Hey, Atheists...

[Hans Blaster]

It is what the thread is about.

Nope. It's not about who believes or not or if there is evidence for a god. It's odd that you thing so given that you get it right in the rest of the paragraph.

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.

Yep that's what it about.

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.

That I don't care about your god or evidence for its existence isn't really the topic of the thread either.

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.

And I'm not interested in it. Using that evidence as part of your argument (on anything) is not persuasive to me.

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.

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.

 

[stevevw]

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

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

I am saying that the evidence you are demanding to support belief or the criteria you are using to dismiss belief in God is restricting the criteria to material naturalism.

Its not a case of providing evidence according to what atheists think is good evidence. That is biasing what possible evidence can be used. Your forcing believers to use your criteria when there are other ways of measuring belief.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. It's not about who believes or not or if there is evidence for a god. It's odd that you thing so given that you get it right in the rest of the paragraph.

So you accept the Christians basis for morality being the bible and Christs teachings. The statement was made to say hey atheists we have Gods word as our basis what do you have in comparison.

If its not about who believes or not then why say, hey atheists we have Gods words as our moral guide. Ate you saying theres no difference between the atheists basis for morality and Christians.

Yep that's what it about.

So therefore it is about who believes and what is believed. Your introducing this by claiming that the Christians belief is a delusion. So of course this makes it about what we believe. Of course the Christian is going to then defend that belief.

To you the Christian belief is imagination of just an evolutionary adaptation. But to the Christian who is using the bible and God as their basis its real and is evidence. Just because you dismiss it doesn't make it null and void. Its still there and believed by millions of Christians. They don't believe its unreal luike atheists and atheists saying its unreal doesn't make it unreal.

That I don't care about your god or evidence for its existence isn't really the topic of the thread either.

BUt you do care because you are disputng it. You are calling it a delusion and unreal.

And I'm not interested in it. Using that evidence as part of your argument (on anything) is not persuasive to me.

But its persuasive to millions of Christians. This thread is not just about you. Its about atheists generally. What basis do they use for morality compared to the Christian one. You have to care about the Christian basis because thats is what the OP is comparing atheists morality to.

That you don't care for this doesn't make it go away or change that its a reality for Christians. Your now being asked to provide your moral basis for compared to Christians.

You won't be able to do that if you are dismissing the Christians moral basis to begin with. If thats the case why even bother with the thread.

I find it interesting that atheists say there not interested and yet just about every post shows they are interested in that they go out of their way to dismiss the Christian belief and morality. While saying they don't care about it.

 

[Bradskii]

I am saying that the evidence you are demanding to support belief or the criteria you are using to dismiss belief in God is restricting the criteria to material naturalism.

Did someone say that? You can use whatever evidence you think is sufficient.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

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.


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.


I do have firsthand conscious experience of love.

What would evidence for the existence of God look like for you?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am saying that the evidence you are demanding to support belief or the criteria you are using to dismiss belief in God is restricting the criteria to material naturalism.

I am saying you're wrong about what you're saying about what I'm saying.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What would evidence for the existence of God look like for you?

[Keeping in mind that apologetics is forbidden] I'm open to whatever people are going to throw out there.

As for what would be convincing evidence, at this point having seen a lot of what's thrown out there, it might require some personal (as in mine) experience of the divine.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

[Keeping in mind that apologetics is forbidden] I'm open to whatever people are going to throw out there.

As for what would be convincing evidence, at this point having seen a lot of what's thrown out there, it might require some personal (as in mine) experience of the divine.

I can appreciate that. I also appreciate that most all of believer evidence is a matter of subjective interpretation.

I suppose some people simply choose to believe without personal experience. Then is it strictly an intellectual decision. Then it would seem that such a decision begins to influence interpretations.

I really think that "convincing evidence" must be of a very personal nature that cannot be easily shared.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

[Keeping in mind that apologetics is forbidden] I'm open to whatever people are going to throw out there.

As for what would be convincing evidence, at this point having seen a lot of what's thrown out there, it might require some personal (as in mine) experience of the divine.

That is a fair response. I was just asking because what qualifies as evidence of the divine tends to be rather subjective.

 

[stevevw]

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...

No they don't mean any evidence. Any evidence besides empiricle evidence will be rejected. You will as an atheist only accept material and naturalistic evidence. Its no use in me providing any other evidence such as from testimony or experience because you will not be satisfied.

Its not being fair because you automatically reject other ways of knowing reality. Its not too dissimilar to the reverse of when creationism ruled as the explanation of the world. Science was not allowed. Except in this case only science is allowed and all other ways of knowing are discredited because they don't meet the epistemic requirements.

