Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Captain Colostomy]

...*if* I convert to atheist...

LOL. Asphinctersezwut?

[Theo Zacharias]

Well then what would you consider to be a confirmed supernatural phenomenon? Meaning it happened, but we don't know why. What then gives you the right to call it supernatural just because we can't yet explain it?

This question should be directed to Golbez. If you read his first post in this thread, he asserted that "there is established criteria for which we could not deny the existence of God", e.g. "do something supernatural, and make it literally spectacular". I responded that it's not that easy because what is natural and what is supernatural is actually not so clear because we don't really know what the true laws of nature is.

This is the conundrum that should actually lead many to realize that there's really no such thing as a supernatural phenomenon, rather they're all just natural phenomena that can't yet be explained.

Are you claiming that what you said above is an evidence that supernatural phenomenon does not exist?

Also, becoming an atheist after being a theist is know as deconversion, not conversion, as that would denote gaining or switching beliefs. Since all atheists do is disbelieve, saying that one converts to atheism is not aptly put.

I don't agree. You should read the context of my posting.
First, I must point out that there are atheists who belief that God does not exist. There also atheists who claim to know that God does not exist. These people are also atheists (if not then what would you call them?)
Second, if you read carefully my previous post, here was what I said: ".. in the future I found an evidence that God does not exist (which in that case I will convert to atheist) ...". So the context is if there is evidence that God does not exist. If there is the evidence, then we should believe that God does not exist (not simply just disbelieve). In fact, we should claim to know that God does not exist. So in this context, the phrase "converting to atheist" is correct.

[Captain Colostomy]

Also, becoming an atheist after being a theist is know as deconversion, not conversion, as that would denote gaining or switching beliefs. Since all atheists do is disbelieve, saying that one converts to atheism is not aptly put.

I don't agree. You should read the context of my posting.
First, I must point out that there are atheists who belief that God does not exist. There also atheists who claim to know that God does not exist. These people are also atheists (if not then what would you call them?)
Second, if you read carefully my previous post, here was what I said: ".. in the future I found an evidence that God does not exist (which in that case I will convert to atheist) ...". So the context is if there is evidence that God does not exist. If there is the evidence, then we should believe that God does not exist (not simply just disbelieve). In fact, we should claim to know that God does not exist. So in this context, the phrase "converting to atheist" is correct.

LOL. Asphinctersezwut?

[Theo Zacharias]

I have to go. I'm afraid I only be able to be online again next week.
So I will response any further postings directed to me next week.
Sorry for any inconvenience because of this.

[LostLocke]

First, I must point out that there are atheists who belief that God does not exist.
There also atheists who claim to know that God does not exist.

Those are two different things.
Belief/disbelief in a god determines if you are an atheist or theist.
Claiming to know if a god does or does not exist determines if you are gnostic or agnostic.
Your first sentence is what an atheist is. IE, if you believe in a god you are not an atheist.

LOL. Asphinctersezwut?

What?


Heyyyyy, wait a sec....

[Captain Colostomy]

I have to go. I'm afraid I only be able to be online again next Week.
So I will response any furtHer postings directed to me next week.
Sorry for Any inconvenience because of This.

I understand.

[Bad Writer]

Way to avoid answering anything at all, Theo. I guess we'll see you next time.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@theo, it all depends on how you want to define god.

If you want to say god affects the world in ways that known laws of nature do not, then it is reproducible. Because there will be multiple phenomenons that violate the laws of nature, and they can all be analyzed. And since it would happen so many times, the analysis is reproducible.

Not necessarily true.
If God affects the world frequently on the same place/person, then yes it's reproducible and subject to scientific investigation. We can go to the place or meet the person and conduct a scientific experiment to verify the effect.
But if God affects the world frequently but always (or at least most of the time) on a different place/person, then how can we conduct any scientific investigation if we don't know where to go to verify the effect?

No, that's not how it works, control for age, gender, other possible confounding factors and you're good to go. In fact, that design will have greater external validity compared to a "lab type scenario" where the same phenomena happens to the same person over and over again.

