Atheists and Christians

[Jeremy1979]

Another Completely Irrational Justification For God - Atheist Experience 439 - YouTube
I have been a Christian for many years now and enjoy being engaged in religious debates however, it irritates me when Christians present this image of being uneducated. If you follow the related videos associated with the above link, you will see that only callers with weak arguments are shown in the videos. I submitted a comment to one of the videos addressing this, but have not yet received a reply. I’m not sure if this is a “first come first serve” process in reference to the callers that they air, or if this is propaganda?

Have any Atheists out there ever had a respectable debate with a Christian that contained a substantial amount of logic?

 

[.Iona.]

From my experience, the same arguments always come up with atheists. They appear fixated on only a few questions - How could a loving God allow suffering? why are there so many religions? what religion you are depends on where you are born? isn't faith just a crutch to stop you coping with real life?

It annoys me, but I have learnt to stop debating so much when it comes to the same old questions. Now, I suggest a book to people that explains all of these questions, and tell them to get back to me after they have read it.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

From my experience, the same arguments always come up with atheists. They appear fixated on only a few questions - How could a loving God allow suffering? why are there so many religions? what religion you are depends on where you are born? isn't faith just a crutch to stop you coping with real life?

It annoys me, but I have learnt to stop debating so much when it comes to the same old questions. Now, I suggest a book to people that explains all of these questions, and tell them to get back to me after they have read it.

Those aren't the only questions atheists and sceptics ask. They're just the most asked questions. Books I've read on religion ask so much more than these questions, such as whether the Bible can be trusted because of its contradictions, the origin of God (something must have caused him to exist), the morality of God, questions regarding God in light of the evidence for evolution, etc.

I've watched a few videos of The Atheist Experience. I think the OP is right; most of the Christians who call aren't very well educated. It would be interesting if someone with the intellect of William Lane Craig called the show to debate. Regardless of the debaters though, the fact remains that Christianity is based on faith - believing something to be true despite evidence. This is perhaps why sceptics usually come off better in a debate, especially against creationists because the evidence is in favour of evolution and an old earth.

 

[.Iona.]

Those aren't the only questions atheists and sceptics ask. They're just the most asked questions.

Oh I know, that is why I said "in my experience" because these are the questions that I have up against most often.

Books I've read on religion ask so much more than these questions, such as whether the Bible can be trusted because of its contradictions, the origin of God (something must have caused him to exist), the morality of God, questions regarding God in light of the evidence for evolution, etc.

The same thing doesn't work for everyone, but for others certain books are of great use

 

[Jeremy1979]

Those aren't the only questions atheists and sceptics ask. They're just the most asked questions. Books I've read on religion ask so much more than these questions, such as whether the Bible can be trusted because of its contradictions, the origin of God (something must have caused him to exist), the morality of God, questions regarding God in light of the evidence for evolution, etc.

I've watched a few videos of The Atheist Experience. I think the OP is right; most of the Christians who call aren't very well educated. It would be interesting if someone with the intellect of William Lane Craig called the show to debate. Regardless of the debaters though, the fact remains that Christianity is based on faith - believing something to be true despite evidence. This is perhaps why sceptics usually come off better in a debate, especially against creationists because the evidence is in favour of evolution and an old earth.

Thank you for your response!

It seems to me that many Christians refuse to consider any other point of view whatsoever. Although I definitely believe in the contents of the Bible, the idea behind Christianity is to save lives. You cannot make someone believe in something if you don’t allow them the opportunity to debate these questions that most non-believers have. In other words, “You can get more bees with honey than you can with vinegar”. I know in my own experiences that I’ve had with non-believers, I’ve received comments such as, “Wow! I’ve never talked to a Christian that was so willing to listen to my point of view and actually made a decent argument”. In fact, the more I talk to non-believers, the more my own faith strengthens. On the flip side of that coin however, I think no matter what you believe you should be open to debate in order to question your own personal beliefs. If your personal belief is what you truly feel as being the absolute truth, then what do you have to worry about? Are you afraid you might be wrong? I’m not.