 

[stevevw]

Did someone say that? You can use whatever evidence you think is sufficient.

Yes I may think it sufficent but you won't. Yet all ways of knowing reality should be included if we are to fully understand reality.

The simple question is do you think empricle naturalistic science can account for all knowledge about reality. If you think it cannot then by insisting on it as the exclusive way to know reality is unjustified as at best you can say science only tells us about the quantified aspects of reality. But there is a whole lot more that cannot be measured by naturalism that makes up reality.

So in that sense what you regard as evidence and what I regard as evidence have equal value. Just like you may not be convinced about non empiricle evidence others will not be convinced that empiricle science can account for aspects like phenomenal belief and experiences.

Remembering that to the Christian the evidence for God is based on the unseen. So a material naturalist may see evolution while a believer sees the work of a creator. Not by the naturalistic processes though they can enhance the unseen evidence for creation by revealing a deeper signature of design. But this cannot come from nothing. It points ot a creator.

In other words theists see teleology in nature. Thats their evidence. Its based on a completely different paradigm. So we have two different paradigms and there may be more in how people see reality and evidence.

 

[dlamberth]

As for what would be convincing evidence, at this point having seen a lot of what's thrown out there, it might require some personal (as in mine) experience of the divine.

As for convincing evidence, I totally agree that what it all comes down to is personal experience of the Divine. Everything else I believe is just wasted energy.

 

[Bradskii]

No they don't mean any evidence. Any evidence besides empiricle evidence will be rejected. You will as an atheist only accept material and naturalistic evidence.

The evidence that you supply will be the one that you consider the most compelling. It's not up to me to demand a 'type' of evidence. I'll judge what you present on its merits as I see fit.

Whaddya got?

 

[essentialsaltes]

No they don't mean any evidence.

Hey, I'm right here. I can hear you.

You will as an atheist only accept material and naturalistic evidence.

I never said so.

Its no use in me providing any other evidence such as from testimony or experience because you will not be satisfied.

Oh, so we do accept such evidence, we just assess its value as something less than overpowering.

 

[stevevw]

The evidence that you supply will be the one that you consider the most compelling. It's not up to me to demand a 'type' of evidence. I'll judge what you present on its merits as I see fit.

Whaddya got?

Your not getting the point. I can supply the evidence I think supports belief in God. You will say this is not evidence and end of story. This is how it goes every time. I have seen this on this site and from yourself. For example

Bradski said

And I say it's the culmination of a natural process, being evolution

So you will use the naturalistic processes to defeat any belief or experience about God or transcedent aspects of reality. You will not be open to non naturalistic or supernatural possibilities. Your creiteria restricts the evidence to the physical causes.

Its because of this prior assumption that you will never see any other possible evidence such as experience or testimony as credible evidence. Whereas I and other Christians will. As well as the physical evidence. WE can accommodate both and you material naturalism cannot.

Anyway lets play this game.

I am saying that the testimony of say Christ or the diciples is evidence. I believe what they are saying is truth in reality. That the miracles happened. I say that the stories cultures told and passed down such as the flood and Exodus were based on truth and not superstition or make believe.

I say consciousness is beyond brain. that experience can be a true reflection of reality. That there is s spiritual aspect to humans that can give us knowledge about reality.

So do you accept this kind of evidence. If I used this kind of evidence to defeat your arguement would you accept it as valid evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you accept the Christians basis for morality being the bible and Christs teachings. The statement was made to say hey atheists we have Gods word as our basis what do you have in comparison.

If its not about who believes or not then why say, hey atheists we have Gods words as our moral guide. Ate you saying theres no difference between the atheists basis for morality and Christians.

We are all aware that Christians have formed moral systems around their holy book and its teachings and that they think it comes from their god. No need to belabor the point.

So therefore it is about who believes and what is believed. Your introducing this by claiming that the Christians belief is a delusion.

Quit putting words in my mouth.

So of course this makes it about what we believe. Of course the Christian is going to then defend that belief.

To you the Christian belief is imagination of just an evolutionary adaptation.

See my previous statement.

But to the Christian who is using the bible and God as their basis its real and is evidence. Just because you dismiss it doesn't make it null and void. Its still there and believed by millions of Christians. They don't believe its unreal luike atheists and atheists saying its unreal doesn't make it unreal.

BUt you do care because you are disputng it. You are calling it a delusion and unreal.

Again. Stop it.

But its persuasive to millions of Christians. This thread is not just about you. Its about atheists generally. What basis do they use for morality compared to the Christian one. You have to care about the Christian basis because thats is what the OP is comparing atheists morality to.

