Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't believe anything without a basis of evidence. Most atheists aren't willing to allow all types of evidence into consideration, and rightly so. Where would science be today without such high standards of evidence? God isn't science though, I believe there are things outside the explination of science, outside the tangible, and it's evident to me.
The claim of God and religious ideology traverses every facet of science. It would be purely disingenuous to say that his existence isn't subject the same amount of scrutiny, since it would be a pretty damn big deal in the scientific community if he existed.
It's not that it's outside the explanation of science, it's outside the explanation of logic, representing that a belief of anything without sufficient evidence is illogical. The way faith works is belief first, then find supporting arguments later, effectively putting the cart before the horse. This doesn't make sense because no where else in your life would you do the same.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm grateful for all of scientific studies and pursuits and agree that elimination of variables and faith is a detriment to that pursuit. Variables and faith are however very relevant to reality, as is subjective perspective.
How are they relevant to reality if they focus on unfounded intangible ideology that BY THEIR VERY NATURE cannot be proven or disproven?
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't claim to know why God wouldn't present himself as evidence, I would if I were God.
That's such a cop-out.
"I don't claim to know why Santa Claus wouldn't present himself as evidence, I would if I were Santa Claus"
Same principle, same realm of plausibility.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: However my perception is within the confines of the laws of nature and his isn't. Perhaps our existance is but a fleeting second of fiery self-destruction from his POV, similar to a firework. Perhaps if we focus on him he takes the time to focus on us, putting him in sink with our spacetime allowing him to work miracles in our day-to-day lives. Our perception works that way, what we focus our will on is what consciously manipulate. After Jesus we have subjective verifiability in the holy spirit.
Reality isn't about subjective verifiability. It's objective verifiability. You say God's actions can be seen in reality (read: what is REAL), but can provide no evidence for such a claim. You make speculations about his actions and intentions to perhaps backtrack a bit and justify your belief in defense of the claim that the existence of God is illogical. None of which you can back up with more than subjective emotional experiences that can be caused by a variety of stimuli.
There are no personal truths. Truth is truth. Religious people make the claim that God is an absolute truth. If he was absolute, his existence wouldn't require faith, as it would be so apparent that to question him would be purely idiotic. As you can see, this is definitely not the case.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm sure someone born that time was named Jesus, I'm sure there were lots of people born that time with lots of different names. That's the problem with a literalist and scientific realist approach. I don't worship a man named Jesus.
I worship God, I know about some aspects of God and can recieve redemption through the Son of God.
So you realize that the story of Jesus could have been a fabrication or at best an allegorical claim, yet you KNOW you can receive redemption through the son of god by the same merit? Does that make sense to you? Really?
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't care if the Son of God was named Jesus, Yeshuda or dwight. They may have just slapped a name on the most controversial speaker of the time, but the deeds of the Son of God answer the prophesies of the OT and we'll never know if it was him till he comes back. I think that answers all of your questions from above.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is not a valid one. The mere fact that people COULD replicate it lends great notions of doubt on the whole thing. For example: The bible said the Jews would return to the promised land. They did, but it was because the bible said for the jews to return to the promised land. The bible was the catalyst. The prophecy was self-fulfilling and therefore your argument is moot.
Again, you're assuming his existence to examine the possibility of his existence. This is purely illogical and psychologically defunct. It is a form of confirmation bias and nothing more.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't believe anything without a basis of evidence. Most atheists aren't willing to allow all types of evidence into consideration, and rightly so. Where would science be today without such high standards of evidence? God isn't science though, I believe there are things outside the explination of science, outside the tangible, and it's evident to me.
The claim of God and religious ideology traverses every facet of science. It would be purely disingenuous to say that his existence isn't subject the same amount of scrutiny, since it would be a pretty damn big deal in the scientific community if he existed.
It's not that it's outside the explanation of science, it's outside the explanation of logic, representing that a belief of anything without sufficient evidence is illogical. The way faith works is belief first, then find supporting arguments later, effectively putting the cart before the horse. This doesn't make sense because no where else in your life would you do the same.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm grateful for all of scientific studies and pursuits and agree that elimination of variables and faith is a detriment to that pursuit. Variables and faith are however very relevant to reality, as is subjective perspective.
How are they relevant to reality if they focus on unfounded intangible ideology that BY THEIR VERY NATURE cannot be proven or disproven?
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't claim to know why God wouldn't present himself as evidence, I would if I were God.
That's such a cop-out.
