Does god hate scientists?

[Shane Roach]

It is also counterintiutive to say that the earth is round. We can see the horizon line, yes? It is flat. The ground beneath our feet does not curve. Surely, then, the earth is flat like a plate, with holes that fill with water and hills made of stone being the only variation.

Simply because something is counterintuitive does not make it false or even unlikely. Over and over again, 'Throughout history' as you might say, the assumptions of past generations ignorant to the workings of the natural world have been overturned due to better methods of observation and analysis, often with a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth on the part of the more conservatively minded. (Witches cause sickness! Masturbation destroys your health! Sunspots cannot exist! The earth is the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. RRAAAARGH!) Can you see why, with this kind of a track record, people might not be willing to blindly follow something without any sort of documented, provably evidence?



For clarification, a lack of belief DOES NOT EQUAL a belief in something. For example, I do not believe in the christian god, or any other god for that matter, but at the same time I do not assume that any of the current hypothesises about the origin of the universe are correct. I think it will be a long, long time, if ever, before we know exactly what occurred.

In his posts, Ectezus has not declared his adherence to any theory of universe creation, yet you assume that he needs to defend the ones out there, that he needs his own thing to believe before he can point out that yours may not be right. This is simply not the case.

I find it amusing when theists try to shift the burden of proof on nontheists. Say, perhaps, I told you there was an invisible elephant in my room. You might ask for proof. I would say you should go and touch it, that will prove that it is there. You put your hand out and feel nothing. I say that you can only feel the elephant if you want to feel it. Clearly, you don't want to feel it. But I can feel the elephant, therefore it must be there. And not only are you wrong for not believing the elephant is there, you're an immoral person for not wanting to feel the elephant. Why do you hate the elephant so much? He only wants to be your friend.

In such a case you might rightly think me bonkers, and that the elephant in question is nonexistant.

Theists do not have a "burden of proof". I am aware I have a spiritual natures. If you are going to tell me that that nature is just illusory, then it is your burden of proof.

As I said, that's why spiritual views predominate. Simply citing some situations where something counter intuitive turned out to be true does not make a strong case for always guessing counter intuitively.

Anyhow, your answer is no different in substance than the one from the OP's. You have decided you need no proof to believe what you believe. A 'lack of belief' means a lack of opinion, not an opinion to the negative, which is what atheism is in my experience, despite many atheists claiming otherwise, usually for pretty obvious reasons of perceived rhetorical benefit on an online forum.

It's just a transparent word game. If you cannot understand that, then you are trapped. I happen to be able to see how the distinction is meaningless. That's why I do not buy into it. I'd never claim it proves there is a God, much less a specific religion, but being able to get past this fallacy in one's mind certainly is necessary to understand the discussion at all. You simply can't have a productive discussion of this subject while honestly believing that your opinion does not require proof, but someone else's does.

 

[Ectezus]

As I said, that's why spiritual views predominate.

If you continue to use this as an argument then I'll repost my rebuttal that you so conveniently skipped:

The reason history is filled with so many religions and so little atheism is because it is counterintuitive to just presuppose that nothing else conscious exists

All throughout history people have believed in thousands of different gods. They've all been proven wrong. Today, no one believes in Zeus, Thor, Anubis or Apollo anymore. Without concrete proof of their existence I risk wasting my life believing in the wrong gods, as have done so many.

Throughout history, almost no one agrees, yet they feel strongly theirs is an insurmountably superior view of the world these days.

Ok so let me get this straight;

Atheists "these days" are wrong in saying there is no god because people all "thoughout history" were believers?
Did you forget the fact that they've all been wrong in the past? Hence your own point suggests the Atheist's world view IS the right one.
Thank you Shane

- Ectezus

 

[Shane Roach]

If you continue to use this as an argument then I'll repost my rebuttal that you so conveniently skipped:


All throughout history people have believed in thousands of different gods. They've all been proven wrong. Today, no one believes in Zeus, Thor, Anubis or Apollo anymore. Without concrete proof of their existence I risk wasting my life believing in the wrong gods, as have done so many.

I'd never claim it proves there is a God, much less a specific religion, but being able to get past this fallacy in one's mind certainly is necessary to understand the discussion at all. You simply can't have a productive discussion of this subject while honestly believing that your opinion does not require proof, but someone else's does.