That you don't care for this doesn't make it go away or change that its a reality for Christians. Your now being asked to provide your moral basis for compared to Christians.

You won't be able to do that if you are dismissing the Christians moral basis to begin with. If thats the case why even bother with the thread.

I find it interesting that atheists say there not interested and yet just about every post shows they are interested in that they go out of their way to dismiss the Christian belief and morality. While saying they don't care about it.

Should we stop this before it gets really dumb?

 

[Bradskii]

And I say it's the culmination of a natural process, being evolution

Which God could have designed. If you say 'God did it' then I'll tell you how. So that was a waste of your time mentioning that.

So you will use the naturalistic processes to defeat any belief or experience about God or transcedent aspects of reality. You will not be open to non naturalistic or supernatural possibilities.

Again, that will depend on the evidence. I haven't heard of any that has convinced me yet. And I've been around for quite a few decades. So I can't imagine that you'll have found something new.

Its because of this prior assumption that you will never see any other possible evidence such as experience or testimony...

If I did that then I'd have to listen to people who said that, for example, God told them to fly a plane into a building. Look, if everyone believed exactly the same thing all the time and there weren't countless variations then I'd only have one set of experiences to consider. But I don't.

I am saying that the testimony of say Christ or the diciples is evidence. I believe what they are saying is truth in reality. That the miracles happened. I say that the stories cultures told and passed down such as the flood and Exodus were based on truth and not superstition or make believe.

Yes, that's evidence. But it's not convincing to me. Thanks for playing!

So do you accept this kind of evidence. If I used this kind of evidence to defeat your arguement would you accept it as valid evidence.

I'd accept it as evidence. Exhibits A, B, C etc. Does it convince me? No. In the same way that evidence for Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and the Church Of Latter Day Saints etc doesn't convince either of us. So be aware, any refutation of my willingness to accept what you might offer in regard to Christianity will also apply to you in regard to other beliefs. Which should be obvious to you.

 

[stevevw]

We are all aware that Christians have formed moral systems around their holy book and its teachings and that they think it comes from their god. No need to belabor the point.

Lol I was belaboring the point if you could even call it that as it was just a reply to your claim that "Nope. It's not about who believes or not or if there is evidence for a god".

I was saying how can it not be about who believes or not in God when the moral standard you are being asked to compare with is about what Chriustians believe from their God.

Quit putting words in my mouth.

So Christianity has a real basis. Its fundementally correct and there is a moral lawgiver. You imply belief in God has no evidence and is a naturalistic phenomena don't you. Or have I assumed this from your posts such as

the evidence for the existence of those gods is extremely lacking
I have no need to add a god to understand human morality. The Theory of Evolution does not need a god to function.

Are you not saying that theres no need for God to explain morality. That it is actually evolution that explains the development of religious belief and Gods. That there is actually no Gods and its an evolutionary trick associated with cooperation and survival.

See my previous statement.

See my previous post lol.

Again. Stop it.

See my previous post. In fact see your own words.

Should we stop this before it gets really dumb?

I am only responding to your own words. The evidence is lacking. What evidence. Do you mean the naturalistic evidence measured by science. Do you accept other forms of evidence like 1st hand experience and testimony. Does that hold as much weight as evolution or determinant processes measured by material processes. No Gods allowed.

You dismiss God on lack of evidence. But God cannot even be measured by material naturalism like evolution. So you force an epistemic truth claim about how we should know and measure this reality and exclude all else as unnecessary and an epiphenomena we create as a result of evolution.

You use this to defeat alternative ways of knowing. In other words the only true way we can know the truth about God and morality is by material naturalism. Anything else is not a reflection of reality but a concept or belief we created as part of evolution. Which you say explains this without God.

 

[stevevw]

Which God could have designed. If you say 'God did it' then I'll tell you how. So that was a waste of your time mentioning that.

But your conflating the naturalistic view which doesn't conform with the belief in God view. For one thiestic evolution supports teleology. It doesn't support that variation is caused by random mutations natural selection as the main drivers of evolution. Thus the interpretation of the same evidence is completely different. They are not the same thing.

But atheists will use material deterministic naturalism and gradualism as the assunption and hammer thiests with it that they are deluded and there is teleology to evolution. That it can all be explained by naturalistic and deterministic processes. Its all pseudoscience.

Again, that will depend on the evidence. I haven't heard of any that has convinced me yet. And I've been around for quite a few decades. So I can't imagine that you'll have found something new.

Ah because your only looking at the material and naturalistic explanations as evidence. You have dicounted any alternative explanations before you even start because you can only include material naturalistic processes. Anything outside this is automatically dismissed as unreliable and unreal.

