fallacy department. Next time you decide to attack one of my positions, try getting my position
right before doing so.
Secondly, you imply here that there is some sort of "authority" on spiritual matters we can turn to in the same way that we turn to physicists in matters of physics. Of course you're dead wrong here as there's no comparison between scientific authorities and religious or spiritual "authorities". Scientific authorities don't just tell us, ipso facto, what is and isn't the way religious and spiritual authorities do, instead they present their evidence and their methods which they use to support their conclusions. Not only that, but every single person has the ability(if not necessarily the means) to test and verify scientific conclusions, the same can not be said or religious or spiritual "truths". Scientific conclusions are objective, the same no matter where or when they are or who's reading them, spiritual conclusions are subjective in that they change literally from person to person.
You mean there is something simpler than ''God did it''?
Quantum theory is simpler than "god did it". For starters, saying "god did it" doesn't actually tell you a damn thing about the phenomenon in question, you learn nothing about the mechanisms by which it functions nor about what sort of effects it has. Furthermore, by positing that "god did it" you must then explain god, where and how god came to be as well as how god achieved such a spectacular phenomenon. Of course, all of this is taking for granted that god exists, something which is undemonstrated in any way, so you must also demonstrate god before your explanation becomes parsimonious. You are multiplying your questions and answering none, it doesn't get any more complicated than that.
That's the way it works in science, I get it. But that's not how life works.
Actually that
is the way it works in life. In a court of law(at least in civilized countries) testimony alone is not enough to convict anyone of a crime, you must have actual evidence that the defendant committed the crime. When you accuse someone of doing something, even outside of a court of law, they are going to rightly demand that you prove it, your testimony is not enough. In all matters we place a premium on evidence, all matters except for religion and spirituality that is. Those are the only two areas where we willingly grant credence to testimony
over evidence to the contrary, and doing so is damn foolish.
The reality is, I wouldn't believe you even if you were telling the truth.
Thank you for proving, once again, just how closed minded you are.
If I was an atheist, I wouldn't believe God existed, even it was true.
Another straw man argument? Really?
I'm an atheist. I admit the possibility of some form of creator existing, though I put the odds of that being the case at being remarkably small. I am open to evidence that any of the religions are right(though they can't all be right), all I ask for is evidence that will stand up to skeptical scrutiny. So far I've gotten none, zip, zilch, nada, zero.
This is the stance of the overwhelming majority of atheists. Most of us are a six on the Dawkins scale, whereas you are a one.
I get it, you're an atheist, God does not exist because you have not seen him in the manner that you see ''things''. That's where you're at.
Swing and a miss. Perhaps you should take a moment to get to know my past before you make assumptions about me. Like most atheists in the United States, I used to be a christian, a fundamentalist christian at that. I was fully committed to seeking a life with God, I even went to seminary school to become a member of my churches clergy. I used to believe in god, I don't anymore because the more I submitted my thoughts and beliefs to critical thought, the less I was able to support them. The more I brought down the mental partition I had between my logic and my religion, the more I realized that my beliefs couldn't cut the mustard and I had no choice, if I wanted to maintain my new intellectual honesty, but to discard them.
You see, I have you at a disadvantage here....besides the fact that your arguments are logically fallacious and completely unsupported by evidence that is. The advantage that I have is that I understand your position, I understand it fully and completely because I
was in your position. The disadvantage you have is that you've never even
tried to understand my position, this is evident from your constant straw man arguments(which I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming are unintentional). I understand the appeal of theism and the rationality used to support it, you have a complete lack of understanding about what atheism even is. How can you hope to compete in a debate when your opponent completely understands your arguments and positions and you understand nothing about your opponent?
Well, that's how it is, and you don't believe. I can understand.
"Well that's how it is." Are you
really going to just try to assert that without presenting
any supporting evidence? How are you any better than those who slaughter women for trying to learn how to read and justify it by saying that "it's god's law, that's how it is"? Really. You're employing the exact same arguments here as they do.
