(January 8, 2013 at 8:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I can pray the The Holy Spirit allows them to be open to persuasion

Almost every atheist is open to persuasion. Theists are just unable to present an argument convincing enough to change their viewpoint.

Quote:just seeing that it may have some value in their life at another level be it emotional or psychological and through experience of that value being realised they come to believe as I do without the over riding need for proofs. Not everything needs to be proved true or false and depending on the situation then use appropriate tools.

You're not thinking rationally. Whether a religion gives me some sort of emotional or psychological value (none do) is irrelevant and does not change their truth value. Believing in a deity simply because it makes you feel all warm inside is not a valid argument. And not everything needs to be proved true or false? So, when people slaughter others over religion, it's alright? When the religious try to halt the teaching of science to our children, it's alright? When politicians try to bring religion into politics, it's alright?

(January 8, 2013 at 8:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I by myself have no other method, but of course I can hold within the framework of my own system that I can pray the The Holy Spirit allows them to be open to persuasion

Pretty meaningless.

Would this make any sense to you if a Muslim said (about Christians), "of course I can hold withing the framework of my own system that I can pray that Allah allows them to be open to persuasion".

By the way, in the 'framework of your own system', what is the outcome for atheists when we die if we continue to disbelieve that the Christian god exists?

I am open to persuasion. Provide me evidence and reasoned argument and I will be persuaded. Oh wait, you refuse to provide us with them. But even worse, you don't value them.

Quote:and that being human logic will not be all they would understand

It is not all that we understand. I'm sure all atheists here understand; beauty, love, fear, etc. None of which are logical.

Quote:and what would be the tipping point

Your 'god' created me with a mind that will only accept evidence and reasoned argument to support extraordinary claims. If 'he' is omniscient, 'he' should know this. Why does 'he' refuse to provide me with it?

Quote:I don't know maybe just seeing that it may have some value in their life at another level be it emotional or psychological

Not likely. I do not value belief in unsupported claims, even if they would bring some sort of emotional or psychological rewards. I care way too much if my beliefs are true, or at least likely to be true. It is what is called 'intellectual honesty'.

As George Bernard Shaw once said, "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

Quote:through experience of that value being realised they come to believe as I do without the over riding need for proofs.

Because you care much more if your beliefs make you feel all 'warm and fuzzy' than if they are true or not. Some of us have too much intellectual honesty for that.

Quote:Not everything needs to be proved true or false and depending on the situation then use appropriate tools.

What are those 'tools' that are appropriate in the case of believing a god exists? Why are they better than evidence and reasoned argument? Should I apply them to ALL gods, or only the one you happen to believe exists?

(January 8, 2013 at 8:58 pm)Surtr Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 8:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I can pray the The Holy Spirit allows them to be open to persuasion

Almost every atheist is open to persuasion. Theists are just unable to present an argument convincing enough to change their viewpoint.

Quote:just seeing that it may have some value in their life at another level be it emotional or psychological and through experience of that value being realised they come to believe as I do without the over riding need for proofs. Not everything needs to be proved true or false and depending on the situation then use appropriate tools.

You're not thinking rationally. Whether a religion gives me some sort of emotional or psychological value (none do) is irrelevant and does not change their truth value. Believing in a deity simply because it makes you feel all warm inside is not a valid argument. And not everything needs to be proved true or false? So, when people slaughter others over religion, it's alright? When the religious try to halt the teaching of science to our children, it's alright? When politicians try to bring religion into politics, it's alright?

People slaughter each other over lots of things but when someone looks at the causes without bias there are very few wars where religion was the prime cause. Not justifying war for any cause with that statement.

Religion must have had some value both to individuals and society as otherwise it would never have evolved or have become extinct as a function surely long before now. What that value was and is can be discussed.

The last 2 questions , no its not alright, its the interference of one group into the domain of another by some religious who don't even represent the vast majority of Theists and without cause as they are free to explain their Religious beliefs to their children why is it the schools job, thats not the function of school. Likewise with government ; individuals cannot ignore their religious beliefs and will form their opinions based on this and other factors but on taking the post they have to balance their personal opinions with their role as representing the electorate in relation to the issue being discussed and the application in practice in government but they should have no direct part to play in government itself. I don't have all or even most of the answers. But I would like to hope that I could and should work with others even those who disagree with me to try an improve things.

