Arcanus,

I meant no disrespect; I just didn't want to assume that you knew everything I know based on some halo effect. I would say that my rejection of God is based on a scientific assesment of the available data. When I say rejection, I really mean a passive consequence that came about while looking for deeper knowledge of God.

Solarwave,

What I am about to say may be hard to believe but you must accept it to move forward in your understanding. I did not seek atheism, it found me as a side effect of increasing my knowledge of how the world works. I would love to believe but simply cannot. I did not trade God in for freedom and at first my "revelation" bummed me out to the uttermost, but belief is a reaction to knowledge, not something you can control.

Rhizo

(October 1, 2009 at 6:01 pm)Arcanus Wrote: Things like theories of morality?

Sure.

(October 1, 2009 at 6:01 pm)Arcanus Wrote: It would seem that only matters if your belief is actually called for. Right? Just because I tell you that I saw a ghost, that doesn't mean you are required to believe ghosts exist (explicit). I am not even asking you to change your worldview (implicit). I am simply telling you something that happened. You may not believe ghosts exist yourself, but in the final analysis, what has that to do with my experience?

I'm simply stating the difference between believing someone's name is what they say it is and whether they had an experience with a ghost. My standards for accepting either claim is different. They have to be. I can't require everyone I meet to show me ID, but I can't accept every extraordinary claim uncritically because then my susceptibility to nonsense is overwhelming.

There's a difference between believing someone is convinced that what they say happened actually happened, and believing that what they say happened, actually happened. See the distinction?

I started out as a fundamentalist (literalist) believer in God and I was at one time one of those that claimed the inerrancy of the scriptures. My pastor said in church that we should all read the bible in its entirety to get a full view of God's vision. I did so four times and aside from all the inconsistencies I found in the scriptures I was shocked most by God's cruelty. I envisioned the biblical God as a tyrant and slowly but painfully I began to wean myself away from Christianity.

(October 2, 2009 at 10:32 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Solarwave,

What I am about to say may be hard to believe but you must accept it to move forward in your understanding. I did not seek atheism, it found me as a side effect of increasing my knowledge of how the world works. I would love to believe but simply cannot. I did not trade God in for freedom and at first my "revelation" bummed me out to the uttermost, but belief is a reaction to knowledge, not something you can control.

Rhizo

So for you there was no motivation at all from other sources, such as being free from the moral code of Christianity?

(October 2, 2009 at 10:57 am)chatpilot Wrote: I started out as a fundamentalist (literalist) believer in God and I was at one time one of those that claimed the inerrancy of the scriptures. My pastor said in church that we should all read the bible in its entirety to get a full view of God's vision. I did so four times and aside from all the inconsistencies I found in the scriptures I was shocked most by God's cruelty. I envisioned the biblical God as a tyrant and slowly but painfully I began to wean myself away from Christianity.

Darn God sending His Son to die for us and keeping us all alive, what an evil person.

Do you believe it would be evil to let us all die right now? From where did our right to life come from?

What if living isn't a neutral act but a good act of mercy and grace by God and being dead is neutral.

Quote:So for you there was no motivation at all from other sources, such as being free from the moral code of Christianity?

There is no motivation from any source, and that is the point. If anyone is an atheist because they just can't live up to the moral code I can convince them to be theists again by pointing out they just need to ask forgiveness after they sin!

Rhizo

(October 2, 2009 at 10:57 am)chatpilot Wrote: I started out as a fundamentalist (literalist) believer in God and I was at one time one of those that claimed the inerrancy of the scriptures. My pastor said in church that we should all read the bible in its entirety to get a full view of God's vision. I did so four times and aside from all the inconsistencies I found in the scriptures I was shocked most by God's cruelty. I envisioned the biblical God as a tyrant and slowly but painfully I began to wean myself away from Christianity.

So you need to go thank your pastor for making you read the bible, thus opening your eyes to the truth!

(October 2, 2009 at 10:32 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I meant no disrespect ...

And none was taken, Rhizo. I figured your question was genuine, and I was implying that I have worked to inform my views.

(October 2, 2009 at 10:32 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I would say that my rejection of God is based on a scientific assesment of the available data.

And while that sounds intellectually appealing, I strongly doubt it is the case. I am very, very confident that if we look at the data you reviewed and the manner in which you assessed it, we will find that either the data wasn't scientific or the assessment wasn't (assuming, of course, that we both mean the same thing by "scientific") because science investigates the natural world only. It cannot draw any conclusions about reality in itself. Of course, you might be tempted to say that the physical cosmos is the extent of reality, that this universe and everything in it is all that exists, but that would be a metaphysical claim, not a scientific conclusion.

(October 2, 2009 at 10:46 am)Eilonnwy Wrote:

(October 1, 2009 at 6:01 pm)Arcanus Wrote: Things like theories of morality?

Sure.

