(May 7, 2010 at 12:25 am)Godschild Wrote: What does being a strong christain have to do with weak reasoning.

The athiest viewpoint is that in order to accept many aspects of religion you have to ignore or dismiss certain facts about reality. The stronger the belief, the more you have to dismiss. Ergo, weak reasoning because the strong theist cannot allow themselves to consider the whole picture otherwise they will see the inconsistencies in their belief.

Take for example the creationists as an extreme example. They spend quite a bit of time trying to prove their worldview and happily take things out of context or play with facts to demonstrate that the real world is not in conflict with their beliefs. One or two of their arguments are even logically sound if you take only the facts presented as part of the argument. Eg: The flood and Noah's ark and how many animals you could fit in the ship... if you accept only 50,000 species and they were all located in the middle east then yes, perhaps they could have all fitted on the ark... but we know that there are a lot more species in the world (not to forget the dinosaurs that some creationists will tell you existed at that time) and there is the whole business of how Kangaroos etc got from Australia or returned... land bridges my arse!

Ok, so i'm picking on quite an extreme form of Christianity here, but its all a matter of gradients. The creationists a simply bonkers... moderate Christians just have less blinkers and need to do less mind twisting in order to make their world view fit with what they experience.

Overall I find it much better to experience and then draw conclusions (I hear thunder, i don't know what it is, its rather frightening, but i'll just call it thunder until I find out more about what causes it), rather than decide what is real and then fit my conclusions to my belief (i hear thunder, i don't know what it is, its rather frightening, it must be the Gods fighting)

(May 7, 2010 at 12:25 am)Godschild Wrote: Do you really believe that your nonbelief negates God. Not at all. The logic that atheist claim can not define God because He is beyond your logic. If I were closing my mind I would not be a part of this forum I would shut myself up in the corner of a church building somewhere and believe what other christians say. I search the scriptures for truth and the members of this forum challenge me to do so.

I agree, not at all. Non-belief is exactly that. We don't negate gods because we do not believe they exist. This brings us very nicely back to the title of this thread and a point made by Dawkins and others many times. The burden of proof lies with the believer, not the unbeliever. You say God exists.... show us the proof.

Give one example of something happening somewhere which cannot be explained (either currently, or potentially) without resorting to God. And even if you could manage that, then prove that this god is actually the Triune God of the desert and not some other deity, and finally even assuming all this, then tell us why we should worship such a deity which demands this worship otherwise we will burn in hell, because, for sure, even if Yahweh was proven to exist, i would sure as hell not worship him.

There are not many gods that have been invented that I could actually respect, never mind worship. Aphrodite (Love) and Athena (Wisdom) are two from the Greek pantheon that I could respect... but still would not worship them.

(May 7, 2010 at 1:02 am)Minimalist Wrote:

---

Quote:Really Min is that why any believer comes here, because we can't stand the fact you disagree? It couldn't be to falsify their belief, the pursuit of truth, seeing another's opinion or simple curiosity?

You give them far more credit than I do, tack. I seriously doubt that true believers expect to learn much on a message board.

You see....most of them think they already know everything.

---

if you replace true with fanatic or closed-minded I'll be happy to agree. As far as egotists and smarty pants.. there are plenty on both sides.. myself included at times. Sorry if I was a little abrupt.. still don't know whether you intended that for me or him.

(May 6, 2010 at 9:38 am)tavarish Wrote:

---

(May 6, 2010 at 2:14 am)tackattack Wrote: So ShellB, tav , and Adrian also agree that I've been an asshole hunh with their kudos. I'd like one reference on this forum where I was undeservingly an asshole to anyone on theese forums.

Take it easy - it's the internet and I thought he made a valid point. Calling someone an asshole doesn't warrant an investigation.

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: The point was to change the subject and I intended to raise more questions than answers.

Which gets us nowhere without evidence. You can speculate til your brain explodes, but it doesn't have any explanatory power unless you back it up with something.

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 1. Evolving using the abiogenesis model, we are now ultra complex multi-celled living organisms with enough room in our DNA to record the entire history of mankind, correct?

Abiogenesis isn't an evolutionary model, and our DNA doesn't hold that much information. Most of it is junk.

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: We were a collection of inanimate matter, correct?

I don't know, and I don't claim to.

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: Through selection, random coincidence or some form of guiding hand we got to where we are now and will continue on as long as we can, as a species. Life expectancies increase, birth rate rise, but there is finite room.

