What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[Soyouz]

I have another question, when it comes to prayers. Do you think that they have an actual impact on you except for feeling good? For example, I saw a science program today about asteroids. 2029 there's about a 1/30 chance that this is going to hit earth. Do you believe that God can actually do something about it, will he be saving the christians? Will you die anyway and go to heaven? If you pray before you're about to play a football game, is your chance of winning higher because you prayed before the game?



Do "all" christians actually believe the Adam and Eve story?

Arcanus you said you used the bible as evidence. But how can you use that as evidence because first of all mankind wrote it, why? Maybe because it was used as entertainment. It's not like the bible was produced by God.

[tavarish]

I have another question, when it comes to prayers. Do you think that they have an actual impact on you except for feeling good? For example, I saw a science program today about asteroids. 2029 there's about a 1/30 chance that this is going to hit earth. Do you believe that God can actually do something about it, will he be saving the christians? Will you die anyway and go to heaven? If you pray before you're about to play a football game, is your chance of winning higher because you prayed before the game?

I sincerely doubt anyone of intellectual honesty believes anything you wrote. It's pretty leading.

Do "all" christians actually believe the Adam and Eve story?

No.

Arcanus you said you used the bible as evidence. But how can you use that as evidence because first of all mankind wrote it, why? Maybe because it was used as entertainment. It's not like the bible was produced by God.

I'm going to guess that he'll ask you for evidence to support your claim that "Maybe because it was used as entertainment."

It's not that you're not on the right track, it's just you form your arguments a bit unconvincingly.

[Frank]

Sometimes us atheists have fun just regurgitating our same old arguments (maybe rephrasing them slightly to be a little more punchy). Debunking religion really is a completed task, scientifically speaking (sort of like algebra) ... finished long ago. Just because apologists come up with new ways of spinning their same old nonsense doesn't mean we need to revisit the drawing board (it just means they're fools wasting their time on a worthless occupation).

I'm becoming more mature in my atheism as time goes on. Now it doesn't bother me when I hear Christians or other religious people preaching their gibberish. Although when I see a dude on the subway trying to sell me Jesus, I wonder if we would be so tolerant if he were trying to sell us vacuum cleaners or some other mundane item (in such an annoying fashion)? Ahhh, well we have to tolerate it right, since most people claim to believe it (it amazes me that people are so I guess unable to cope with mortality or perhaps themselves and their own nature that they turn to mythology).

When it comes to mythology I've always admired Norse mythology. Imagine, the Vikings managed to become one of a small handful of truly great ancient peoples, and according to their religion .... they lose in the end. The people (and their gods) continue to fight evil even though they know they will lose, and ultimately be destroyed. Of course they Vikings didn't have the benefit of understanding cosmology, evolution, or much of anything remotely scientific (except of course how to make a good ship, and launch an amphibious assault); so believing in mythological legends was perfectly understandable.

[Watson]

Sometimes us atheists have fun just regurgitating our same old arguments (maybe rephrasing them slightly to be a little more punchy). Debunking religion really is a completed task, scientifically speaking (sort of like algebra) ... finished long ago. Just because apologists come up with new ways of spinning their same old nonsense doesn't mean we need to revisit the drawing board (it just means they're fools wasting their time on a worthless occupation).

...No? if you can honestly show me scientific evidence which 'debunks' religion, I will be thoroughly impressed. I don't mean to get snarky, but you are making an incredibly broad claim here, and it needs to be backed up. You may have debunked certain interpretations or ideas about religion, but the central theme of most religions is...God. And you have not debunked God in the slightest.

I'm becoming more mature in my atheism as time goes on. Now it doesn't bother me when I hear Christians or other religious people preaching their gibberish. Although when I see a dude on the subway trying to sell me Jesus, I wonder if we would be so tolerant if he were trying to sell us vacuum cleaners or some other mundane item (in such an annoying fashion)? Ahhh, well we have to tolerate it right, since most people claim to believe it (it amazes me that people are so I guess unable to cope with mortality or perhaps themselves and their own nature that they turn to mythology).