(January 8, 2013 at 9:28 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: People slaughter each other over lots of things but when someone looks at the causes without bias there are very few wars where religion was the prime cause. Not justifying war for any cause with that statement.

"There have been more wars not about religion than wars about religion, therefore the millions of people who have died in the name of religion don't matter."

Quote:Religion must have had some value both to individuals and society as otherwise it would never have evolved or have become extinct as a function surely long before now. What that value was and is can be discussed.

That time has come now. There are finally reasonable explanations for things other than "my god dun it" "no mine did".

Quote:Likewise with government ; individuals cannot ignore their religious beliefs and will form their opinions based on this and other factors but on taking the post they have to balance their personal opinions with their role as representing the electorate in relation to the issue being discussed and the application in practice in government but they should have no direct part to play in government itself.

I didn't mean personal beliefs contributing to political opinions. I mean politicians advocating intelligent design and throwing around the word god like it has no meaning. I mean like Bush's statement that atheists should not be considered citizens. I mean people claiming this country was founded under Christian values.

(January 8, 2013 at 8:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I by myself have no other method

Quote:Not everything needs to be proved true or false and depending on the situation then use appropriate tools.

These 2 statements seem to be contradictory.

When I asked you, "What other method, besides demonstrable evidence and valid logic, do you feel is the best at determining whether something is true (or at least likely to be true)?", you responded with the first statement.

Then you say in the second that there are "appropriate tools" for discerning the truth value of a claim.

So, what is it? either you have a method (tools) or you don't.

Please answer the following questions I put to you concerning these "appropriate tools".

What are those 'tools' that are appropriate in the case of believing a god exists? Why are they better than evidence and reasoned argument? Should I apply them to ALL gods, or only the one you happen to believe exists?

(January 8, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I did understand the point, I was just playing about with the proof itself, I hadn't realised my arguement was this Ontological arguement

(January 8, 2013 at 3:40 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 3:12 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." Goedel.

Seriously?! The Ontological Argument for the existence of god?

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

This is just sad. Reason is out, and we're now waiting on a ghost to cast magic spells on people?

(January 8, 2013 at 11:28 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 8:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I by myself have no other method

Quote:Not everything needs to be proved true or false and depending on the situation then use appropriate tools.

These 2 statements seem to be contradictory.

When I asked you, "What other method, besides demonstrable evidence and valid logic, do you feel is the best at determining whether something is true (or at least likely to be true)?", you responded with the first statement.

Then you say in the second that there are "appropriate tools" for discerning the truth value of a claim.

So, what is it? either you have a method (tools) or you don't.

Please answer the following questions I put to you concerning these "appropriate tools".

What are those 'tools' that are appropriate in the case of believing a god exists? Why are they better than evidence and reasoned argument? Should I apply them to ALL gods, or only the one you happen to believe exists?

I tried to communicate an answer disect it if you want or find that helps you understand what I am saying. If you want me to justify my answer then I cannot as we can't agree even on whats acceptable for proof so why bother.

(January 9, 2013 at 12:26 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I tried to communicate an answer disect it if you want or find that helps you understand what I am saying. If you want me to justify my answer then I cannot as we can't agree even on whats acceptable for proof so why bother.

The only thing I saw you post with regards to this was that you would pray that we would be 'open to persuasion'.

"I by myself have no other method, but of course I can hold within the framework of my own system that I can pray the The Holy Spirit allows them to be open to persuasion"

Is that what you are referring to?

If so, how does that apply to using the 'appropriate tools' in different situations?

Please explain.

The existence of God at least the God of the Bible, depends entirely on whether the supernatural exists or not. The supernatural if it interacts with the physical universe at all ought to be something that can be studied through the scientific method and so you have a burden of proof to meet. Particularly if we're talking about such subjects as the orgins of the universe and the evolution of life and such things as the effectiveness of prayer and so on. You can't have science and theology as two non-overlapping magsisteria as they deal in the same universe even if the supernatural is meant to be beyond the physical universe. Without evidence then what we have are some interesting speculations, mystical feelings of awe and wonder and fantastical supernatural stories. The specific story you believe depending on where in the world you were born or what ethnic group and culture your parents are. Evidence of some kind would help to clear up this confussion. Not everyone in the world hankers after this sort of evidence I suppose it will always be a minority but atheists are that minority.