Well you demonstrably don't understand because you can't seem to make heads nor tails of my arguments which is obvious because you can't refute a single one of them.
It is a hard concept to understand from a purely material perspective.
But I
do understand, as evidenced by the way that I've been able to deconstruct your arguments and refute them. If I didn't understand then I would be constantly committing logical fallacies and making irrelevant statements, I'm not. I think it's
you who fails to grasp the situation. The situation is this, I was a theist, I understand the theistic mentality as well as all of their arguments, you've never been an atheist and thus you understand nothing about the mentality and hence you fail to understand the arguments.
You say that, as if you know what the whole of reality is.
Nope, I say that as if I understand the way science works, and I do. Science depends on observation followed repeatable experiments, if the effect is not repeatable then the observation is in error. If repeatable experiments demonstrate a "supernatural"(perhaps "paranormal" would be a better word) effect, say that intercessory prayer actually works, then accepting the supernatural would be the only path available.
You see, I(and science) don't
need to understand what the whole of reality is, just like I don't need to have all of the answers to know that your answer is wrong. This whole "understand the whole of reality" is irrelevant, it's a red herring, yet another logical fallacy.
You don't need to be well educated or an expert to spot logical and methodological flaws in an argument or assertion, you just need to be open minded and skeptical. Now, I have the added benefit of a scientific education which means that I have a fairly thorough understanding of scientific methods and procedures and that I understand the current limits of scientific inquiry. You lack such knowledge and as such you conjure limitations on scientific inquiry that are simply nonexistent.
Can you cite any definition of science, or scientific paper which cites science knows what reality is?
Nice red herring, again. Every single human being shares a working definition of reality which is fundamentally the same(this is due to our shared ancestry and the fact that our brains function in the same way). This definition, which we all accept(though some add on more, often unnecessarily so), is that reality is that which we observe around us. This is the most simplistic definition of reality available and it is universal in humans and, we can guess, to most mammals in general. Science only takes it a step further in trying to
confirm observation through repetition. This helps remove the element of human error as our brains are notoriously prone to hallucination and outright fabrication of events.
Not that this has any relevance though, I already explained that science works through observation, and if the paranormal exists then it must be observable. If it's not repeatable then delusion or hallucination offer better explanations. Again, Ockham's Razor shreds your contention to ribbons here.
I think you've been brainwashed if that's what you think.
Nice! Demonize and belittle the man who's eviscerating your arguments so that you have an excuse to dismiss anything he says without even considering it. If this weren't a tactic that theists employ religiously(pun fully intended) then I'd almost be surprised by it.
Besides that, you had absolutely no way to know
what I think, and it's obvious that you have no scientific education as you'd know better than this if you did. My suggestion, the next time you feel like making an assumption about what I think or what my past is(both of which you got woefully wrong), pick up a book and read instead. I would recommend Carl Sagan's
Demon Haunted World, you might learn a thing or two about science and scientific thinking. Of course,
Cosmos is always a good choice too.
The ''supernatural'' refers to our perception of natural phenomena or activity, which we have yet to understand.
Then, as I already mentioned, perhaps "paranormal" would be a better word for said phenomena.
I'm interested in God, who is coined as ''supernatural, and I sort of go along with it.
God is "coined", as you so put it, as supernatural because the actions and traits attributed to him would violate all of the known laws of physics. Now, it is possible that the laws are hopelessly flawed and we should just throw them out, however given how useful they've been in predicting natural phenomenon and building technology I highly doubt this. After all, how likely is the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be wrong?
That's a good thing. It's what science is for. God, isn't ''supernatural''.
So god, according to you, is both a nonphysical being who can intervene in the universe and yet
isn't supernatural?
Headdesk! The Fail! It burns so bad!!!
Gladly.
In Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, Numbers 14:20, 1 Samuel 15:35, 2 Samuel 24:16 god is depicted as changing his mind about things(which, by the way, is irreconcilably inconsistent with the concept of omniscience). In Numbers 23:19-20, 1 Samuel 15:29, James 1:17 god is said to not change his mind.
In Genesis 11:9 god confused the languages of the world(the whole Tower of Babel thing) and yet in 1 Corinthians Paul states unconditionally that god does not cause confusion.
In the books of Genesis(12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30), Exodus(3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11) Numbers(12:7-8, 14:14), Job(42:5), and Amos(7:7-8, 9:1) we are told that god can be, and has been, seen and heard by people. However in Exodus 33:20 we are told that no man can see god and live(despite the fact that people had apparently done so before and would do so after) and in John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 we are told that no one has ever seen god and that god can not be seen.
Genesis 10:5, 20, and 31 tell us that there were many languages before the Tower of Babel, yet in Genesis 11:1 we are told that there was only one language before the Tower of Babel(which is it already!?).
Genesis 17:1 and 35:11, 1 Chronicles 29:11-12, and Luke 1:37 tell us that god is all powerful(leaving aside, for the moment, that this is impossible) and that anything is possible with(or for) god. But in Judges 1:19 god couldn't drive out the plainsman because they had chariots of iron(apparently god is a fey).
This is just the tip of the iceberg, I could go on all day long but I have other things to do so if you want more examples, GFE. The bible is hopelessly inconsistent with itself, with god at times commanding sacrificial offerings and then denying that he ordered it earlier, and other holy texts are just as bad if not worse. This is proof that no divine hand penned these texts and powerful evidence that there's nothing divine about them.
You misunderstand the essense, and point of the scriptures. IMO.
Why? Because I don't see a hopelessly inconsistent, mindbogglingly irrational, and stupefyingly ignorant text as a source of knowledge? Or is it because I think that we've learned far more than they could have even dreamed of knowing in the last fifty years along(thanks to science once again) and that their ignorant ideas are humorously quaint?
But I'm curious, what, in your oh
so humble opinion is the "essence and point of the scriptures"?
The bible, as we know it, doesn't really describe God fully.
The bible, as we know it, describes god's
personality explicitly, and even the worst and most immoral humans of all time compare favorably to how god is depicted. I would rather see Hitler as god than the god of the bible.
For example it states that God is pure spirit, but it doesn't explain the nature of spirit. Which is why you equate him with humans.
Actually, I equate him with humans because that's what the authors did, and that's what every single christian organization that has ever existed has ever done. I think that I'm on solid theological ground here, which is why it's so funny.
Yes, and a good mechanic can explain everything about a car without the need to posit a creator, or as i like to put it: without stating the obvious.
Positing a creator for a car is only obvious because it's necessary, no such necessity exists in explaining the origin of the universe. With the fact that our universe has a total energy of zero(if you took all of the energy in the universe and mashed it all together, you would get nothing) combined with what we know about quantum foam and vacuum fluctuations we know that an entire universe, an uncaused universe, can come into existence from nothing. No creator necessary. And that's merely one of the plausible origins of our universe, there are others and the book isn't closed yet, but every single one of them works without the need to include a creator. As I said, it's unnecessary and thus irrelevant.
Nice try though, but I've been doing this for a long time and you don't have any arguments that are new to me, at least you've not displayed any yet.
And I see no reason to believe that you are a better person than me, or that your experiences are are superior to mine.
I never said anything about being a better person, though my knowledge of the subject is demonstrably better. Nor did I say that my experiences are superior to yours, though I have had religious experience while I was religious and after I wasn't, so in that respect I have more experience on the subject than you.
However this is all irrelevant, yet another red herring. Experience and opinion mean squat when it comes to existence claims, all that matters is repeatable experimentation to confirm observation. Without such evidence no such existence claims have any sort of validity. In other words, unless you put up the evidence(and you haven't don so in this entire thread) you should get used to people telling you to shut up.