I may call in to that show some time in the near future because of how irritated I am with their callers. I think my initial argument to Atheists would be the fact that basing your beliefs on scientific facts may seem like a valid principle right now however, scientific theories are constantly changing. That’s my personal dispute with relying on scientific theories. Years ago it was argued that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that the stars could be counted. Obviously we now know that this is not true yet, the Bible has never been proven wrong.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Thank you for your response!

It seems to me that many Christians refuse to consider any other point of view whatsoever. Although I definitely believe in the contents of the Bible, the idea behind Christianity is to save lives. You cannot make someone believe in something if you don’t allow them the opportunity to debate these questions that most non-believers have. In other words, “You can get more bees with honey than you can with vinegar”. I know in my own experiences that I’ve had with non-believers, I’ve received comments such as, “Wow! I’ve never talked to a Christian that was so willing to listen to my point of view and actually made a decent argument”. In fact, the more I talk to non-believers, the more my own faith strengthens. On the flip side of that coin however, I think no matter what you believe you should be open to debate in order to question your own personal beliefs. If your personal belief is what you truly feel as being the absolute truth, then what do you have to worry about? Are you afraid you might be wrong? I’m not.

I may call in to that show some time in the near future because of how irritated I am with their callers. I think my initial argument to Atheists would be the fact that basing your beliefs on scientific facts may seem like a valid principle right now however, scientific theories are constantly changing. That’s my personal dispute with relying on scientific theories. Years ago it was argued that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that the stars could be counted. Obviously we now know that this is not true yet, the Bible has never been proven wrong.

Scientific theories are changing as more evidence presents and/or more tests are done on those theories. When Darwin "discovered" evolution, he didn't have our modern technology. He discovered his theory by examining the distribution of animals across the world. Modern molecular genetics and the discovery of DNA have refined Darwin's theory (and confirmed it). When a scientific theory works, we can build on that to further our knowledge. It's not that science is changing, it's that our knowledge is increasing. Look at the computer. The first computers took up a whole room. The invention of the microchip changed, literally, the shape of the computer. Processing power is increasing all the time and our computers and gadgets are getting smaller and smaller. The next phase to crack will be quantum computing.

 

[McScribe]

In a way Christianity and science exist for different reasons. So many Christians, indeed so many persons of religious belief have the perspective that they need to make the world safe for their religion that it is tainted by power seeking.

You could almost liken it to a comparison say between trying to analyze why people emotionally respond to music and applying the fact that people respond to music. Anyone who loves music will often talk about it poetically and emotionally, even spiritually. This doesn't make the analysis bad, it is just a different approach to understanding.

As an aspiring biologist myself I don't see any real contradiction between believing in Jesus Christ and generally accepting evolution. There is wonder on both sides of the page.

 

[visionary]

I find that atheists who want to confront Christians are actually seeking answers. By listening closely to the spiritual journey they are on, you can find where they are at, why they are stuck and if you have been there, you can help them see their way out of that dead end.

 

[Curious Atheist]

Another Completely Irrational Justification For God - Atheist Experience 439 - YouTube
I have been a Christian for many years now and enjoy being engaged in religious debates however, it irritates me when Christians present this image of being uneducated. If you follow the related videos associated with the above link, you will see that only callers with weak arguments are shown in the videos. I submitted a comment to one of the videos addressing this, but have not yet received a reply. I’m not sure if this is a “first come first serve” process in reference to the callers that they air, or if this is propaganda?

Have any Atheists out there ever had a respectable debate with a Christian that contained a substantial amount of logic?

I can't view that exact video because I am at work (hence why I have so much time to debate on here lately). However I have seen it in the past and I agree some of the callers are just painfully stupid and I have had much better debates on here than I have ever heard on that show.

However I can't say I have ever heard a logic-based argument for faith, as by it's definition it is illogical to have faith. I have tried lately to understand more about the bible and have tried using your own arguments against you to find contradictions. Please have a read through a thread I started called 'is death the end of the cycle?'. I enjoy the responses from a member called 'razeontherock' (or something like that, my memory is awful).