I don't think we have to move forward to experiment design when we haven't even have a cause to study these phenomenas though.

long story short: that's not a dilemma, it's done all the time in science.

[Golbez]

1. But I never convert to atheist so I never feel any social pressure because of this.

2. Do you think a natural being with technology far more advanced than what we have now cannot do those things above? Using cloning technology that is hundreds or thousands or millions years more advance than what we have now maybe?

3. Thermodynamics/laws/etc.

4. If those things you said above happen, how do you know that it's God who do those things and not a natural being with technology far more advance than what we have now posing as God?

5.

But if you should happen to agree that (list of terrible religious attributes)

I never said that I agree with those things above. In fact I disagree with those things.
There are many kind of theist. If most theists that you know/hear agree to those things, please don't assume that all of them (including me) also agree.


6...then please don't assume that all theists/Christians are like that ...Why should I regret?

7. They well aware that there is no known evidence of the existence of graviton so far. Do you think that they are nuts?

8. You seem to be more welcome in believe of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Note that human have been searching for extraterrestrial intelligence at least as long as they have been searching for God. God Himself is actually a kind of extraterrestrial intelligence. I assume you call a believe in God existence irrational, right? Do you call a believe in extraterrestrial intelligence existence irrational? Seems like you answer no. If that so, what's the difference compare to belief in God existence? They both has no known evidence.

9. I never said nor agreed that unverified belief is more likely to be correct. Why do you assume that I am? Can you point out one of my posting last week that imply this?
You have many false presumptions about me.

10. Regarding to leprechauns, unicorns, Russell's teapot, Santa Claus, etc,

In short, I believe several things exist (e.g. God) without evidence that those things exist because there is a reason to believe. On the contrary, I don't believe several other things existence (e.g. leprechauns, unicorns, Russell's teapot, Santa Claus) because there is no reason to believe or there is a reason not to believe. I have presented some of the reasons last week. Also, I must point out again, to avoid misunderstanding, that the reasons are not evidence. The reasons only makes my believe becomes a rational belief and not necessarily becomes a true belief.

1. This is still social pressure. I don't play Russian Roulette because I could kill myself. I haven't played, so I've never felt this threat. But I haven't played precisely because I don't want to feel this threat (not that I've ever had the opportunity...)

2. Interesting question. I suppose it's possible then. I don't believe it's possible now. It's still something that would certainly shake my foundation, and I would have to think I'd still believe. This almost makes you more skeptical than me. Which reminds me, why do you think Jesus is the son of god and not either imaginary, a fraud, improperly documented, or a near-magical future being?

3. Agree. But there does seem to be some exceptional confidence in these laws as being universally inviolable. I wonder why the degree of confidence if they think it could be broken.

4. As far as I understand it, such a being would be god. But again, if you're skeptical about this, what convinces you of Jesus, or the Bible as an inerrant work of the almighty? How could something so ancient, poorly documented, conflicted, littered with horrible morals, etc be so convincing whereas, in all other cases, you would first suspect future humans?

5. I didn't assume. It's built right there in the language. "If you should..."

6. Again, I still wasn't assuming, especially that anyone is having a miserable time in church. I understand there's strong community, good music, friends, etc. Even enjoying it as you and others do now, you can still regret having dedicate so much of your life to what turns out to be glorified Zeus. Maybe you won't. But surely there would be an abundance of other activities you could have been doing, where maybe you'd meet a different girlfriend who wasn't offended that you recognized the lack of evidence for God. Whereas you still seem open to the question, maybe she's a bit more confident that he exists, confident science is wrong. And/or maybe your kids grow up being imbued in religious doctrine, afraid or unable to think of what else may be. Maybe she or they might support like-minded politicians, anti-scientific policies, anti-gay freedoms, etc. It's hard for me to pretend to imagine there are no negative consequences in going through life believing a fully unsubstantiated massive claim about life at best, and at worst an outright falsehood and possibly the biggest lie to ever subdue the human population.