I didn't ask SP to respect my beliefs, I asked him to respect my individual experience which lead me to the person/human being that I am.
Again, I didn't seem him disrespecting your "experiences"(if that's even possible), SP and I merely doubt your interpretation of them and your opinions as to their cause. That's not disrespect.
Not respecting that, is what leads to unnecessary confrontations, paving the way for conflict.
Really? And here I thought that it was the explicit call of most holy texts to kill unbelievers and heathens(with unbelievers receiving the worst of the hatred) combined with the metaphysics of martyrdom endorsed by most holy texts. Damn, how could I have been so wrong? You've
really shown me the light here.
I guess the best thing would be for us atheists to go back to the way things used to be, with our hands wrapped around our ankles waiting silently for theists to ram their beliefs up our....
Nope. I don't "understand it" as you say. In fact I attribute the cause of the conflict between science and religion as coming from the fact that religion just won't shut up about "how the world is" and merely asserts that it's right without ever providing one piece of evidence to support it's assertions. If religion would stay away from the realm of science there wouldn't be such a conflict, instead we have
religious people and institution attempting to force creationism/ID crap into our schools to indoctrinate children. Instead we have religious organizations telling us that homosexuality is unnatural, despite the five thousand plus species that engage in homosexual behavior. Instead we have religious organizations condemning condom usage in Africa and thus condemning millions of people
each year to death, they as good as slit their throats.
Do you
really think that these conflicts are cause by a "lack of respect"?
Keep in mind that you(theists) have held the international stage, and the reigns of power, for over five thousand years now, perhaps it's time you step back and give someone else a try before you blow up the whole planet(a very real possibility).
Or do you disrespect my being a person on the basis that my personal experiences leads me to believe as I do?
I don't respect or disrespect you, you've done nothing to earn either(though your dogged insistence on using logical fallacies is working to earn you my disrespect). It is quite possible to disrespect a person's beliefs without disrespecting the person, you really should be aware of this.
He may not have reached that stage, but his whole attitude smacks of that territory.
Bullshit. All he's done is disagree with you and
explain why. That is not even close to the territory you seek. If you want to see people embracing that territory you're going to have to look at the religious idiots trying to ban Huckleberry Finn from schools, or those attempting to force school prayer.
I still
love getting this reaction from you though, because it's so out of proportion. Any criticism of your beliefs and you cry persecution, but it's perfectly alright for you to imply that all atheists are either dumb or ignorant or hateful or any combination thereof, which is exactly what you've been implying this entire thread.
Bottom line, criticism can never be the same thing as forcing you to do or think anything. It might cause you to reconsider some things, but no force of any kind was used. On the other hand, religion regularly attempts to force people to think and believe certain things, either through threats of damnation or through legislating
their morality on the rest of us(see DOMA and Conscience Clauses). So perhaps you're projecting your discomfort with these tactics onto an "enemy" so that you can deal with these aspects of yourself better.
Well firstly, neither SP or you can ridicule my belief.
Only because I haven't bothered to get the specifics. The specifics aren't necessary for me to shred your beliefs like beef because they rest on the premises that god exists, that god interacts with the universe, that god cares about humans, and that you have had experiences which were sent or inspired by god(not to sure about this last one, guessing). If any one of these premises is shown to be faulty or outright wrong then your entire belief system collapses which explains your reluctance to submit your beliefs to skeptical inquiry.
I, on the other hand, have two fundamental premises underlying my beliefs, and you can't attack them because you've already accepted them as valid. The first is that the universe exists, and I already know you're not going to be arguing against that as it would also undermine your beliefs. The second is that we can learn something about it, again you're not going to attack this one because you share it(otherwise how would you have "learned" about god?).
But the fact thay you feel you have a right to do so means you are trying to force me out of my belief.
Nope, that would require us to use force. I don't know about SP, but I have literally no intentions of doing so unless your beliefs pose a threat to others. As of now they don't. Again, merely arguing against you and criticizing your beliefs is
not forcing you to change them. All we're doing is presenting you with another piece of the puzzle, it's up to you whether or not to accept it.
