Hey, Atheists...

[partinobodycular]

Humility, assurance, and faith, are these bad qualities foe a society regardless of one's beliefs?

I'm thinking that they're pretty good things no matter what one believes. Then again I would say that, seeing as it says 'agnostic' in my profile. Maybe I'm just trying to justify my own skepticism, and I'll end up in hell going... oops, my bad.

 

[Larniavc]

The problem with atheism is it's much harder to prove something they don't believe in doesn't exist than it does for a believer(!) that does to do. The burden of anti-proof. If ever such thing could exist.
Discuss.

That’s not a problem for atheism. It’s a problem for theism. Theism is unable to respond to the burden of proof. Atheism has no such burden as it does not necessarily make any claims that might require proof.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'm thinking that they're pretty good things no matter what one believes. Then again I would say that, seeing as it says 'agnostic' in my profile. Maybe I'm just trying to justify my own skepticism, and I'll end up in hell going... oops, my bad.

I personally would not say that you are going to hell because you are a skeptic. Scripture says that nobody can confess that Christ is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, it doesn't matter what I say. If it isn't God's will, you will not be saved. You will not. I only hope that during this time, God is building your testimony. I pray that you will be the next Lee Strobel. So my message is simple, I share the gospel, if you accept it, fine! But if you don't, the problem isn't the message or the messenger. Just the currenty condition of your heart.

 

[stevevw]

The idea that a Christians faith has to be measured by empiricle science or otherwise its false is a sort of red herring or strawman. A situation is being created where the Christian is forced to play by the atheists rules as to what counts as evidence for God and their belief.

Someone mentioned conscious experience. Why cannot that be a form of evidence. We use it for other issues. In fact our conscious experience is really the only think that we can directly know is real. Its 1st hand evidence and not 3rd person perspective which requires a detachment for our direct experiences to conform to a particular paradigm that cannot even measure God or belief in the first place.

Its like forcing a psychologist to use engineering as the measure of cognition. They are two completely different categories.

So when a Christian is confident of their belief in God the evidence is more experiential and transcedent of material or naturalistic measures. The bible says faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

What is the substance of things hoped for. That sounds like something of substance but not in a material sense. The evidence of things unseen. Something unseen to the material world gives Christians the evidence like it was evidence from the material world and science.

A bit like love. We cannot measure love in a test tube. Its a sense of knowing. Even to the point we would sacrifice our life for this. That seens more than just imagination or delusion.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The idea that a Christians faith has to be measured by empiricle science or otherwise its false is a sort of red herring or strawman. A situation is being created where the Christian is forced to play by the atheists rules as to what counts as evidence for God and their belief.

If the goal is to convince atheists that gods exist, then it behooves you to present evidence that atheists consider valuable.

If one wants to believe in one's gods, nobody is stopping one from doing so.

Someone mentioned conscious experience. Why cannot that be a form of evidence.

I mean, it is what it is, but I have no conscious experience of any gods. So my third hand experience of what you tell me about your first hand experience is not very useful.

A bit like love. We cannot measure love in a test tube.

I do have firsthand conscious experience of love.

 

[stevevw]

If the goal is to convince atheists that gods exist, then it behooves you to present evidence that atheists consider valuable.

But thats the point. The impossible point. Your asking for the impossible. Asking the question in the first place is a category error. You should not even be asking this and realising that it cannot be asked in the first place.

Its not so much about whether there is a God or not but the method by which we measure that. Even Galilao recognised belief belonged to a different realm than science so he seperated them. There were the aspects of reality such as the conscious experiences, pain and pleasure, love, belief ect and there was the quantified apects such as the laws of nature and objective reality.

But one could not be used to measure the other. So asking for material evidence of a immaterial aspect of reality is like asking what is the mathmatical equation for love. You can't even ask the question because it doesn't make sense. Your not even asking the right questions as belief belongs in a completely different paradigm with completely different criteria for what is reality and how that can be understood.

If one wants to believe in one's gods, nobody is stopping one from doing so.

Its not nothing to do with stopping people believing. Rather its making believers conform to a material meausre of belief when belief is not even in the ballpart of material understandings of reality. All we can say is that empiricle science can only measure one aspect of reality which cannot measure belief and other transcedent aspects of reality.

So all we can say is that as far as objective reality is concerned there is no evidence. But there still may be evidence by looking at other ways of knowing reality such as lived reality and experiences. But as science cannot measure this all we can say is that in the greater scheme of things we cannot rule out belief in God as a real possibility.