However I don't think the debate can ever conclude, as whenever I debate with Christians they start out by using the usual frustratingly moronic arguments such as 'can you prove God doesn't exist' which I can hardly bear to answer anymore. (Not all, but a disappointing number do). Then they will quote scripture, which is pointless for obvious reasons. Then they will rationalise things in their own way, with things that aren't in the bible and every person has a different argument. This is where things break down and get too confusing, as there are just too many opinions to forumalte any real basis of debate.

I think there are too many assumptions made on both sides of the argument. Some of my own have changed, many have been reinforced. Such as my assumption that creationists really don't understand evolution before denying it. Christians are way too defensive about certain questions too, there seems to be the feeling that atheists are against religion and we are too close minded. I point out we really have nothing to gain from denying God, all I want is the truth and often accept many questions won't get answered. Also if you delve in to particle and theoretical physics, I would say scientists are open to pretty much anything!

I would gladly have a cheeky debate if you like? I might learn something, or see something in a different way and maybe we won't reach a stale-mate for once. (perhaps that's a bit too optimisitc)

 

[Jeremy1979]

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for getting involved with this conversation The reason why I started this thread was to hopefully have a long respectful discussion on these two views of life. I don't want to try and control any aspect of where this may lead, but PLEASE, let's be courteous to one another and have a conversation with some depth. This is one of the reasons why I absolutely LOVE writing versus on the spot "snap" decisions. Writing allows everyone to truly think about what they want to say vice just spitting something out with no solid foundation. On a side note, try not to focus strictly on how you're going to rebuttal, but put some thought into the other people's points (just a suggestion).

Christians are way too defensive about certain questions too, there seems to be the feeling that atheists are against religion and we are too close minded.

Not Christians in general, but often times some Christians are way too defensive, I totally agree. This typically happens because their passion for the religion clouds their judgment. The passion that they have is not a bad thing however; it can ultimately put up blinders that may prevent a constructive debate. In fact, I was watching a few of those videos with my wife (who is also a devout Christian), and we laughed at how blatantly obvious it was that the videos actually shown must have been handpicked! There is no way that every Christian that calls them does not have the ability to defend Christianity in an intelligent way! That's not to say that most Christians are dumb however, if you're not prepared to answer simple questions that people not of that faith are guaranteed to ask, why call in? The analogy that I used when discussing this with my wife was this:

You can love football until the day you die. You can go to every game, cheer the loudest, and promote your favorite team in every way possible. This doesn't mean that you can play in the NFL! As a fan, you're just as important as the players, but if you don't have the ability to stand up to the other team.....you're probably going to get wrecked!

Also if you delve in to particle and theoretical physics, I would say scientists are open to pretty much anything!

I also agree to this. Scientists are usually willing to put forth effort towards ideas and theories no matter how off the wall it may first appear.

Well I guess the way to kick this off would be with this question:

What exactly is the definition of the word "proof"? According to Webster's dictionary it's "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." This can be interpreted in several different ways! What "sufficient evidence" is to one person may be INsufficient evidence to someone else. We see that every day in jury trials. When the word "proof" is used in religious discussions, it typically refers to what I can experience through my human senses, that is, see, touch, smell, hear, and taste. I'd like to maybe first start off with what is tangible. Our current ecosystem is perfect in every way (with the exception of human interference). I don't see that as "just happening". There must be a higher power in my opinion.

 

[razeontherock]

the origin of God (something must have caused him to exist)

This idea denies the very usage of the word "God." This is the central term that must be defined before we can have a productive discussion. I think maybe it just gets overlooked? Familiarity / contempt and all ...

If I might insert my .02:

This Universe took power to get here, along with the ground under our feet and everything else. That's what the term God refers to, and also why I frequently type "G-d," indicating there is much about this we don't know. I do this mostly as a reminder to myself, and I've been asked about that a lot lately.