"I don't claim to know why Santa Claus wouldn't present himself as evidence, I would if I were Santa Claus"
Same principle, same realm of plausibility.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: However my perception is within the confines of the laws of nature and his isn't. Perhaps our existance is but a fleeting second of fiery self-destruction from his POV, similar to a firework. Perhaps if we focus on him he takes the time to focus on us, putting him in sink with our spacetime allowing him to work miracles in our day-to-day lives. Our perception works that way, what we focus our will on is what consciously manipulate. After Jesus we have subjective verifiability in the holy spirit.
Reality isn't about subjective verifiability. It's objective verifiability. You say God's actions can be seen in reality (read: what is REAL), but can provide no evidence for such a claim. You make speculations about his actions and intentions to perhaps backtrack a bit and justify your belief in defense of the claim that the existence of God is illogical. None of which you can back up with more than subjective emotional experiences that can be caused by a variety of stimuli.
There are no personal truths. Truth is truth. Religious people make the claim that God is an absolute truth. If he was absolute, his existence wouldn't require faith, as it would be so apparent that to question him would be purely idiotic. As you can see, this is definitely not the case.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm sure someone born that time was named Jesus, I'm sure there were lots of people born that time with lots of different names. That's the problem with a literalist and scientific realist approach. I don't worship a man named Jesus.
I worship God, I know about some aspects of God and can recieve redemption through the Son of God.
So you realize that the story of Jesus could have been a fabrication or at best an allegorical claim, yet you KNOW you can receive redemption through the son of god by the same merit? Does that make sense to you? Really?
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't care if the Son of God was named Jesus, Yeshuda or dwight. They may have just slapped a name on the most controversial speaker of the time, but the deeds of the Son of God answer the prophesies of the OT and we'll never know if it was him till he comes back. I think that answers all of your questions from above.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is not a valid one. The mere fact that people COULD replicate it lends great notions of doubt on the whole thing. For example: The bible said the Jews would return to the promised land. They did, but it was because the bible said for the jews to return to the promised land. The bible was the catalyst. The prophecy was self-fulfilling and therefore your argument is moot.
Again, you're assuming his existence to examine the possibility of his existence. This is purely illogical and psychologically defunct. It is a form of confirmation bias and nothing more.
1-We're not talking about the amount of scrutiny, we're talking about what tools we use to scrutinize.
2- I don't believe I ever said "The way faith works is belief first, then find supporting arguments later". The way I feel subjective truth words is:
a:you accpet the possibility that X (could be considered a leap of faith)
b:You test to see if X is true
c: you for a belief in X
d: nothing can be proven absolutely so you assert your belief in X with evidence and maintain focus on X with faith, when not testing X.
3-Our perception of reality is based off of subjective understanding , evidence and reason. Reality includes, society and human relationships as well as the rocks and buildings, etc. Constructs like religion, philosophy, mathmatics, etc. have contributed to society. Are you asserting that they're unfounded intangible ideology?
4-I realize that histroy is written by the winners. I realize (howver unlikely) that the story of the MAN Jesus could have been a conglomoration of various people. I do believe in the actions of the Son of God title, whomever held it. Yes that makes sense to me.
I think that highlights most of it however theese are getting long and I'm tired.
(February 13, 2010 at 12:11 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:
Tackattack,
Jews would dissagree with you about the "Son of God" mentioned in the New Testament being an answer to their prophecy. I know that probably isn't news to you, but how can you be so sure, other than fuzzy feelings you receive at inopportune moments? Muslims say that Jesus was just one in a long line of prophets and still other religions break the god concept up in different ways. We are both atheists I just believe in one less god than you.
The problem with following what you perceive as "The Holy Spirit" is that there is no way to verify that it even exists . If it does exists how can you be sure you are right when you seperate other feelings you have from what is really "The Holy Spirit?" So what you might be doing is just following what feels good to you which is a very bad way to make decisions.
Rhizo
A-I'm aware of the jewish standing, yet they still acknowledgethe Jesus referenced in the Bible existed, as does the qur'an. If all 3 religios documents actually make special note of one person that's significant. Significant enough for me to see plausibility in his existence, which would lead me to find out more of his life, thus the use of the Bible, as opposed to the Qur'an or Torah.
B-You and I are both theists, you just answer life's questions with a quantum singularity and I call it God
C-back to the point, I agree that the Holy Spirit has no way to verify that it even exists objectively. The holy spirit may well rest deep within my subconscious, alone, therefore I would not be able to distinguish it from my superego or id. However, I can not account for it's physical effects on my autonomic nervous system, through trial or force of will. I can not duplicate those responses with known (to me) drugs. I can not account for it's knowledge passed to me on events or people I would have no knowledge of, even through reading body language or guessing. I can not account for it's timing or know full well it's intent, even with deep reflection after. iologically duplicate it's results. It's motives appear selfless, whereas my motives (even subconscious) upon reflection seem selfish.