If you then insist that belief and God can only be measured by material sciences then this is no longer science but metaphysics and belief. Its actually imposing a epistemic condition on how we should know reality when there are other ways of knowing reality.

Thus its more a metaphysical belief being forced upon believers who have their own metaphysical beliefs.

I mean, it is what it is, but I have no conscious experience of any gods. So my third hand experience of what you tell me about your first hand experience is not very useful.

Actually its the most powerful because its direct one person to another. We do it everyday. When people share their experiences we engage, we are there with them. Unless there is obvious evidence to the contrary we usually believe them. We take their word for it.

First hand testimony is what the bible is about. Its what we read about in journals and historical accounts. It actually can paint the color of reality of what happened rather than the black and white qualified data of the event.

I do have firsthand conscious experience of love.

Yes and you believe in that love as being real. But try and quantify it in scientific terms or measures. The moment you do then you lose what love is. Its no longer love.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But thats the point. The impossible point. Your asking for the impossible.

I didn't ask for anything. It's the evangelists who want to make a case for their gods.

Actually its the most powerful because its direct one person to another. We do it everyday. When people share their experiences we engage, we are there with them. Unless there is obvious evidence to the contrary we usually believe them. We take their word for it.

I certainly don't think my Christian friends and Hindu friends and Wiccan friends and Muslim friends are lying. But their stories all contradict each other, so I am skeptical that any of their stories are real.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't ask for anything. It's the evangelists who want to make a case for their gods.

I certainly don't think my Christian friends and Hindu friends and Wiccan friends and Muslim friends are lying. But their stories all contradict each other, so I am skeptical that any of their stories are real.

You can look at it in different ways. Because there are so many religions that they are all trying to get at the same thing in different ways this lends support that there is a natural inclination in humans to believe in gods or spiritual aspects of reality. That God put in us the inclination to look for Him but culture has varied that belief.

Or you can say that just because there are varied beliefs doesn't negate that God or some sort of God is real. The same thing happens with for example Consciousness. We have many different ideas about consciousness such as panpsychism and its many variations, Integrated Information Theory, or its an epiphenomena. The same with quatum mechanics and its various interpretations. Or several theories about the beginning of the universe ect.

But no one is saying that these varying ideas negate what they are trying to explain.

But we can narrow down belief and see that some actually are actually the same. Like Hebrew, Islam and Christianity which make up the vast majority are talking about the same God. Wiccan is not even about gods but paganism which is really a bel;ief in nature itself which many beliefs are. So they have nothing to do with God. Hindu does not have a specific god its more a spiritual awakening then a specific diety.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Like Hebrew, Islam and Christianity which make up the vast majority

"Wiccan is not even about gods"

Many Wiccans would beg to differ.

"Hindu does not have a specific god its more a spiritual awakening then a specific diety."

Many Hindus would beg to differ.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The idea that a Christians faith has to be measured by empiricle science or otherwise its false is a sort of red herring or strawman. A situation is being created where the Christian is forced to play by the atheists rules as to what counts as evidence for God and their belief.

Who said anything like that about faith being measured?

 

[stevevw]

View attachment 362881

"Wiccan is not even about gods"

Many Wiccans would beg to differ.

"Hindu does not have a specific god its more a spiritual awakening then a specific diety."

Many Hindus would beg to differ.

Like I said your creating a logical fallacy that because religions disagree then there is no God.

 

[stevevw]

Who said anything like that about faith being measured?

When atheists or skeptics says there is no evidence for belief in God or God. When they use that as an arguement to defeat belief in God.

When they say there is no evidence they are obviously referring to empiricle evidence. Therefore are forcing believers to verify their belief by science and objective measures. They are imposing a metaphysical measure of material naturalism.

That imposition is beyond what science can do. So therefore this is more a metaphysical belief and not science. Its imposing an epistemic truth claim on believers that this is how we should know what belief in God. But more than that its imposing an ontology by saying this is what reality is, materrial and naturalistic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Like I said your creating a logical fallacy that because religions disagree then there is no God.

All I'm saying is that your description of first-hand testimony as 'powerful' is quite overblown. I certainly don't find it persuasive, and since the stories don't match, I can't even tell what story I'm trying to be persuaded with.

 

[Bradskii]

When they say there is no evidence...