Proof: recently some on CF say we can have evidence but not proof. I disagree, strongly. I absolutely need no Faith whatsoever to know for a fact that God exists, and I have proof of it. BUT - my proof in no way transfers to anyone else as even evidence. The only evidence of God the unbeliever has is the testimony of others, and creation itself; just like the rest of us were limited to at one time.

 

[visionary]

This idea denies the very usage of the word "God." This is the central term that must be defined before we can have a productive discussion. I think maybe it just gets overlooked? Familiarity / contempt and all ...

If I might insert my .02:

This Universe took power to get here, along with the ground under our feet and everything else. That's what the term God refers to, and also why I frequently type "G-d," indicating there is much about this we don't know. I do this mostly as a reminder to myself, and I've been asked about that a lot lately.

Proof: recently some on CF say we can have evidence but not proof. I disagree, strongly. I absolutely need no Faith whatsoever to know for a fact that God exists, and I have proof of it. BUT - my proof in no way transfers to anyone else as even evidence. The only evidence of God the unbeliever has is the testimony of others, and creation itself; just like the rest of us were limited to at one time.

and the unbelievers own personal experience, which God gives n abundance of, if they would only give Him credit.

 

[razeontherock]

by it's definition it is illogical to have faith.

Good to see you here! I hope the mods don't shut this down because it's in a format that's backwards from what's intended in this sub-forum. Looks like the start of a good productive discussion, with some unbelievers I've come to know and respect.

Faith needs to be defined too, because what you're talking about in this snip above is not what i talk about when i use the word "Faith." I can't deduce an entire definition for the way you use the word, neither do I think I can put my own into words well. Were I to offer the definition in the Bible, I'd just frustrate you, and I find all that verse does is start the wheels spinning; it certainly gives no satisfactory answer.

I have tried lately to understand more about the bible and have tried using your own arguments against you to find contradictions.

I recognize and appreciate that, and this is one reason I started posting on CF! I thought if I had to write out my ideas, I'd see flaws in it, or at least have others point them out. Instead what I've found is that I've independently come to the understanding Orthodox Christians have taught all along, which really surprises me. You are one poster that has challenged my ideas the most, by pursuing concepts past the limits of what we can really know, based on what is revealed in Scripture. That impresses me, because rarely does someone even raise a question I haven't already sought out the answer(s) to, and come to a conclusion that satisfies me.

Then they will rationalise things in their own way, with things that aren't in the bible and every person has a different argument. This is where things break down and get too confusing, as there are just too many opinions

Let me paint a picture of what is going on: "we" (Christians) are the Body of Christ. Each of us has a unique function, and a different POV, BY DESIGN. As you said, this does not lend itself well to debate, unless you can put ALL the pieces together! (I sure can't, but i try not let that keep me from trying)

Instead, debaters tend to argue against specific Church positions, or specific denoms. That's easy; I can blast holes in them all (I do find the Full Gospel Church to be pretty solid though, but not so much that I didn't turn down the opportunity to be ordained by them in 1986)

I think there are too many assumptions made on both sides of the argument.

+1. Hopefully we can, er ... um ... "raze" some of those here, and get down to solid bedrock?

my assumption that creationists really don't understand evolution before denying it.

Sadly I have found this in the case of most creationsts on CF. This is still not a safe assumption though! For instance, I know one former atheist who converted during the process of writing his Doctoral thesis - on micro-biology! He has long been a PhD in that field, and is a University Prof with tenure.

References to project Steve aside, we have had some great discussions and he is a brilliant man. (I won't take the time to write out the ramifications of this, and hope they are understood)

all I want is the truth

What a great attitude! Hopefully we can all get "infected" with that ...

 

[aiki]

Regardless of the debaters though, the fact remains that Christianity is based on faith - believing something to be true despite evidence.

Respectfully, this is quite untrue. Being a follower of Christ involves faith, but this by no means precludes the existence of evidence upon which to rest this faith. In fact, there is plenty of evidence in favor of the Christian worldview. Greg Koukl, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. John Lennox, J.P Moreland, Dr. Dallas Willard, Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. Gary Habermas - these are just a few of the great scholars who have written copiously on the strong evidence for the Christian faith.