I'm not claiming it proves a specific religion. Your assumption that your beliefs require no backing is false, that is my point. The original question is not simply, "is this specific religion true?" but "Is there a soul, or a spirit, or anything intangible that is important in life that I should think about?"

If I answer that question in the affirmative, I no longer am free to simply dismiss all religions simply because there are a lot of them. Some of them have a lot of similarities, thus some people argue there is truth in all of them. Some people argue certain differences are too important to ignore, and so forth, but to simply dismiss all of spirituality without a firm reason for doing so is not based on superior logic. It is based on an unfounded assumption or axiom that anyone owes you an explanation about something before you consider it thoroughly in your own mind.

 

[Ectezus]

Your assumption that your beliefs require no backing is false

Atheism is a belief as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I no longer am free to simply dismiss all religions simply because there are a lot of them

What you're using is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum. "Most people throughout history believed in god, therefore the idea must have some value." On top of being a fallacy I've also shown why this is a ridiculous argument actually against your own belief:

All those believers in the past, all of them have been WRONG. Zeus was made up, Loki, Thor, Mars, Venus, Ra, Anubis, Apollo.. the list goes on and on.

No one today accepts those gods.
No one today thinks those gods were real.
Yet you want to use this as an argument why we should believe by default because our ancestors were religious? Give me a break, that's the worst kind of argument I've heard in a long time.

The god hypothesis has been proven wrong 99.99% of the time, (and you acknowledge this yourself by not believing in all the other gods) yet you expect the religion you've happened to been brought up with is the 0.01% that's actually right.

- Ectezus

 

[Jade Margery]

Theists do not have a "burden of proof". I am aware I have a spiritual natures. If you are going to tell me that that nature is just illusory, then it is your burden of proof.

I am aware of my elephant. If you are going to tell me it is just illusory, then you must provide the proof.

If you want to believe in a spiritual nature, or an invisible elephant, then that is fine. But you cannot assume or expect everyone else to agree that your personal point of view is the right one.

As I said, that's why spiritual views predominate. Simply citing some situations where something counter intuitive turned out to be true does not make a strong case for always guessing counter intuitively.

You are right, it does not make a strong case for counter intuitive guessing. However, it does make a strong case for re-examining preconceived ideas and assumptions made on limited observations. Pattern seekers will also note that for most technological, social, scientific, and medicinal advances, organized religions were fighting every step of the way and on the wrong side. Vaccines, for instance, were at first declaimed by the church as interfering with 'God's plan', as was birth control. Equal rights, slavery, astronomy... add to that the recurring theme of corruption in 'holy' people (scandals involving everything from embezzled funds to child abuse to underage male prostitutes)....

...and people are unreasonable for wanting some proof before they jump on this bandwagon?

Anyhow, your answer is no different in substance than the one from the OP's. You have decided you need no proof to believe what you believe. A 'lack of belief' means a lack of opinion, not an opinion to the negative, which is what atheism is in my experience, despite many atheists claiming otherwise, usually for pretty obvious reasons of perceived rhetorical benefit on an online forum.

Debate mode = off.
Off the record, Shane, I gotta say that sometimes it's hard to follow your train of thought. I've re-read this post several times and I think I know what you mean in it, but it seems like in many debates people misinterpret what you're trying to say and then everyone ends up frustrated. Often, you declare that they didn't read your post, when they probably did. Perhaps you have a dense writing style (dense meaning compact and hard to follow, not stupid) or something, I'm not sure, but it's just very easy to misunderstand you. Maybe you could try to be clearer in your writing about what points you are trying to make?
Debate mode = on.

Anyway, I do not currently believe in anything metaphysical, therefore I do not need to prove anything. How is one to prove a non-belief? This does not mean I am without the mental faculties to consider and criticize the possibilities available to believe in. I trust things after I have seen sufficient evidence for their truthfulness, and I am not alone in this. Most religions (at least, all that I have encountered thus far, surely a small proportion of the many on this planet) fail to provide any testable evidence. When people claim to be certain of things, I tend to point this lack of evidence out. This may be perceived as "an opinion to the negative" when in fact it is not. I know I can't disprove a religion. Mostly, I just want people to understand why I do not give their god(s) any more right to make the laws than my friend the immaterial elephant has.