I'm quite able to deal with mortality...in fact it is my own mortality upon which my faith is based. I know that I'm going to die, and that my life is sacred, so I treasure each moment of it that I've been given. I could go into more detail, but that's the bare bones of it...

When it comes to mythology I've always admired Norse mythology. Imagine, the Vikings managed to become one of a small handful of truly great ancient peoples, and according to their religion .... they lose in the end. The people (and their gods) continue to fight evil even though they know they will lose, and ultimately be destroyed. Of course they Vikings didn't have the benefit of understanding cosmology, evolution, or much of anything remotely scientific (except of course how to make a good ship, and launch an amphibious assault); so believing in mythological legends was perfectly understandable.

That's interestingly something I was not aware of! I don't know too much about Norse mythology other than the bare minimum, Thor, Odin, all that stuff. Kinda cool.

Although, the reason I bolded part of that snippet is because I find it strange that it was okay for Vikings to lack scientific knowledge and theorize about 'gods' to explain it, but it was not okay for, say, the writers of the Bible to lack scientific knowledge and attribute scientific occurences to God. Just pointing that out.

[Frank]

Sometimes us atheists have fun just regurgitating our same old arguments (maybe rephrasing them slightly to be a little more punchy). Debunking religion really is a completed task, scientifically speaking (sort of like algebra) ... finished long ago. Just because apologists come up with new ways of spinning their same old nonsense doesn't mean we need to revisit the drawing board (it just means they're fools wasting their time on a worthless occupation).

...No? if you can honestly show me scientific evidence which 'debunks' religion, I will be thoroughly impressed. I don't mean to get snarky, but you are making an incredibly broad claim here, and it needs to be backed up. You may have debunked certain interpretations or ideas about religion, but the central theme of most religions is...God. And you have not debunked God in the slightest.

Science isn't really valid here (because there's nothing scientific to examine). This is merely an analysis of the veracity of fantastic ancient claims; and of course with regard to anything of this nature pertaining to the remote past, the best we'll do is debunk it beyond a reasonable doubt (and of course even if we discovered a way to build a wormhole back in time, traveled back and showed that Jesus' followers stole his body, or whatever ... it still wouldn't appease many theists).

You're trying, I guess, to distinguish between the concept of god and religiosity (which is fine dude, I did the same thing for a while); but where did the concept of god come from? The evidence shows the concept comes from mythology. Sure there's a bunch of post-hoc arguments that try and provide proof for god apart from religious claims (e.g. cosmological arguments like Kalam and others). However, our starting place should be to realize these are post-hoc attempts to justify a preexisting belief system (and that's just not how science works).

If I find a book describing a legend of pink unicorns, and I try to formulate a logical argument that shows the possibility (even the probability) that pink animals could have existed at some point in the past (because I started to worship the pink unicorn), how seriously would you take me?

That's interestingly something I was not aware of! I don't know too much about Norse mythology other than the bare minimum, Thor, Odin, all that stuff. Kinda cool.

Although, the reason I bolded part of that snippet is because I find it strange that it was okay for Vikings to lack scientific knowledge and theorize about 'gods' to explain it, but it was not okay for, say, the writers of the Bible to lack scientific knowledge and attribute scientific occurences to God. Just pointing that out.

Remember I'm not saying Norse mythology is true (indeed I'm sure it's untrue). What I find admirable is they were some of finest warriors in history - yet had no expectation of any reward (in fact they were sure they would ultimately lose).

[tackattack]

I have another question, when it comes to prayers. Do you think that they have an actual impact on you except for feeling good?
-yes
Do you believe that God can actually do something about it,
-yes
will he be saving the christians?
-IDK I'd like to hope those of us worthy, but not on this Earth
Will you die anyway
-most likely saving someone yes
and go to heaven?
-probably not, I'm a heathen
If you pray before you're about to play a football game, is your chance of winning higher because you prayed before the game?
-no
Do "all" christians actually believe the Adam and Eve story?
-no, not literally

[Ryft]

[The claim is true because on] the very face of it, it seems like there can be no objective evidence that God exists at our current point in time.

