Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Edwardo Piet]

Nothing can prove them wrong.

They're already wrong.

They're theists.

[fr0d0]

Not empirical evidence, objective evidence.

Please explain the difference for us

---

All the other putative paths have never produced any knowledge; ideas, yes - knowledge, no.

Really?

Microwave? Radio wave? Dawkins stated that both owed their existence to theoretical science iirc. How about black holes, higgs boson. Where will string theory lead? How about dimension theory? I'm no scientist. I just find the stuff to be genius. Why dismiss a whole genre of thought? Why not be in impartial rather than what seems to be off hand dismissive? You can't even answer the question. Instead you're straight into denial. Not impressed.

[Chas]

Not empirical evidence, objective evidence.

Please explain the difference for us

---

All the other putative paths have never produced any knowledge; ideas, yes - knowledge, no.

Really?

Microwave? Radio wave? Dawkins stayed that both posed their existence to theoretical science. How about black holes, higgs boson. Where will string theory lead? How about dimension theory? I'm no scientist. I just find the stuff to be genius. Why dismiss a whole genre of thought? Why not be in impartial rather than what seems to be of hand dismissive? You can't even answer the question. Instead you're straight into denial. Not impressed.

Empirical evidence suggests (or assumes) empiricism as a philosophical stance. The idea that knowledge only comes from experience.

But empiricism is not true, or at least not true enough. Knowledge comes from creativity supported by evidence. We create knowledge, it is not there for the taking.

Objective evidence is evidence that can be independently understood by others, it is not internal.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I bet if God sent his physical self to earth, only to see him killed in front of everyone, that would work! Wait...

What??..That happened???




...They say he came back to life???...and they bought it???

[Tonus]

In that spirit, I may not reply to many of the posts in response to this. After all, you just said you thought our responses would be interesting. I don't mean to proselytize, nor do I mean to quarrel. However, if you want to talk then inbox me or, more preferably, email me.

I think that was an excellent post; it can be pretty difficult to figure out the particular beliefs/approach or worldview of a person just from their particular stance on belief/religion. You seem to have covered all of the bases on how you approach god and belief and laid it out in a clear manner. I do hope you are willing to discuss the individual points here in the forums, not everyone is seeking a quarrel and the nice thing about internet forums is that you don't have to engage anyone you don't want to.

It is a heck of a lot to cover in one topic, though, so I hope you will find time to discuss the individual points as they come up in other discussions (I think we've discussed all of them at some point or other, and many of them come up pretty regularly as topics).

[fr0d0]

Objective evidence is evidence that can be independently understood by others, it is not internal.

Let's move those goal posts.

Yes objective evidence is independently understood by others. You do know that Christians affirm each other's experiences right? So objectivity as you use it needs more refining.

Subjective evidence is personal to the subject.

The basis to religion, is that the choice to live morally/ with interest in your personal gain to be the best you can be... has to be a choice. You cannot have proof that goodness triumphs, you must believe it.
Sans justice (God), your ability to achieve happiness is limited by your reality, which acknowledges unfairness.
The ONLY point to faith is the enrichment of life.

[Locke]

[quote='Chas' pid='490599' dateline='1376078379']

[quote]You assert that God exists, without providing evidence. I will dismiss your assertion.[/quote]

K that's cool

[quote]You leap from 'no morals' to 'might makes right' morals without even blushing. Remarkable.
Morals are arrived at by reason and emotion - by people making judgements, trying out ideas, criticizing those ideas, and make progress.
Don't you see that ethics and morality are better today than those described in the Bible?[/quote]

Thrasymachus argued that without a standard to dictate morals, the strongest will decide what's right. While you can argue this is the definition of moral, I think you will find that investigating some of those examples I listed might find you less certain, because in those cases the concept of God was thrown away. Take Cambodia for example, where people as educated as we are would of been hunted and slaughtered, because our intelligence was considered a threat to the authority of the government. Decide for yourself if you'd argue for that case - I was simply stating that I wouldn't.

In addition, the ethics and morals today and in Bible times are equally terrible, because few people actually follow a high standard. If ever you step foot outside the 1st world countries you might wake up, but again, I'm only stating my stance on these things and why.

[quote]Again, you make an unsupported assertion. We each find meaning as we may - I'm sorry that you don't have the courage to do so, that you are so afraid that you have to have meaning and morals given to you.[/quote]

I think you confuse distraction with meaning. Perhaps its too deep for you.. or maybe it just doesn't work for me? Either way, carry on as you will.

[quote]Now you are just being ignorant or stupid. Atheism makes no claims - there is nothing to verify. Burden of proof is on you who claim some god exists. The one for which there is no evidence.[/quote]

You're attacking me as a scapegoat. I don't care what you believe, nor do I have an obligation as a Christian to convince you. Upon examining what I said more thoroughly, you'll find that was not my intent, nor is that what this thread is about.