And yes, I am shoring up Extezus' premise, adding supportive explanations and rationals to answer some of the questions and responses he has gotten. As one of the logic-minded people he is referring to, I thought my viewpoint would be relevant to the topic. You are incorrect in your assumption, however, that I need no proof to believe what I believe. I do not believe what I do not have proof of. I am content in having a hole in my knowledge--I know I can't be certain how the universe began, and I'm okay with that, no need to fill it with a god or a theory. I have a lack of belief until something truly convincing comes along to fill it.

It's just a transparent word game. If you cannot understand that, then you are trapped. I happen to be able to see how the distinction is meaningless. That's why I do not buy into it. I'd never claim it proves there is a God, much less a specific religion, but being able to get past this fallacy in one's mind certainly is necessary to understand the discussion at all.

Debate mode = off
Okay, maybe this is why it is hard to understand you sometimes... what, exactly, is 'it'? What, exactly, is 'the distinction'? Ectezus' and my opinions? The lack of opinion and opinion to the negative? Your experience and what atheists 'claim'? What is actual and what is for perceived rhetorical benefit? And why would you never claim 'it' proves god? I just get the feeling that you're being condescending and dismissive without understanding what you're trying to say, which doesn't lend anything good to a debate. Perhaps you could try clarifying your terms instead of assuming that people will know what you mean?
Debate mode = on

You simply can't have a productive discussion of this subject while honestly believing that your opinion does not require proof, but someone else's does.

The thing is, most theists seem to feel their claims are self-evident and do not require proof, while the non-theist does not support that which does not have testable evidence. Your very first sentences in this post illustrates this: "I am aware I have a spiritual natures. If you are going to tell me that that nature is just illusory, then it is your burden of proof." You are, here, assuming that because you believe you are aware of something, you do not need to provide proof for it for me to agree that it is there. By your own definition, you "simply can't have a productive discussion of this subject".

 

[Shane Roach]

I am aware of my elephant. If you are going to tell me it is just illusory, then you must provide the proof.

If you want to believe in a spiritual nature, or an invisible elephant, then that is fine. But you cannot assume or expect everyone else to agree that your personal point of view is the right one.

You are right, it does not make a strong case for counter intuitive guessing. However, it does make a strong case for re-examining preconceived ideas and assumptions made on limited observations. Pattern seekers will also note that for most technological, social, scientific, and medicinal advances, organized religions were fighting every step of the way and on the wrong side. Vaccines, for instance, were at first declaimed by the church as interfering with 'God's plan', as was birth control. Equal rights, slavery, astronomy... add to that the recurring theme of corruption in 'holy' people (scandals involving everything from embezzled funds to child abuse to underage male prostitutes)....

...and people are unreasonable for wanting some proof before they jump on this bandwagon?

Debate mode = off.
Off the record, Shane, I gotta say that sometimes it's hard to follow your train of thought. I've re-read this post several times and I think I know what you mean in it, but it seems like in many debates people misinterpret what you're trying to say and then everyone ends up frustrated. Often, you declare that they didn't read your post, when they probably did. Perhaps you have a dense writing style (dense meaning compact and hard to follow, not stupid) or something, I'm not sure, but it's just very easy to misunderstand you. Maybe you could try to be clearer in your writing about what points you are trying to make?
Debate mode = on.

Anyway, I do not currently believe in anything metaphysical, therefore I do not need to prove anything. How is one to prove a non-belief? This does not mean I am without the mental faculties to consider and criticize the possibilities available to believe in. I trust things after I have seen sufficient evidence for their truthfulness, and I am not alone in this. Most religions (at least, all that I have encountered thus far, surely a small proportion of the many on this planet) fail to provide any testable evidence. When people claim to be certain of things, I tend to point this lack of evidence out. This may be perceived as "an opinion to the negative" when in fact it is not. I know I can't disprove a religion. Mostly, I just want people to understand why I do not give their god(s) any more right to make the laws than my friend the immaterial elephant has.

And yes, I am shoring up Extezus' premise, adding supportive explanations and rationals to answer some of the questions and responses he has gotten. As one of the logic-minded people he is referring to, I thought my viewpoint would be relevant to the topic. You are incorrect in your assumption, however, that I need no proof to believe what I believe. I do not believe what I do not have proof of. I am content in having a hole in my knowledge--I know I can't be certain how the universe began, and I'm okay with that, no need to fill it with a god or a theory. I have a lack of belief until something truly convincing comes along to fill it.