I have no choice but to reject your answer, because it had nothing to do with the question I asked. Let me explain.

The answer you gave me was, "It seems true prima facie." But notice that word "seems" right there; that refers to your thinking, informing me of your cognition. But my question did not inquire about you; it asked something about the claim; i.e., I asked if it is true (in itself), not if it seems true (to you). So perhaps I should back up and ask my first question again, now that you know what's actually being asked.

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH:

I don't have empirical evidence to prove the non-existence of something.

That's okay, nobody's asking that of you.

I'm talking about the belief that God exists objectively ... that the concept's existence can only be verified through subjective and rather questionable means.

(emphasis mine)

The reason why the belief and the concept can only be verified subjectively is because both of those things are items of cognition, internal or belonging to the thinking person. They are subjective by definition, accessible only to the person cognizing them. They are held in the mind. Beliefs and concepts both are subjective. It is unreasonable to expect, much less ask for, objective evidence for that which is subjective by nature. As I said previously, you are conflating belief in God (internal to the person) with the existence of God (external to the person).

[Re: "A lack of belief in God is anything but unbiased."] I'd have to disagree with you.

You shouldn't, so I suspect you have faulty understanding of what 'biased' means.

Atheism is biased by definition. In the first place, it is "a particular tendency or inclination" toward godless beliefs and values; i.e., an atheist by definition is far more likely than not to prefer and form beliefs and values that make no reference to God. And naturally that "inhibits impartial judgment" when it comes to evaluating claims, notably those that involve God. Atheism is NOT impartial, for an absence of God is at the starting point of all evaluation.

A lack of belief would be the default position.

What somebody does or doesn't believe could not possibly be any more irrelevant! The degree of its irrelevance practically defies comprehension! So you have not found any good reason to believe God exists. Okay, but... so what? The beliefs you have or don't have tells us about you, and not a thing about the real world. Nobody is going to learn anything about the nature of reality by discovering what your beliefs happen to look like and your reasons for them. They'll only learn stuff about you.

Would not faith be dependent on personal feelings?

Partly, but not wholly. That's why your statement was false.

Would not faith be considered purely subjective by the very definition of the word?

No, because its definition includes objective elements (e.g., notitia). You have a shamefully blinkered notion of what faith is, no doubt influenced by a diet of straw man rhetoric. And considering how engrained this straw man view is, you've been taking it in for a very long time.

What would be objective evidence of God's existence?

Evidence that is independent of the thinking person. That's what 'objective' means. And on this same issue, the demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

Exactly my point. The fact that you fail to defend your claim gives me reason not to believe it.

You really need to extract yourself from such feculent and sloppy rhetoric. I mean, what manner of nonsense is this here? The fact that I failed to defend my claim? What claim? Absolutely every single claim I've made in our conversation I've backed up solidly, so what claim could you possibly be referring to? Speaking of indefensible claims! I have a strong suspicion that you're going to retract this claim here, and that would be good. But what would be even better is if you abandon the habit of such rhetorical twaddle, characterizing your opponent with nonsense that doesn't even square with reality. It fails the test of rationality and leaves little to be proud of.

And again, what you do or don't believe has no significance beyond biographical value.

As the foundation of your worldview (the Bible), how would you verify its validity independently?

It's the fundamental presupposition at bottom of my entire world view, I said. Presuppositions aren't verified, they are presupposed.

Now, you might want to fault me somehow on this so let me spin things around to make a point you've probably never thought about before. Your standard of evidence is independent empirical verification, right? How do you independently verify the validity of that standard? Do you use your standard of evidence to verify your standard of evidence?

---

You said you used the Bible as evidence ...

No, I did not.

[tavarish]

I have no choice but to reject your answer, because it had nothing to do with the question I asked. Let me explain.

The answer you gave me was, "It seems true prima facie." But notice that word "seems" right there; that refers to your thinking, informing me of your cognition. But my question did not inquire about you; it asked something about the claim; i.e., I asked if it is true (in itself), not if it seems true (to you). So perhaps I should back up and ask my first question again, now that you know what's actually being asked.