(February 14, 2010 at 2:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Most atheists aren't willing to allow all types of evidence into consideration,
Most atheists....myself included....will not allow superstitious mumbo-jumbo to masquerade as evidence.
"Goddidit" is not an acceptable answer when you cannot show that there is any god in the first place, tack.
I'm aware God did it isn't an acceptable answer and neither is superstition evidence I don't think I've ever used either intentionally.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
February 15, 2010 at 11:56 am (This post was last modified: February 15, 2010 at 11:56 am by tavarish.)
(February 14, 2010 at 2:35 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1-We're not talking about the amount of scrutiny, we're talking about what tools we use to scrutinize.
I'm basing my conclusion on the criteria that I base everything else on: reality. What is demonstrably real.
(February 14, 2010 at 2:35 pm)tackattack Wrote: 2- I don't believe I ever said "The way faith works is belief first, then find supporting arguments later". The way I feel subjective truth words is:
a:you accpet the possibility that X (could be considered a leap of faith)
b:You test to see if X is true
c: you for a belief in X
d: nothing can be proven absolutely so you assert your belief in X with evidence and maintain focus on X with faith, when not testing X.
You just proved my point. You accept first (a), then you find reasoning to make it fit (b). After that, you strengthen your belief with rationalization.
This is the way anything else in life works:
a. You test to assess the existence of something, based on evidence, maintaining neutrality. <-This is key.
b. If sufficient objective evidence is found, you can accept the claim. If not, you reject the claim of existence. No faith necessary.
Nothing can be asserted to be absolute, but you can come to a reasoned conclusion beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
It's intellectually dishonest to assume or accept existence of something BEFORE you test its validity. It's backwards thinking.
(February 14, 2010 at 2:35 pm)tackattack Wrote: 3-Our perception of reality is based off of subjective understanding , evidence and reason. Reality includes, society and human relationships as well as the rocks and buildings, etc. Constructs like religion, philosophy, mathmatics, etc. have contributed to society. Are you asserting that they're unfounded intangible ideology?
Religion, Philosophy, and Mathematics are all different concepts, and I have no idea why you grouped them together.
In the context of this conversation, Philosophy and Mathematics rely heavily on logic and objective perception. That means things that are true regardless of whether or not we are present. Religion is a means to group people together based on similar supernatural and superstitious beliefs. Religion is not founded on logic, and its faith based dogma requires you to abandon reason to make it work. It, by its very nature, makes no logical sense.
By the way, has anyone ever killed in the name of philosophy or mathematics?
It's not in the same league. Not even close.
(February 14, 2010 at 2:35 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4-I realize that histroy is written by the winners. I realize (howver unlikely) that the story of the MAN Jesus could have been a conglomoration of various people. I do believe in the actions of the Son of God title, whomever held it. Yes that makes sense to me.
Do you realize, by that same merit, the story of the son of god could have been pure fabrication? Do you also believe it's much more likely that someone would embellish the truth to make a compelling story in order for people to follow a set of beliefs? History is written by the winners, then could not the Jesus story (in its entirety, message and all) been perpetuated by exaggerated and misunderstood claims, since no one in the bible had any first hand account of anything?
Quote:I'm aware God did it isn't an acceptable answer and neither is superstition evidence I don't think I've ever used either intentionally.
Bible stories of your god's deeds are superstition. They differ in no way from this:
Quote: the first two human beings, Ask and Embla, man and woman, were made by Odin from two trees. The three worlds of creation were held together at their axis by the great ash tree, Yggdrasil, with roots in Niflheim and branches spreading above Asgard.
Really, is that so much more outrageous than your particular superstition?
February 15, 2010 at 12:19 pm (This post was last modified: February 15, 2010 at 12:20 pm by Watson.)
"it's intellectually dishonest to assume or accept existance of something BEFORE you test it's validity. it's backwards thinking."
Tell that to Sherlock. His mothod was to assume and accepy the identity of the criminal he was chasing, and then to collect supporting evidence as to the individuality of that suspect. Most of his superiors thought he was chasing ghosts- that is, until he caught them and they were exactly who hesaid they would be.
Minimalist -Someone still doesn't understand the Biiiible!
Itdoesn't matter. His model was way ahead of it's time, and more refined in some ways then even the method used today. And it can certainly be applied here.
His mothod was to assume and accepy the identity of the criminal he was chasing, and then to collect supporting evidence as to the individuality of that suspect. Most of his superiors thought he was chasing ghosts- that is, until he caught them and they were exactly who hesaid they would be. 