Like agency and teleology in human behaviour. Its automtacially assumed there is none. But this type of evidence is a bog part of Christians worldview about how we live and behave. That we are designed for a purpose. Part of that is belief in God. So its natural that we see nature itself as evidence that that design and purpose.

But as atheists and materialist will only believe in a naturalistic and material ontology then they will only see the evidence from that paradigm. But its not evidence as the material naturalistic worldview even admits to itself that there are non material aspects to reality that can influence behaviour that they cannot measure. So in principle your demanding more than is justified because your own measure is inadequate to account for non material aspects of reality.

If I did that then I'd have to listen to people who said that, for example, God told them to fly a plane into a building. Look, if everyone believed exactly the same thing all the time and there weren't countless variations then I'd only have one set of experiences to consider. But I don't.

Yes, that's evidence. But it's not convincing to me. Thanks for playing!

I'd accept it as evidence. Exhibits A, B, C etc. Does it convince me? No. In the same way that evidence for Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and the Church Of Latter Day Saints etc doesn't convince either of us. So be aware, any refutation of my willingness to accept what you might offer in regard to Christianity will also apply to you in regard to other beliefs. Which should be obvious to you.

Theres just so much wrong about this stereotypical response. For one flying a plane into building and killing innocents is kinds contradictory to Christ and commonsense morality. In fact its universal for all religions and even for the Muslims you will find. That this is a radicalisation. Just like Right or Left of political radicvalisation that blows up buildings and shoots insurance CEO's in the head or tries to assassinate presidents.

Second No one said that Christians reject science or rationality. A true belief should align with rationality as well. But its not limited by rationality. A true belief is really a persistent belief that exists even after rational inquiry. It aligns with a number of indications some of which are not apparent to the materialist like intuition and experiential evidence.

Its that the material naturalistic will view intuition, experience and pgenomenal beliefs as unrelaible fullstop or see them as less value compared to empricle, material, naturalism. I wanted to include those three words as I liked how they sounded together. But I wasn't sure if empiricle material or material empiricle sounded better. They sort of roll off each other. Just a pllay with words lol.

 

[Bradskii]

But your conflating the naturalistic view which doesn't conform with the belief in God view. For one thiestic evolution supports teleology. It doesn't support that variation is caused by random mutations natural selection as the main drivers of evolution. Thus the interpretation of the same evidence is completely different. They are not the same thing.

If your interpretation of the evidence is different to mine then so be it. If you think that God is guiding evolution then go for it. But evolution is not a proof that God either exists or doesn't. 'Theistic evolution' is an assumption that God controls it. You need to believe in God to even suggest that it's the process. It's beging the question. So we'll ignore that.

But atheists will use material deterministic naturalism and gradualism as the assunption and hammer thiests with it that they are deluded and there is teleology to evolution. That it can all be explained by naturalistic and deterministic processes.

It certainly can. Maybe God is controlling what we'd describe as natural. The tides and the weather are what we'd describe as natural. But if God exists then he either controls that 'natural' process or allows it to proceed. Either way, there's no way to tell, so we'll have to ignore that as well.

Ah because your only looking at the material and naturalistic explanations as evidence.

I'll be looking at what you'll be presenting as evidence. We haven't had any yet.

Like agency and teleology in human behaviour. Its automtacially assumed there is none. But this type of evidence is a bog part of Christians worldview about how we live and behave. That we are designed for a purpose. Part of that is belief in God. So its natural that we see nature itself as evidence that that design and purpose.

Again, you are assuming that God exists in the first place so that you see nature as having purpose. You're begging the question again. So, yet again, I'll ignore that.

But as atheists and materialist will only believe in a naturalistic and material ontology then they will only see the evidence from that paradigm.

I'll see the evidence that you present. When you eventually present it.

Theres just so much wrong about this stereotypical response. For one flying a plane into building and killing innocents is kinds contradictory to Christ and commonsense morality.

It's an extreme example of what people believe about God. You and I both disagree with such a position. But then again, you'd disagree with not only other religions, but what people from your own religion believe. In fact, you probably disagree with many of your own denomination. You and I are together in dismissing these other views.

As I said, if there was only one religion and everyone believed exactly the same thing, then it would be quite difficult to reject. Your personal views are just that. Evidence for your views have yet to be presented.

Second No one said that Christians reject science or rationality. A true belief should align with rationality as well. But its not limited by rationality. A true belief is really a persistent belief that exists even after rational inquiry. It aligns with a number of indications some of which are not apparent to the materialist like intuition and experiential evidence.

Then present your evidence.