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH:

Here's where we go to war over semantics.

Can I objectively demonstrate to you that there is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists? No.

To do so would be, for the most part, impossible, as it would be a logistics nightmare to prove something doesn't exist.

What I mean (and I did say "seem" on purpose), was to convey the notion that objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up a God claim has not been put forth by anyone to my knowledge.

I don't claim to know everything, nor do I claim an absolute truth in my claim. I also don't make that claim out of a lack of information seeking or grudging bias. If you have some evidence conforming to that criteria, please present it.

I also choose this method of analyzation because it is the most consistent with what we, as a species, observe in reality. Moreover, others can re-test the claims to eliminate as much bias as possible. Yes, I understand that science cannot prove itself, and logic is self-validating. It can still give us a very good idea of how to separate fact from fantasy objectively.

Is the claim true? In my experience, yes. I can come to a conclusion based on the consensus of various scientific fields of study in the world.

Absolutely and unequivocally? I don't know.

I can be proven wrong, however.

If you do have objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of God, please don't keep quiet.

(emphasis mine)

The reason why the belief and the concept can only be verified subjectively is because both of those things are items of cognition, internal or belonging to the thinking person. They are subjective by definition, accessible only to the person cognizing them. They are held in the mind. Beliefs and concepts both are subjective. It is unreasonable to expect, much less ask for, objective evidence for that which is subjective by nature. As I said previously, you are conflating belief in God (internal to the person) with the existence of God (external to the person).

I understand this, and don't contest it. I also don't have issue with people believing in whatever they want. I'm not trying to disprove someone's belief IN God. I'm trying to illustrate that God, as an objective claim, has no accompanying objectively verifiable evidence supporting him. I can believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn all I want, but that doesn't mean her holy hooves are real. I'm not asking for objective evidence for a subjective claim here.

Personally, the biggest issue I have is that people lack the honesty to say "Yes, it may only be a figment of my imagination." Thankfully, most of the theists here are intellectually honest with themselves and peers.

You shouldn't, so I suspect you have faulty understanding of what 'biased' means.

Atheism is biased by definition. In the first place, it is "a particular tendency or inclination" toward godless beliefs and values; i.e., an atheist by definition is far more likely than not to prefer and form beliefs and values that make no reference to God. And naturally that "inhibits impartial judgment" when it comes to evaluating claims, notably those that involve God. Atheism is NOT impartial, for an absence of God is at the starting point of all evaluation.

I'd disagree with you. Would you contend that newborns have a inclination toward godless beliefs and values? Would they also be biased in that context? What about those who have no knowledge of a God concept?

Your assessment works on the presupposition that the atheist would already have a working knowledge of the concept of God, and reject it. It wouldn't work as far as those individuals who it has never occurred to, as they would also be atheists by definition.

Also note that I'm talking about atheism being the disbelief in the claim that a God exists, not a claim that no God exists.

You're also using God as a needless factor in the equation. If I were to evaluate why an apple falls from a tree, with no prior knowledge or belief in God, would you then say I was biased in assessing this question if it did not include a supernatural possibility?

What somebody does or doesn't believe could not possibly be any more irrelevant! The degree of its irrelevance practically defies comprehension! So you have not found any good reason to believe God exists. Okay, but... so what? The beliefs you have or don't have tells us about you, and not a thing about the real world. Nobody is going to learn anything about the nature of reality by discovering what your beliefs happen to look like and your reasons for them. They'll only learn stuff about you.

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I meant atheism is the default position for mankind, as we are not born with inherent knowledge of a God or God. You can be biased and still be an atheist, but ONLY an atheist can be unbiased. If I want to independently verify something, the way that I can eliminate bias in the experiment is to work with people with no emotional or social attachment to the subject material.

Partly, but not wholly. That's why your statement was false.

Exactly why I said replace "wholly" with "partly", as it suits the conversation better.

