Travis St. Hubbins said:
Perhaps you could give some examples of these 'testable truths' and explain how you would go about testing them? Perhaps you could also suggest the sort of conclusions that could be drawn from these tests?
Simple. When someone wrongs you, go and do whatever you can to make it right. Place the needs of others in your life on par with your own needs. Be generous with your time and resources. When someone who suffers enters your life, do what you can to help. Mourn with those who mourn. Do not return hate for hate, but return hate for love. The list goes on.... IOW, go against the 'easy' path...the easier choice always happens to be the opposite of these things.
When you do that, you should find yourself experiencing what the bible calls the fruits of the spirit. When you act in opposition to such things, you will find that the fruits of your efforts are always poisonous.
Galatians 5:19
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
[size=-1]Galatians 5:20
idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
[size=-1]Galatians 5:21
envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these[/size][/size]
....
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
[size=-1]Galatians 5:23
gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
[/size]
IOW, the conclusions you can draw are this: When you accept that its important to live and act for the betterment others...and you do what you can to engage in that end, then you will find empowerment: it becomes 'easier' to be patient, kind, etc.
When you reject such things, you will find that you tend more to hatred...and you diminish any power you have to overcome your self-centeredness.
I can't tell you what conclusions you can draw from the experience. Its up to you to draw your own when you put it to the test.
Only when one is certain that morality they follow comes from a higher source, (i.e. God) one does not feel the need to question it. But if it does not come from such a source, and is in fact an imperfect construction of man, then not only is that questioning of morality essential, it would be dangerous not to.
Nonsense. God does not ask us to stop questionning. On the contrary...Christians are called to 'test everything, and hang on to the good'. Its amazing how you can find a problem where none exists at all.
Which inconsistencies are these?
Read my OP.
A religious experience may not be from a deity at all. Research has demonstrated, albeit inconclusively, that religious experiences may me caused by a malfunction of the communication between the temporal lobes. Many sufferers of temporal lobe epilepsy are prone to religious experiences and about 25% of sufferers are obsessed with religion.
To make any sense of this claim, you are going to have to put some severe restrictions on the definition of a 'religious experience'.
By my guest.
Lets put it this way. Personally, I am not talking about having a dream...a warm fuzzy sensation...a shiver down my back...or any thing of the kind in my religious experiences.
Unless it transpires that gravity is indeed caused by gravity fairies. In which case gravity is not a universal law at all, and one could perhaps learn to manipulate it, if we are nice to the fairies.
irrelevant
This is the argument from personal incredulity. Just because you cannot find an adequate explanation does not mean that there is not one.
And it may be that the one the bible has to offer is the right one. Any claim that this has been falsified is nonsense. Yet that doesn't stop many atheists from suggesting it. Thats my whole point here.
The 'common claims of atheism' that you have mentioned in your OP are, indeed flawed and illogical, they are also straw men.
How so? As I stated, these are arguments presented to me by atheists. I make no claim that they represent atheism as a whole. How can you claim I am making a strawman argument when I quite clearly am not? Perhaps you should carefully read my OP before replying with untrue statements like this.
And just for the record, look at the replies so far...all of the agnostic/atheists have stated one of the four claims as their main rationale for atheistic beliefs.
Obviously, I cannot speak for all atheists, but the reason I am an atheist is not because there is no need for God, but because I find the entire concept of deity to be illogical and contrary to the universe as I understand it.
OK, then we can test that claim. Please state for us the logical contradictions that make a deity incompatible with your world view.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the existence of any deity (there is no evidence to falsify the existence either, but then no evidence at all is exactly the amount of evidence I would expect to find for a non-existent entity)
And that is one of my four claims on the OP, thanks for proving me right.
I may be wrong, of course, but I find it unreasonable to consider the prospect of the existence of an entity so illogical and unsubstantiated.
Again...if there are logical flaws...please point them out specifically. Stop beating around the bush.
Until there is evidence and a logical explanation of deity I provisionally conclude there is no such thing.
Then you must also not believe that there is any more to the universe that what is already tested and observed. Again, thanks for proving the point on my OP so clearly.
The relevance of religious beliefs and gravity fairies is entirely subjective. One cannot dismiss the something as entirely irrelevant simply because it is not relevant to you. Unless the religious beliefs can be tested to demonstrate their divine origin, then that origin remains as untestable as gravity fairies.
Yes, the 'divine origins' are untestable...I have stated that all along. I am trying to tell you that the Bible is not asking anyone to test for such things (in fact, that kind of test is irrelevant to theology). And I have also stated that the religious belief systems are calling you to test yourself, so naturally those tests are subjective.
The point is this: Your claim to atheism seems equally subjective. You must conclude that this claim is also worthless as one who seems to only place value on objective tests.
Does that sound right to you?