Many atheists like to assert that logic and reason and science are totally on their side while the Christian is reduced to mere faith in the defense of their worldview. Of course, this is a kind of intimidation, an attempt to make Christians feel as though they are working from a defecit in the areas where the atheist is asserting he is firmly established. My experience has been that a few short exchanges typically reveals the falsity of the atheist's characterization of both their view and the Christian's.

the origin of God (something must have caused him to exist),

This is an example of the philosophical confusion atheists frequently labor under. The concept of God, by definition, entails that He is without cause. Asking what created God is like asking how many right angles there are in a circle, or how many feathers there are on a fish. By definition, by their very nature, circles don't have right angles and fish don't have feathers. Likewise, God, by His very nature, is uncaused. As soon as you ask about the right angles of a circle, or the feathers of a fish, or the cause or origin of God, you step into a discussion that is incoherent and profoundly confused.

Selah.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I suppose 'proof' to a scientist is quite different to when you are discussing faith. The part we will never agree on is personal experiences. It may be proof to the individual but it relies on others having faith in you, so it's effectively a circular argument.
i.e. it is impossible to know if God is talking to you, or you have lost your marbles. As it is so common for schizophrenics to have delusions of grandeur etc. it is indeed a fine line.

So how do we prove evolution for example? Darwin couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt based on observation. He had a convincing thesis and persuasive observational evidence but no real proof. He must have been reasonably convinced he was right but that is worthless without being able to show this to others. I don't think evolution was really proven until DNA was explored and we had mapped out our evolutionary path*. So DNA is the proof we need to back up a plausible thesis.
So proof needs to be based on something that can be shared for a start. It then needs to be tested in some way and repeatable. You then need to look at all other possibilities and challenge the idea from every angle before the proof becomes fact.


* I said this before and the reply was effectively 'what??'.
Our DNA can be seen in all of our cells and contains an immensely complex code. By studying this code we can compare the DNA of humans to the DNA of other primates for example. So you effectively look at one, then count the number of differences to the next sample. That's why we say we are something like 96% identical to chimpanzees (there is a 4% difference, which is tiny). By following the DNA back you get a 'family tree' kind of affair that links us all together, so we can see that we share a common ancestor with chimps. We can then see that whales started out on land, where animals originated and what came from what. The family tree concludes at a single celled organism, now we just want to know where the little devil came from.
You can then bring fossils in to the equation if you want, they back this up but since fossils are only rarely created we can't get the full picture. Or physiological, as mammals share almost identical bone structure and organs (even a bat has fingers like a human hand for wings).

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

This idea denies the very usage of the word "God." This is the central term that must be defined before we can have a productive discussion. I think maybe it just gets overlooked? Familiarity / contempt and all ...

If I might insert my .02:

This Universe took power to get here, along with the ground under our feet and everything else. That's what the term God refers to, and also why I frequently type "G-d," indicating there is much about this we don't know. I do this mostly as a reminder to myself, and I've been asked about that a lot lately.

Proof: recently some on CF say we can have evidence but not proof. I disagree, strongly. I absolutely need no Faith whatsoever to know for a fact that God exists, and I have proof of it. BUT - my proof in no way transfers to anyone else as even evidence. The only evidence of God the unbeliever has is the testimony of others, and creation itself; just like the rest of us were limited to at one time.

You believe in God because you've chosen to. I suspect, like most people who adopt a religion, something just "clicked" with you when you heard about God and you accepted it as evidence of his existence. Since then you have seen everything in your life as "evidence" of God's existence.

For an atheist, or agnostic such as myself, when we hear people talk about God, we ask questions. We remain sceptical and, I suppose, our demand for evidence of God is greater than a simple "clicking" feeling in which everything suddenly makes sense. The difference between people of faith and sceptics is that people of faith are willing to overlook certain problematic questions in order to keep believing; for the sceptic, these questions are the reason they don't believe.

