Question for atheists...

[Mister Agenda]

examples please

Examples for what? I've already given the examples of metaphysical claims (today, scientific claims) that are true.

They were always scientific claims about the actual state of the universe that were subject to falsification in theory even if the means to do so in actuality hadn't been achieved at the time. The propositions were based on reason applied to crude observations, not on reason applied to naked ideas.

---

My point is that you can not say that you know God doesn't exist, because there's no evidence that supports that statement.

Most of us don't say we know God doesn't exist. Most of us say 'give us a good reason to think God exists, and we'll consider it.'

So, any scientist who is setting a hypothesis (=probable explanation of some natural phenomenon) is irrational?

You've changed the terms from metaphysical claims to 'probable explanation of some natural phenomenon'. What we're saying is that heliocentrism and atomism were precisely probable explanations of some natural phenomenon-hypotheses. Someone would only be irrational to believe the earth revolves around the sun if they did not have a good reason to think it was true. Someone who takes a toke and says 'hey man, what if the EARTH revolved around the SUN?' and then believes its true without any more going into it is being irrational, and they are only right by coincidence.

Also, saying that something is irrational says mainly nothing about the qualty of it. Many things that we all appreciate (like art) are irrational, and it doesn't make them bad.

How is art irrational (not in accordance with reason or sound judgement)?

They are not metaphysical today, when scientists can use a lot of methods to test whether they are true or not. But they were metaphysical in the past when it was not possible.

They were based on observations. The observation that there seemed to be no end to how finely matter can be divided. I presume the heliocentric hypothesis arose from observations about the parallax of stars that couldn't be confirmed before telescopes were invented. It's not the property of 'unconfirmable yet' that makes a claim unscientific. I would say 'based on no observations' would be one tip off that a claim is unscientific.

---

Slow down people, I can not speak with ten of you.

No worries, we understand. Pro tip: if you focus on the most substantive posts (or sections of posts), we tend to be understanding. Skip the quips and jibes entirely, they're just chatter.

---

If empirical evidence for a metaphysical being is impossible, do you have any non-empirical evidence that doesn't fall flat on its face by relying on logical fallacies?

Yes, I think I have good non-empirial evidence or reasons for believing in God. And not in a God in purely philosophical manner, but in a personal God.

1. In my opinion and opinion of some other theologians and philosphers, religion is not something that deals with politics or science. It's not a job of religion to give answers on such a questions. It doesn't deal with morality as much, because universal moral vaules are familiar to all people. As many scientists pointed out, morality is a product of evolution.

2. So, what is the subject of religion if it's not science, morality, culture? What can it give to us? The answer is that religion deals with our inner state. Religion is interested in transformation of our personality in its completeness. This determines religion as discipline that offers us a way (or ways, if we talk about many religions) how to change ourselves; how to improve and transform some properties and potentials that we have and how to set us free from others.

3. But the question that still remains and that should be resolved is: what God is the real one in which we should believe in? From my point of view, the answer on this question depends on analyzing of different "ways of transformation" and goals that different religions are suggesting to us. It would take too much time to speak about many religions and their teachings and techniques. That's why I'll speak only about religion to whom I belong. It's Orthodox Christianity.

I believe in Christ as a perfect model of person, with whom I want to identify myself, my personality and complete existence. It doesn't mean that the goal (according to Orthodox Christianity) is to convince yourself that you're Christ or something like that. It's rather a mental state someone is trying to achieve by using some techniques and living as a Christian.

But what kind of mental state is it? A state where you're released from negative passions (anger, pride etc.), while positive passions (sex drive etc.) are developed and transformed, so that you now live a new life, that overcomes biological existence. It is existence where you can be in loving communion with God and others in true and full sense of the word.

That's the goal I'm trying to achieve, and I know it is possible (not completely) because there are a lot of people through history who made it. Such people exist even today, and I met some of them.

So, in a brief: I think that other religions don't have better existential models but Christ. I may agree with other religious teachings at some degree, like buddhism and I appreciate some of them, but I think that Orthodoxy gives best answers on some of the most important questions, and has best effects on my person.

5. As I've said, morality has a little to do with religion. Someone who's atheist can be good or evil, and it has nothing to do with his/her beliefs/lack of beliefs. Thus, someone can ask me: "Can you be good without religion?Can you achieve the same goal without your religion"?

Yes, you can be good without religion, and no, you can not achieve the same goal. Although you can improve your potentials, you can not reach the same level of spiritual evolution. My experience and experience of others told me that this is not possible. I have period(s) when I declared myself as atheist, and lived without religion. But I couldn't achieve it. Therefore, I believe that this goal (that we in Orthodox Church call "theosis" or "deification") is a consequence of sinergy of God and man. That's why we insist on taking part in holy communion, where, we believe, we unite with God, through his energies, and on personal effort, that includes fasting, praying and other kinds of asceticism.

Hope this helps to understand my beliefs.

Not for nothing, but I don't see anything in that, that leads to the conclusion that a supernatural being who created the universe is real. Are you saying that believing that is necessary to the spiritual practice you're engaged in, and that's sufficient reason for you to believe?

I'm not going to give you a hard time about that, as I observed before, belief isn't something you can turn on or off a a whim, if you believe, it's because you're convinced, even if others wouldn't find the same reasons convincing.