[quote]Atheism is not a philosophy - it answers no questions.[/quote]

You're right - it doesn't answer any of my questions. Therefore, I decided I have no use for it.

[quote]Actually, not so. There may well be objective morality. It may be evolutionary at its base. But morality does not come from books written and assembled by ignorant, pre-Enlightenment people.[/quote]

Morals: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Principle: A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

Fundamental: A central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.

Ignorant, pre-enlightenment people.. unlike yourself, to be sure. /joke

[quote]Yes, there is no designer required. The 'Laws' of science are descriptions of observed behavior in mathematical terms.
Are you really dragging out Paley's argument dressed up for the computer age?[/quote]

No.. I was just clarifying that using a different word to describe the same thing isn't good enough verbal kung-fu to convince me of anything. It seems plain to me (as I'm an engineer) that design and engineering are the exact same thing.

Design:

1a : a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group <he has ambitious designs for his son>

b : deliberate purposive planning

2: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down

4: a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be executed

Engineering:
1: the activities or function of an engineer

2a : the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people

b : the design and manufacture of complex products

Engineer: a designer or builder of ______

[quote]Evolution by natural selection is not chance. You need to understand evolution before you disagree. [/quote]

I know evolution is not chance, in fact I said that.

Scapegoat: one that is the object of irrational hostility (/joke... but really, that's the definition)

[quote]
Fourth reason: While I have seen this very infrequently on these forums, some Atheists will use circumlocutions to try to get around using the word 'God'. They will say things like, 'Mother Nature', creation, fate, 'Gaia', or or other all-powerful entities. Going back to neopaganism only weakens the argument...
[/quote]

[quote]Who does that? Certainly not me.[/quote]

Nope.. actually its very infrequent in these forums. I may or may not have said that...

[quote]
Fifth: Ecology. I mentioned this previously, but it also contributes to inconsistency. I will add, though, that responding to ill-informed theists' stance that we are above nature does not mean we are only a part of it.. why not both, as the Bible teaches? After all, it is clear that we share certain aspects of nature, but it is also clear that we have dominion over other species on earth at this point.
[/quote]

[quote]We are part of nature. However, we are the only organism that understands evolution and can therefore get outside of the game.[/quote]

Yup, said that. Thanks for reiterating though

[quote]I judge theism as without basis because it has no evidence.[/quote]

K.

[quote]Well, I live a full and rich life. I don't squander my time, money, love, or attention on imaginary friends. I love this - my only - life, and shall be sorry when it ends.

I feel sad that you waste so much of yours on fantasy.[/quote]

That's good. It would be weird if you did.. I actually gave up fantasy, for the most part. I've barely played any video games in years, and I mostly read productive books. Not that I don't enjoy a good story here and there, but I tend to stick to reality.

[Chas]

Objective evidence is evidence that can be independently understood by others, it is not internal.

Let's move those goal posts.

I have moved no goalposts.

Yes objective evidence is independently understood by others. You do know that Christians affirm each other's experiences right? So objectivity as you use it needs more refining.

No, you can agree that you think you experienced something similar, but you can't compare those experiences in any objective manner since they are entirely internal.

Subjective evidence is personal to the subject.

The basis to religion, is that the choice to live morally/ with interest in your personal gain to be the best you can be... has to be a choice. You cannot have proof that goodness triumphs, you must believe it.
Sans justice (God), your ability to achieve happiness is limited by your reality, which acknowledges unfairness.
The ONLY point to faith is the enrichment of life.

You make yet another unsupported assertion by equating justice and God.
And another by asserting that my ability to achieve happiness is limited.

[Locke]

Let's move those goal posts.

Yes objective evidence is independently understood by others. You do know that Christians affirm each other's experiences right? So objectivity as you use it needs more refining.

Subjective evidence is personal to the subject.

The basis to religion, is that the choice to live morally/ with interest in your personal gain to be the best you can be... has to be a choice. You cannot have proof that goodness triumphs, you must believe it.
Sans justice (God), your ability to achieve happiness is limited by your reality, which acknowledges unfairness.
The ONLY point to faith is the enrichment of life.

Sounds solid.. after all, "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." - John 10:10b (le Jesus speaking)

Your statement reminded me of something I guess I could consider important to tag onto my original post:

I thought about this; Lotsa people say it works, lotsa people say it doesn't work.. but I don't know because I haven't had their experiences. If Christ came to bring us life to the full, and following the Bible is really supposed to work to do that, then I might as well be willing to change myself and give the Bible an honest shot, and either...

A) If it works, it will provide results sooner or later, and that will give me evidence to continue with it, or...

B) It doesn't work, and I wasted a buncha time and effort, costing myself hardship and struggle unnecessarily.

..But in the end, if it weren't true, then my life is pointless anyways, so there wouldn't really be such thing as wasting my time. Besides, maybe I'm a little bit masochistic but I enjoy a good challenge.

Challenge accepted!

And then it turned out to work.. who would've known

[The Reality Salesman01]