The atheist, or godless, explanation of the universe actually makes more sense to me than a religious explanation. The universe is exactly as it should be if a god did not exist. For example, the question of human suffering is easy to answer from a "godless" perspective. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, famines, plagues, death - they're all natural "godless" phenomenons. We live on a volatile planet that had no intention of containing life. However, life evolved on this planet and adapted to its seemingly irascible nature.

The religious person has to deal with the questions of human suffering by inserting a deity into everything; and their deity always comes out looking bad. Take earthquakes as an example; a theist has to explain why their deity designed an imperfect, faulty planet. For an atheist/agnostic, this question is easy; plate tectonics. To a theist, famines and plagues are punishments from an angry God. To an atheist/agnostic they are acts of nature on a volatile planet.

I would dearly like to believe in a benevolent God who cares for me personally, but I can't for two reasons. One is the simple fact that I'm a thinking person and I can't accept "God did it" as an answer for everything. The second reason is that, as I've stated, the atheist/agnostic view of the universe explains our current state of affairs more accurately than any holy book.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]Good to see you here! I hope the mods don't shut this down because it's in a format that's backwards from what's intended in this sub-forum. Looks like the start of a good productive discussion, with some unbelievers I've come to know and respect.

Faith needs to be defined too, because what you're talking about in this snip above is not what i talk about when i use the word "Faith." I can't deduce an entire definition for the way you use the word, neither do I think I can put my own into words well. Were I to offer the definition in the Bible, I'd just frustrate you, and I find all that verse does is start the wheels spinning; it certainly gives no satisfactory answer.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Definitions are quite tricky…I think of faith as believing something 100% when it could be interpreted differently without further evidence or reason. You can take the bible as truth, but you can easily discard it as a myth. It takes nothing more than interpretation to go either way especially when you are deciphering what is a metaphor or literal truth (as you know better than I, the interpretations are endless and changing). Being the inquisitive, sceptical chap that I am that isn’t good enough for me. So I prefer things to be outside of the world of interpretation which is what science provides. It takes out the guess work, which is lovely.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For instance intelligent design is very confusing. The original thesis was that God created us in his image and was widely believed, the new evidence shows we evolved. So the original thesis should come under question and discredited as a rational thesis, not merely reinterpreted. This is faith. A poor description I know but it’s the best I can do so early in the morning. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I recognize and appreciate that, and this is one reason I started posting on CF! I thought if I had to write out my ideas, I'd see flaws in it, or at least have others point them out. Instead what I've found is that I've independently come to the understanding Orthodox Christians have taught all along, which really surprises me. You are one poster that has challenged my ideas the most, by pursuing concepts past the limits of what we can really know, based on what is revealed in Scripture. That impresses me, because rarely does someone even raise a question I haven't already sought out the answer(s) to, and come to a conclusion that satisfies me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think I nearly got some sympathy for the Devil at one point, I can’t walk on water but that has to come close [/FONT]J[FONT=&quot] (sorry for the blasphemy!)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Let me paint a picture of what is going on: "we" (Christians) are the Body of Christ. Each of us has a unique function, and a different POV, BY DESIGN. As you said, this does not lend itself well to debate, unless you can put ALL the pieces together! (I sure can't, but i try not let that keep me from trying)

Instead, debaters tend to argue against specific Church positions, or specific denoms. That's easy; I can blast holes in them all

(I do find the Full Gospel Church to be pretty solid though, but not so much that I didn't turn down the opportunity to be ordained by them in 1986)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The problem is they will have just as a convincing argument to support their own beliefs as you. You could never convince a Hindu there is only one God, or vice versa. So we need something else to base our interpretation of our reality on, something with meaning outside of personal interpretation in order to discover the real truths. (And the real questions and often mysteries). If I and a billions others say the sky is Red it doesn’t make us right, we need a universal method to test the idea and come to a reasonable conclusion.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]+1. Hopefully we can, er ... um ... "raze" some of those here, and get down to solid bedrock?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Optimistic, but I am happy to dabble![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sadly I have found this in the case of most creationsts on CF. This is still not a safe assumption though! For instance, I know one former atheist who converted during the process of writing his Doctoral thesis - on micro-biology! He has long been a PhD in that field, and is a University Prof with tenure.