Finite room for what? Are we at risk of running out of something?

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: Form is limiting, if selection plays any part in evolution wouldn't to not be limited? I would.

I don't understand this question. Run it by me again.

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 2. True, survival may become dependant on simplicity, but 1 mass of immaterial collective consciousness would be more simple then 1 trillion individual complex organisms trying to eek out a niche of the enviornment.

Why would they necessarily be less complex? Do you know the attributes of the disembodied consciousnesses to make such a claim? Are there any now that you can use as a reference?

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: As far as giant penises, I'm willing to entertain any possibilities, just one at a time.

That's what she said.

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 3. No I'm stating a hypothesis based on a far fetched assumption for the purpose of getting everone out of the ruts they're obviously entrenched in.

I'll speak for myself, I am in no such rut, I'm actually quite happy, but I'd rather not play a pointless game of "what if", as it has zero explanatory value and I'd rather not waste my time.

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 4.I've never said whether God evolved or not. If I had to hazzard a wild guess I'd say that he did evolve, as we were created in his image and we evolved, but all that is well outside the known universe.

Evolving means being a product of reproduction and change over time. I really don't know how you can apply changes to a God who is supposedly perfect in the first place. It doesn't make any sense.

(May 5, 2010 at 6:39 am)tackattack Wrote: No, closed-minded is someone who mistakingly rails some one else because they're so far in their trench they lump anyone who labels themselves Christian in one collective group. What's more closed minded is the atheist that kudos that.

I actually try pretty hard to address everyone's arguments for what they're worth, and not judge them based on what the authors believe. Godschild basically asserted that any evidence contrary to his belief will send him further into that belief. That is purely asinine - it's lemming behavior. We need to learn to approach our deepest held beliefs with the same scrutiny as everything else. If something doesn't make sense, don't rationalize, there's a good chance it just truly doesn't make sense.

---

1- true I was a little abrupt, but credibility and integrity are important to me, especially as achristian on an atheist forum.
2- It seemed like the thread was going nowhere already.. I was just tired of seeing everone talking in circles.
3-weak reference to an article I read link I'm no molecular engineer, but DNA could stre a lot of stuff. Oh and the scientific use of the word junk probably correlates to the God of the Gaps for Christianity. It's only junk because we haven't figured out what it's for yet.
4-So you don't believe in abiogenesis?
5-Are you intentionally being obtuse? There is finite matter in the known universe where the current adaptations of humanity can reach and survive in. In a future where we manipulate our own DNA to live thousands of years and an increase of control of our enviornment and increasing birth rates, is it not obvious that something will have to bend, and I doubt it will be the universe.
6-Sure. Assuming form is limiting; If you had a choice between form and formless existence which would you choose?
7-Then don't play, I don't feel there is any objectifiable proof that God exists.
8-Even a perfect circle isn't perfect atomically. It depends on your perspective. What seems absolute or perfect to humanity at this stage could end up being near perfectwith a different perspective.
9- I wholeheartedly agree with the last 2 sentences.

@Loki_999 - What aspects of religion require dismissal of reality? I connsider myself a very strong believer, yet I'd lie to think I have a healthy perspective on the whole enchilada. Questioning my beliefs are tatamount to growing individually.What makes you think Chrsitians can't experience and then draw conclusions just like you?

Tackattack, just so you know I just read your post and I'm just saying this... pretty much just so you know I have read your post and am not being ignorant.

So you're just speculating about a possible future of humans becoming immaterial? Well, speculating is one thing but it's not evidence for God. And I don't see how people becoming immaterial has got anything to do with God's existence. I thought you were saying (or at least implying how) how, in someday, this is somehow something to do with God, or somehow evidence for his existence or his effect(s) on this world. I don't see how any of that follows remotely at all if that's indeed what you think.

EvF

I don't think I've ever called you ignorant Evie or even implied that. Nor have I ever said it is evidence, actually to the contrary. After reading God Debris (great read.. link is somewhere on the forums.. definately a good short read) I was speculating as to the origins of God and of humans and how they could possibly intertwine. I've had to have thought it to write it, whether I believe it.. probably not. But if you want to talk about abiogenesis , DNA or transcendance, I've touched on theese enough to at least spark some questions, and I see them as relevant. As to evidence of God, I've posted enough in this thread on that now burried beneath tons of worse distractions than mine.