Now, if we were threatening you...say, with eternal damnation...
then we would be attempting to coerce you, which is a form of force. There are no threats and no possible use of physical force, therefore we are not attempting to force you into anything by merely ridiculing your position. You might
feel like we're forcing you, but we're actually not. As I've said before, how you or I or anyone else feels about something doesn't necessarily make it true.
The funny thing is, I think I know why you try and do that.
Oh please, do tell.
You do that because: a) the mindset that is in contol of the world (monetry, media, education, food, etc..) do not want a population dependant on God for anything. It's just not good business. Your mindset, as silly as it is, does have an effect on the population.
Actually, this is pure tripe on a bike. If you look at all of the laws in this world, just how many are anti-theistic? A very small percentage(pretty much confined to China). Now, how many are pro-theistic? The overwhelming majority of them are, and that's not counting the theocracies still in existence(in the US alone we have DOMA, conscience clauses, federal "faith based" initiative, funding for religious sex ed in public schools, the list goes on). Now, how many of those laws are openly anti-atheistic? A fairly large percentage of them(even here in the US it's still legal to discriminate against atheists and there are seven states in which it is illegal to hold public office unless you believe in a supreme being).
Sorry, but the evidence sides against you on this account. But then, you should be used to that by now.
b) now you're all dressed up (with powerful backing) but have between nothing and very little to argue with. When you're points get shown for what they are, and you actually realise you have no material, you go for the lowest common denominator. Of course you are helped with some religious groups and movements, which you then try to tar everyone with that brush.
First of all, what "powerful backing" are you talking about? Is it the scientific evidence we have supporting a naturalistic origin of the universe and a naturalistic origin of life? That's not "powerful backing", that's facts baby.
Second, you have yet to actually rebut any argument brought against you in this thread(that I've seen) and you sure as hell haven't even scratched mine. Furthermore, on this train of thought, you haven't presented even one argument which wasn't a logical fallacy. It's obvious from this thread that
you are the one without a leg to stand on. Your holy books are all forgeries and plagiarized, your god is AWOL, and your arguments fly in the face of even the barest grasp of logic. How,
exactly is it the atheists who don't have any arguments.
Third, I haven't gone for the lowest common denominator here, you have. I may, indeed have, been cutting and snarky in my posts, however that's more of a personal flair(I write frequently you see) than anything else. You, on the other hand, have continuously misconstrued my arguments(deliberately or not I don't know), consistently put forth superfluous and irrelevant arguments, accused me of attempting to coerce you, and generally demonized me in an attempt to discredit me in your eyes. All of these are the tactics of those who know they can't win an argument through the use of logic and reason.
Fourth, I haven't painted any group with any brush. Yes, I have highlighted some of the evils that religion has committed, but my main argument has always been the fact that theism is a hopeless mess of inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and outright ignorance of the evidence. That wasn't always the case, in the far reaches of history religion represented mankind's best attempt to understand the world, but like all preliminary models, it was flawed.
Do you want to know the
real reason I seek to ridicule your beliefs? I already stated it, they're unintelligible. They make no rational sense and rely on numerous unjustified assumptions. Against such unintelligible positions ridicule is the only effective weapon humans have, reason doesn't work(as is obvious from this and other threads) and neither does discourse as you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong(something which I've admitted multiple times in this thread). What other track are we supposed to take? Oh that's right, you would prefer it if all the atheists just shut up and took it.
It all came to me one day when I was shopping in Tesco, and saw a display of Dickie Dawkins comic masterpiece 'The God Delusion' displayed right next the fruit and veg section.
I actually thought that Dawkins' best work was
Unweaving The Rainbow but I digress. It "all came to you" huh, did you even
bother to check your idea against the evidence? Of course you didn't, you just ran with it because it fits well within your worldview.