References to project Steve aside, we have had some great discussions and he is a brilliant man. (I won't take the time to write out the ramifications of this, and hope they are understood)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Agreed there will be exceptions. But clearly most of the world’s greatest thinkers are atheists, many would have started out religious and something must have changed their minds. It is why I am of the opinion (which has been tested by the exceptions) that the more we learn about the universe, the less and less likely we are to believe in the supernatural. Countless examples in history show how wrong we have been to believe without proof. Such as the persecution of witches (due to the bible actually), psychics, faith healing, ghosts, telepathy, demonic possession and the list goes on. Not much good has been done by these.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What a great attitude! Hopefully we can all get "infected" with that ...[/FONT]

Honestly though I don’t think all actually want the truth if it doesn’t make them happier. Many will be happier believing in God than they would be as an atheist (possibly) so there is no real incentive to learn. You can easily disprove faith healing and replicate the results through placebo and adrenaline. But would that stop the believers saying ‘well those ones were fake, but this one isn’t!

 

[aiki]

I suppose 'proof' to a scientist is quite different to when you are discussing faith.

Here's an interesting irony for you:

"For one thing, the statement 'only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true' is self-refuting. This statement itself is not a statement of science. It is a philosophical statement about science. How could the statement itself be quantified and empirically tested? And if it cannot, then by the statement's own standards, it cannot itself be true or rationally held." J.P. Moreland "Scaling the Secular City"

Science itself rests upon a set of philosophical presuppositions:

1. Our physical senses are reliable and give accurate information about a mind-independent physical world and not merely information about my successive sense impressions.

2. Science assumes the mind is rational and that the universe is rational in such a way that the mind can know it. Science must assume some uniformity of nature to justify induction (ie. science must assume that one can legitimately infer from the past to the future and from the examined cases to unexamined ones of the same kind).

3. Science also assumes that the laws of logic are true, that numbers exist, that language has meaning, and that some terms refer to things in the world, that truth exists and involves some sort of correspondence between theories and the world.

4. Science also assumes certain moral, epistemic, and methodological values.

And so on. My point is that when atheists talk of science they carry on as though science is all there is; that it is the be-all-and-end-all of every discussion. But as I've explained above, science doesn't stand alone but is vitally reliant upon other fields of less empirical knowledge.

The part we will never agree on is personal experiences. It may be proof to the individual but it relies on others having faith in you, so it's effectively a circular argument.

While personal experience is not by itself necessarily absolute proof of something, it is nonetheless useful as evidence. If Joe goes about claiming he has had a personal experience of God and he's the only one in the world making such a claim, then one might have good cause to view his claim with high skepticism. But the Christian experience of God is shared by millions of people. Joe is not alone; there are millions of others making the same claim that he is. And these aren't people who are merely superstitious, or intellectually challenged, or poorly educated. Many of them are scientists, philosophers, and doctors in various fields of study - perfectly sane, rational, intelligent people. In a sense, the replication of the experience of God by millions of people is a kind of empirical testing. God says, "Try me and see." Every day people put Him to the test and find the result millions of others have obtained is the same one they obtain: God is real.

i.e. it is impossible to know if God is talking to you, or you have lost your marbles. As it is so common for schizophrenics to have delusions of grandeur etc. it is indeed a fine line.

It may be impossible for an atheist to know if God is talking to him. But what is true for the atheist doesn't necessarily make every one else delusional.

Our DNA can be seen in all of our cells and contains an immensely complex code. By studying this code we can compare the DNA of humans to the DNA of other primates for example. So you effectively look at one, then count the number of differences to the next sample. That's why we say we are something like 96% identical to chimpanzees (there is a 4% difference, which is tiny).

This whole thing rests on the assumption that genetic similarity between species necessarily means common ancestry, which it doesn't. As some have pointed out, similarity genetically among the species could just as reasonably indicate a common Creator.

Selah.