Ok,

1. Sorry for misunderstanding your point (whether you feel I should apologize or not I like to be polite and I'm no mind-reader).

2. I wasn't trying to suggest you called me ignorant, I was just worried I'd come across as that if I read your reply to me and just took it as a statement without responding. That's all I meant.

EvF

(May 7, 2010 at 12:25 am)Godschild Wrote: Do you really believe that your nonbelief negates God. Not at all. The logic that atheist claim can not define God because He is beyond your logic.

Yes, in this you are right, belief in god is beyond logic.

There is no god to believe in so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

Personal attacks just prove your argument is weak

(May 7, 2010 at 4:22 am)tackattack Wrote: @Loki_999 - What aspects of religion require dismissal of reality? I consider myself a very strong believer, yet I'd lie to think I have a healthy perspective on the whole enchilada. Questioning my beliefs are tantamount to growing individually.What makes you think Christians can't experience and then draw conclusions just like you?

Its nice to hear that. Not many Christians are willing to question their beliefs except when its along the lines of questioning exactly how scripture should be interpreted. I find myself often questioning my beliefs and judgments, although like any human being I am also capable to sticking to my guns quite illogically when not thinking rationally.

But as to what aspects of religion require ignore/dismissal of reality? Well, this again brings us back to the whole reason for this thread. Complete lack of evidence for a start. There is no evidence for god, so reality does not support its assertion. Everything can be explained without gods or at least there is a possible non-god reason that we still need to figure out (eg: what exactly caused the creation of the universe?). I already pointed to the creationist as an extreme example of where religion is willing to ignore reality. While the more moderate religious suffer its not to the same extent but its there if you dig deep enough into most beliefs.

Please note, i'm not saying this applies to you particularly, i don't know enough about your individual beliefs to discuss this. For example, I think you believe in Jesus... and there is a reasonable probability that there was a (mortal) guy called Jesus (Yeshua) who lived around that time preaching a lot of things that he was quoted as saying (which of course does not make what he said true). If you believe the stuff about his birth, the census, death of the firstborns, etc, then I believe this has been proven false through historical records... would have to dig for the links to support that assertion, but I do recall reading about it somewhere... but plenty of religious still accept a lot of these so-called biblical facts as the truth even if they have been pointed out as being false.

@ Loki- Yeah I found I was much more rational the night after drinking then the night of , however focus was slightly diminished .

I've expressed my beliefs on here many times over in multiple areas. If you have specific questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Complete lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary therefore not a dismissal, thus requiring faith. Then again that also depends on what your definition is of evidence in the context of the immaterial.

For me, it isn't the lack of evidence for the existence of god(s), so much as it is all of the evidence that points to explanations for things that used to be attributed to god, but that we now know have natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanations. Throughout history, some god or another has been touted as the explanation for 'Life, the Universe, and Everything', but scientific inquiry into those very subjects has shown pretty conclusively that god(s) are/were not responsible. In fact, it has been shown that god(s) are not necessary as explanation for anything, really.

Realistically, in the modern era, belief in deities requires faith. In order to believe in god, one must simply believe in god. Trying to use 'god' as the explanation for things doesn't work anymore (except for the stupid), so it all comes down to simply believing what you are told. If no one ever told you there was a god, you would probably not have invented the concept yourself, because there are enough scientific explanations for things these days that inventing god is not necessary.

The bible (I and II) have pretty thoroughly been debunked as myth and are generally accepted as 'allegory' and/or 'metaphor' by a lot of god believers. The source of the myth of 'god' does not stand up to scrutiny. The claims that god is responsible for (list things here) have largely been debunked. What's left? Faith? Why? How is having faith in a supreme being that has never been shown to actually exist a rational belief? How is it any different than believing in pixies and goblins? <-- And there are people that do.

Philosophically, no one can say that they know whether there is a god or not, but I think most atheists can tell you they are pretty convinced that there is not. Considering the things we do know, the existence of an omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent being does not make any sense. To me, belief in such a thing does not make any sense.

Theists like to take the statements of atheists and play semantic games with the definitions of certain words. Don't do that. You theists know what we mean, so stop trying to cloud the issue by redefining what we say. Religious faith = irrational belief. An irrational belief = delusion.

Why do you want there to be a god so badly? Is it the promise of heaven? Is it the fear of hell? Seriously. You obviously want there to be a god. Why? And before you ask why I do not want there to be a god, let me say that I don't care either way, I just do not believe the claims that there is one.