No, because its definition includes objective elements (e.g., notitia). You have a shamefully blinkered notion of what faith is, no doubt influenced by a diet of straw man rhetoric. And considering how engrained this straw man view is, you've been taking it in for a very long time.

Evidence that is independent of the thinking person. That's what 'objective' means. And on this same issue, the demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

I agree.

I'll reference another post I made on this same subject:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3149-pos...l#pid60201

When theists make claims about the origin of the universe, that's cosmology.

When theists make claims about the origin of life on earth, that's biology.

When theists make claims about the origin of the species, that's evolution.

When theists make claims about the the healing power of prayer, that's medical science.

More often than not, the particular actions of the Christian God are in the realm of testable, verifiable science.

The problem I have isn't with the subjective claims. It's the objective ones I have a problem with.

You really need to extract yourself from such feculent and sloppy rhetoric. I mean, what manner of nonsense is this here? The fact that I failed to defend my claim? What claim? Absolutely every single claim I've made in our conversation I've backed up solidly, so what claim could you possibly be referring to? Speaking of indefensible claims! I have a strong suspicion that you're going to retract this claim here, and that would be good. But what would be even better is if you abandon the habit of such rhetorical twaddle, characterizing your opponent with nonsense that doesn't even square with reality. It fails the test of rationality and leaves little to be proud of.

And again, what you do or don't believe has no significance beyond biographical value.

Whoa there. It was a general statement, not directed at you personally, not to mention that it's a statement that you agree with.

The claim is the same one I've been referring to throughout this entire discussion: The claim that God objectively exists.

It's the fundamental presupposition at bottom of my entire world view, I said. Presuppositions aren't verified, they are presupposed.

Now, you might want to fault me somehow on this so let me spin things around to make a point you've probably never thought about before. Your standard of evidence is independent empirical verification, right? How do you independently verify the validity of that standard? Do you use your standard of evidence to verify your standard of evidence?

For something to be independently and accurately verified, it has to comport with logic and be free of bias. Logic itself is self-validating - I understand the issues with this. You have to assume logic itself is true to judge other values by that standard. Logic presupposes itself.

It's not a perfect system, but it does have the best working example of how to describe and learn about our surroundings and separate fact from fantasy.

Is there anything in your belief in God and your belief in the existence of God that could be verified independently? Do you believe that God objectively exists? What reasoning do you have to support this claim?

You said you used the Bible as evidence ...

No, I did not.

Yes, you did:

Do you believe that God was the creator of the universe? If yes, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

The Bible, primarily. (I don't have the time to get into the other supports, nor does this forum grant that much space. So I'll just stick with the Bible in this conversation.)

[fr0d0]

Awesome convo guys - very much enjoying it

A lack of belief would be the default position.

I see now how that is incorrect. How can the default position be to have a position on a belief in God? To be truly unbiased you would consider belief and no belief equally... that would be the default position. You could inform a child of the reasoning for or against belief in God... the child could choose to agree or disagree. Before you told him he would have no reasoning either way. Atheism isn't the default position.

[Tiberius]

Awesome convo guys - very much enjoying it

A lack of belief would be the default position.

I see now how that is incorrect. How can the default position be to have a position on a belief in God? To be truly unbiased you would consider belief and no belief equally... that would be the default position. You could inform a child of the reasoning for or against belief in God... the child could choose to agree or disagree. Before you told him he would have no reasoning either way. Atheism isn't the default position.

Yes, but before you told the child, did they have a belief? No. That was the purpose of the word "lack".

You either believe or you don't. I think that's what Arcanus and I came to agreement on when we came up with our scale of belief in God. If someone doesn't have belief in God, whether they have reached that position themselves or whether it is simple definition (i.e. a person who doesn't even have an idea of what "God" is by definition doesn't have a belief in "God"), they are still atheists.

Methinks you are confusing the word atheist with something else. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God (from the Greek "without God"), not someone who believes there is no God. There are different types of atheist, sure, but the most general form of the word "atheist" must apply to all of them, and in all cases, that means the person has no belief in God.