 

[Davian]

This idea denies the very usage of the word "God." This is the central term that must be defined before we can have a productive discussion. I think maybe it just gets overlooked? Familiarity / contempt and all ...

If I might insert my .02:

This Universe took power to get here, along with the ground under our feet and everything else. That's what the term God refers to, and also why I frequently type "G-d," indicating there is much about this we don't know. I do this mostly as a reminder to myself, and I've been asked about that a lot lately.

It took power to get here? From where? If the net energy of the universe is zero, as it appears to be, then perhaps it didn't take any 'power'. No deities required. It may be that deities - "gods" - are not even possible. I remain ignostic on that subject.

Proof: recently some on CF say we can have evidence but not proof. I disagree, strongly. I absolutely need no Faith whatsoever to know for a fact that God exists, and I have proof of it. BUT - my proof in no way transfers to anyone else as even evidence. The only evidence of God the unbeliever has is the testimony of others, and creation itself; just like the rest of us were limited to at one time.

"Creation" is really only evidence for itself. And I do accept your personal testimony as evidence... just not for the existence of a deity.

 

[Davian]

Here's an interesting irony for you:

"For one thing, the statement 'only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true' is self-refuting. This statement itself is not a statement of science. It is a philosophical statement about science. How could the statement itself be quantified and empirically tested? And if it cannot, then by the statement's own standards, it cannot itself be true or rationally held." J.P. Moreland "Scaling the Secular City"

Science itself rests upon a set of philosophical presuppositions:

1. Our physical senses are reliable and give accurate information about a mind-independent physical world and not merely information about my successive sense impressions.

2. Science assumes the mind is rational and that the universe is rational in such a way that the mind can know it. Science must assume some uniformity of nature to justify induction (ie. science must assume that one can legitimately infer from the past to the future and from the examined cases to unexamined ones of the same kind).

3. Science also assumes that the laws of logic are true, that numbers exist, that language has meaning, and that some terms refer to things in the world, that truth exists and involves some sort of correspondence between theories and the world.

4. Science also assumes certain moral, epistemic, and methodological values.

And so on.

I think you should check that list against a source that is not a Christian apologetics book.

I do appreciate the reference, as these points have been brought up in the other forums, and this explains where they came from.

My point is that when atheists talk of science they carry on as though science is all there is; that it is the be-all-and-end-all of every discussion. But as I've explained above, science doesn't stand alone but is vitally reliant upon other fields of less empirical knowledge.

Please clarify.

While personal experience is not by itself necessarily absolute proof of something, it is nonetheless useful as evidence. If Joe goes about claiming he has had a personal experience of God and he's the only one in the world making such a claim, then one might have good cause to view his claim with high skepticism. But the Christian experience of God is shared by millions of people. Joe is not alone; there are millions of others making the same claim that he is. And these aren't people who are merely superstitious, or intellectually challenged, or poorly educated. Many of them are scientists, philosophers, and doctors in various fields of study - perfectly sane, rational, intelligent people. In a sense, the replication of the experience of God by millions of people is a kind of empirical testing. God says, "Try me and see." Every day people put Him to the test and find the result millions of others have obtained is the same one they obtain: God is real.

or it could simply be how the brain works, and being that we are all of the same species, our experiences should be very similar. You failed to mention that experience of the belief in other deities, and phenomenon ranging from extraterrestrials to crop circles, are also experienced by millions. That would be a far more parsimonious explanation.

Those crop circles had me going for while.

It may be impossible for an atheist to know if God is talking to him. But what is true for the atheist doesn't necessarily make every one else delusional.

But you will have to admit that we cannot rule out the possibility.

This whole thing rests on the assumption that genetic similarity between species necessarily means common ancestry, which it doesn't. As some have pointed out, similarity genetically among the species could just as reasonably indicate a common Creator.

Selah.

As you have yet to define this 'creator' I presume you could point at anything and say that it is evidence for its existence. If you want an argument that might hold water, show me something in biology that is evidence for this 'creator', but at the same time is not explainable by evolution. And if it is going to be along the lines of 'consciousness' or 'love', please join one of the threads already in progress.