7. No, they have reasonable theories at play that give credence to their beliefs. And as scientists, I imagine they all are willing to discard their beliefs if sufficient evidence comes to light to discredit it. Still, it is a belief and not a fact. They don't assume it's absolutely true. They simply believe it is/may be, which seems to be your position on God as well. But this is a much better tone than the vast majority of religious people seem to share.

8. You seem to be putting ET life on equal grounds with a creator of the universe. I assume (with some basis in scientific hypothesis), as a person who believes god does not exist, that we arose spontaneously. And as that must have come through natural processes, it is available to other planets in the universe, acknowledging that there are more stars out there than all the grains of sand in the world. It would be a bit arrogant to simply assume it is only possible for us. So I acknowledge it ought to be at least possible somewhere else as well, if not millions of other places. Yet, I do not confidently say they do exist. I'm only welcome to the idea that they might be. It's worth looking, just as it's worth exploring for life on Mars, just as it's worth exploring your surroundings in a new town, isles in a new store, etc. It's worth looking to see what's out there. This is the basis for scientific inquiry and empirical analysis.

9. Apologies. I assumed you would have thought your position to be the correct one. I'm hesitant to think anyone would think of the more incorrect of two positions and willfully settle towards that. My assumption nevertheless. Of course the third option is that someone finds these two possibilities equally likely. But it seems to me you'd either have to have mathematically done some sort of calculation (though I can't imagine what) or just not cared enough to decide one is more likely than the other, and so it ends up being a default position through lack of investigation/inquiry/curiosity.

10. Well, so your reasons for believing in the unverified so far has been supported by social reasons. So if society rallied around Scientology, Leprechauns, Russel's teapot in the same way it has rallied around Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, then you'd believe those as well? Actually, clearly not, since you don't believe in Judaism or Islam. So your reasoning again is inconsistent at best, which is a very flimsy argument for agreeing/believing/pretending to support a massive claim.

It seems your motivations for believing in religion are social first and foremost. And since it can't ever be disproved (nor is it likely to be proven correct), you can always just cling to it, hoping it's true, because friends/family/gf. To me, with a thing so influential over a person's life, you'd want to believe in something because you legitimately thought it was true/correct, first and foremost. Otherwise, who knows what bogus things you might end up agreeing with, just for social reasons.

[discipulus]

If I were to say that no proof would convince me that my beliefs were wrong, even the discovery of Jesus' body, I am sure that many would say that maintaining my beliefs in spite of the evidence would be unreasonable/irrational/unjustifiable/crazy/wrong etc. etc.

In response I would reply by saying that's great! I would also thank you for sharing your opinion with me.

I would then explain that according to atheism, each individual is responsible for determining what is meaningful in their lives. Since there is nothing outside of the closed system that is the universe that exists to give meaning to our existence, and since we exist as the mere by-product of blind natural processes acting upon matter with no superintendence, we as individual homo sapiens are left with determining how we choose to live the few years we exist on this speck of dust flying through the vast, senseless, dark, cold, uncaring cosmos. Ultimately we homo sapiens, like the mosquito, or tape-worm, or roach, simply are living out and performing the functions that are included in the hand dealt to us by nature.

So in light of the above, it is now clear that if a person finds meaning in life by believing in something in spite of the evidence against that belief, then they are simply dancing to their DNA and living out the life they feel is best for them to live. Some of course would say that living such a way is ridiculous and many would agree. Many would disagree and say that living however one desires to live is the way they should live.

Some would desire to spend a life studying the arts and sciences, some would desire to spend the few years nature has given them laying on a couch eating cheese puffs and drinking shots of hard liquor while getting orange cheesy residue on everything they touch in their house.

In the end, I would emphasize that the noble scientist who spent years in the academy making profound discovery after discovery and the ignorant fundamentalist Christian preacher of hell-fire and brimstone that stood on every street corner ultimately are both sons of an indifferent cosmos, offspring of chance, and children of nature who will both soon die and turn to dust which will be compost and fertilizer for plants and grass.

So essentially to anyone who gives me their opinion regarding the matter, I would give them mine, speaking atheistically, and say that many think people who eat spaghtetti are crazy and think that lasagna is the best Italian dish. Ultimately, it is all preference.