It would follow, then, that your beliefs about morality satisfy "the rigors of the scientific method with claims that are falsifiable" (which you asserted as the criteria that "big things" must satisfy). I would be most interested in finding out how your beliefs met that criteria, plus how they avoided the "naturalistic fallacy" as per George Moore as well as the "is-ought problem" as per David Hume. It would seem you succeeded at something no philosopher ever has. This is huge. Would you share it?

(October 2, 2009 at 10:46 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: My standards for accepting either claim is different. They have to be.

In the ghost story of my scenario, your standards for accepting such a claim are entirely moot because your acceptance is entirely irrelevant. Just because you do not personally believe ghosts exist, that does not mean my experience never happened. It means you cannot accept my claim, but—as I said—what has that to do with my experience? Nothing at all. I can appreciate that you have specific standards for belief, but your belief was neither asked for nor even relevant. See the distinction?

"I'll need substantial evidence before believing," you said. But that only matters if your belief is actually called for.

(October 4, 2009 at 2:04 am)Arcanus Wrote: And while that sounds intellectually appealing, I strongly doubt it is the case. I am very, very confident that if we look at the data you reviewed and the manner in which you assessed it, we will find that either the data wasn't scientific or the assessment wasn't (assuming, of course, that we both mean the same thing by "scientific") because science investigates the natural world only. It cannot draw any conclusions about reality in itself. Of course, you might be tempted to say that the physical cosmos is the extent of reality, that this universe and everything in it is all that exists, but that would be a metaphysical claim, not a scientific conclusion.

To be more accurate, it is the lack of scientific evidence that is my final reason not to believe. I don't claim to fully know the nature of the universe but believe that there is not any sufficient reason to think there is anything besides the natural world; even my idea of a "soul" doesn't posit a thing that is separate from the body, but rather something connected to it by a silver cord made from the same substance that the soul is made from. I've decided that science has the best answers, and anything that acts on reality should be tested by looking at said reality.

While I was a Christian I looked into many other religions and read a few books about why people might have weird beliefs that necessitate gods, demons, aliens, and monsters. Back then I took the fact that there were so many religions as a sign that God had revealed himself in several different forms! Now, I think that people just create things from their imaginations and then start assigning properties to fit with the science of the times. Actus Purus, Fr0d0's model(however you would categorize it), and the TAG seem to be arguments that place God somewhere untouchable by science, which makes me say, (read as church lady) "How convenient!"

Rhizo

Youtube of the church lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnCZxLvYXI8

(October 4, 2009 at 2:04 am)Arcanus Wrote: science investigates the natural world only.

And what reason do you have for believing that anything other than the natural world exists?

---

(October 4, 2009 at 2:04 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(October 2, 2009 at 10:46 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: My standards for accepting either claim is different. They have to be.

In the ghost story of my scenario, your standards for accepting such a claim are entirely moot because your acceptance is entirely irrelevant. Just because you do not personally believe ghosts exist, that does not mean my experience never happened. It means you cannot accept my claim, but—as I said—what has that to do with my experience? Nothing at all. I can appreciate that you have specific standards for belief, but your belief was neither asked for nor even relevant. See the distinction?

"I'll need substantial evidence before believing," you said. But that only matters if your belief is actually called for.

And just because you experienced something and put the label 'ghost' on it does not mean ghosts exist, so in order to determine if you were correct or not in applying the 'ghost' label to your experience, you would need to provide substantial evidence for such an encounter, and until the standard of verification is reached you have failed to provide any compelling reason what so ever why people should believe you.

(October 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: To be more accurate, it is the lack of scientific evidence that is my final reason not to believe.

Therefore, my statement is proven correct, that your rejection of God was actually not "based on a scientific assesment of the available data." It was based on your exploration of scientific evidence for God and finding none. Question: By what reasoning did you to think God has spatio-temporal properties?

Moreover, we now have what is perhaps a more interesting revelation from you here. Am I to understand that you will believe a proposition only when there is scientific evidence for it? Are you aware of the rock and hard place you're wedging yourself into, with a falsehood on one side and a fallacy on the other? Mull it over in your mind.

(October 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I don't claim to fully know the nature of the universe but believe that there is not any sufficient reason to think there is anything besides the natural world

Would you say that nothing exists unless it has spatio-temporal properties? That existence is defined in empirical terms? I ask this because, if you think it is possible for something without spatio-temporal properties to exist, then what evidence for its existence would you expect to find? Surely not empirical evidence (given its lack of spatio-temporal properties).

(October 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Actus purus, Fr0d0's model (however you would categorize it), and the TAG all seem to be arguments that place God somewhere untouchable by science ...

This assumes that the arguments of Aquinas and Van Til were produced from whole cloth as though in response to empirical challenges (q.v. "how convenient"), which is invalidated by evidence to the contrary, for their arguments were produced from the Christian scriptures. That is to say, their arguments articulate and explore what God has revealed about himself millennia ago. I know you disagree that God exists, much less did he reveal anything about himself, but that is absolutely irrelevant to the beliefs of Aquinas and Van Til or where their arguments came from. If you want to characterize their arguments, please do so with accuracy rather than anachronisms.