Did someone say that? Then they'd be wrong. But if someone said that the evidence didn't convince them then that's simply a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When atheists or skeptics says there is no evidence for belief in God or God. When they use that as an arguement to defeat belief in God.

Belief in something and its existence are different things. There is plenty of evidence that people believe in various gods, the evidence for the existence of those gods is extremely lacking, but that's not what this thread is about.

When they say there is no evidence they are obviously referring to empiricle evidence. Therefore are forcing believers to verify their belief by science and objective measures. They are imposing a metaphysical measure of material naturalism.

What other kind of evidence would there be?

That imposition is beyond what science can do. So therefore this is more a metaphysical belief and not science. Its imposing an epistemic truth claim on believers that this is how we should know what belief in God. But more than that its imposing an ontology by saying this is what reality is, materrial and naturalistic.

You do know this thread was about how non-religious people derived a moral system and not about the existence of any god, right?

 

[stevevw]

All I'm saying is that your description of first-hand testimony as 'powerful' is quite overblown. I certainly don't find it persuasive, and since the stories don't match, I can't even tell what story I'm trying to be persuaded with.

Its not overblown. There is powerful testimony from Christians, The testimony of the diciples is quite powerful. Eleven of the twelve were martryed for their faith. Thats pretty powerful. Thats been the testimony of many Christians since.

 

[stevevw]

Did someone say that? Then they'd be wrong. But if someone said that the evidence didn't convince them then that's simply a matter of personal opinion.

There are plenty who use material naturalism to defeat belief in God. Heres an example from this thread and theres plenty more. Atheists are continually asking for evidence lol.

If the goal is to convince atheists that gods exist, then it behooves you to present evidence that atheists consider valuable.
Atheism is about whenever believers claim their God exists, we saying, "Okay, prove it." And then not getting any actual evidence.

What evidence. Of course they mean empiricle evidence. Limiting the measure to material naturalism. Even with morality people want material evidence that there is a moral lawgiver. They only accept empiricle data. Refer to deterministic processes as the evidence.

They dictate and limit the evidence to what they demand within a small aspect of reality. So they are actually arguing for their metaphysical belief about reality and not science.

 

[stevevw]

Belief in something and its existence are different things. There is plenty of evidence that people believe in various gods, the evidence for the existence of those gods is extremely lacking, but that's not what this thread is about.

It is what the thread is about. The OP makes the statement that Christians have the scriptures and teachings of Christ as the source of morality. What do atheists use. That will naturally bring up discussion about the sources of morality. Atheists will challenge the source of Christian morality as being no different to their sources. That its just a human made source as there are no Gods.

Then this will decend into arguements about evidence. The atheist will force the criteria to be about only material naturalism and other deterministic processes. When you say "the evidence for the existence of those gods is extremely lacking" you are dictating that there can only be one type of measure for God and it must be material naturalism.

What other kind of evidence would there be?

Ah well if you look at the bible the main evidence is 1st hand testimony. The experiences of the believer/s. We use this type of evidence all the time. When your partner says they love you you believe them. When a person gives thei9r experiences to another they are believed. When we look back at history much is based on testimony and we tend to accept it as part of the evidence when in the right context.

But the often factual evidence used against belief and God is also biased in the direction of material naturalism. For example human agency is dismissed in favor of determinism when there is insufficent evidence and in fact eviudence to the contrary that supports agency. So the same evidence is skewed towards only material naturalism as its assumed thats the only explanation.

You do know this thread was about how non-religious people derived a moral system and not about the existence of any god, right?

Like I said the OP claims that Christians have their moral system based in God. It asked what is the atheists moral basis. This will naturally cause atheists to question the Christian moral system as just another naturalistic belief and moral system as part of defeating that there is anything speacial about the Christian moral system.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are plenty who use material naturalism to defeat belief in God. Heres an example from this thread and theres plenty more. Atheists are continually asking for evidence lol.

If the goal is to convince atheists that gods exist, then it behooves you to present evidence that atheists consider valuable.

Hey, that's me, and I did not say that no one had ever provided any evidence.

What evidence. Of course they mean empiricle evidence.

I did not say so. We've been discussing firsthand testimonies just now.

 

[Bradskii]

What evidence. Of course they mean empiricle evidence.

No. They mean ANY evidence. You believe in God so there must have been some evidence that convinced you that He exists. Tell me what it was and I'll tell you if it's convincing as far as I'm concerned.

Can't be fairer than that...