Debate mode = off
Okay, maybe this is why it is hard to understand you sometimes... what, exactly, is 'it'? What, exactly, is 'the distinction'? Ectezus' and my opinions? The lack of opinion and opinion to the negative? Your experience and what atheists 'claim'? What is actual and what is for perceived rhetorical benefit? And why would you never claim 'it' proves god? I just get the feeling that you're being condescending and dismissive without understanding what you're trying to say, which doesn't lend anything good to a debate. Perhaps you could try clarifying your terms instead of assuming that people will know what you mean?
Debate mode = on


The thing is, most theists seem to feel their claims are self-evident and do not require proof, while the non-theist does not support that which does not have testable evidence. Your very first sentences in this post illustrates this: "I am aware I have a spiritual natures. If you are going to tell me that that nature is just illusory, then it is your burden of proof." You are, here, assuming that because you believe you are aware of something, you do not need to provide proof for it for me to agree that it is there. By your own definition, you "simply can't have a productive discussion of this subject".

"Most poeple" do not have a hard time following me. Indeed, I made A's in pretty much every class I have ever taken that has to do with writing or reading, from history to literature to political science.

It is only in situations where merely acknowledging what I say at all would be damaging to a persons argument that I find myself suddenly utterly unable to communicate with people.

To state that a "lack of belief" is not synonymous with "not believing" is a word game. There are three states. You actively believe something is true, you actively believe it is false, or you are not yet sure either way. Being an atheist and insisting that the "default position" is the "lack of belief", then defining the "lack of belief" as believing something is not true is the logical fallacy of being not true. A "lack of belief" would be to be suspended between the two, and literally with no tendency toward either, which is a vanishingly small percentage of people.

If you assert that there is no such thing as consciousness, or that you have the full explanation for the phenomenon, then back that up with something. Otherwise I and most people throughout history have observed within themselves what we all define as a spirituality of some sort. Since I am not claiming that this proves there really is spirituality, it is also simply false to argue that this is argumentum ad populum, and it would be geatly appreciated by myself and others if those of you who obviously have no real grounding in logic or debate would stop putting yourselves forward as if you were experts on the subject.

The only point I am making is that the assertion that the default belief concerning spirituality is NOT the atheistic presupposition that there is no such thing. It is not true from a logical point of view, and it is not true from the historical point of view.

It's just plain not true. So please stop using that argument. It is nonsense, and repeating it over and over merely creates spam and makes more meaningful conversation impossible.

 

[Shane Roach]

Atheism is a belief as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby.



What you're using is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum. "Most people throughout history believed in god, therefore the idea must have some value." On top of being a fallacy I've also shown why this is a ridiculous argument actually against your own belief:

All those believers in the past, all of them have been WRONG. Zeus was made up, Loki, Thor, Mars, Venus, Ra, Anubis, Apollo.. the list goes on and on.

No one today accepts those gods.
No one today thinks those gods were real.
Yet you want to use this as an argument why we should believe by default because our ancestors were religious? Give me a break, that's the worst kind of argument I've heard in a long time.

The god hypothesis has been proven wrong 99.99% of the time, (and you acknowledge this yourself by not believing in all the other gods) yet you expect the religion you've happened to been brought up with is the 0.01% that's actually right.

- Ectezus

This would be the third time in a row I think that I have pointed out that my argument has nothing to do with specific religions. I have ceded it does not prove any specific religion at all.

Science is filled with the bones of beliefs that are no longer held as accurate. Please desist from arguing that the fact that some ideas eventually do not pan out is a legitimate reason to simply stop working on an issue.

Again, the problem with claiming that atheism is a neutral, default position is that it demonstrably is not, both in terms of logic and in terms of the historic treatment of the subject of spirituality.

 

[Andreusz]

If you assert that there is no such thing as consciousness, or that you have the full explanation for the phenomenon, then back that up with something. Otherwise I and most people throughout history have observed within themselves what we all define as a spirituality of some sort. Since I am not claiming that this proves there really is spirituality, it is also simply false to argue that this is argumentum ad populum, and it would be geatly appreciated by myself and others if those of you who obviously have no real grounding in logic or debate would stop putting yourselves forward as if you were experts on the subject.

For clarification, are you claiming that the existence of consciousness is evidence for the existence of spirit?

 

[Shane Roach]

For clarification, are you claiming that the existence of consciousness is evidence for the existence of spirit?

I'm saying consciousness is pretty much exactly what many or most people think IS the soul or spirit or both. Whether it has a natural explanation or not is really irrelevant. If it does, we have naturally occurring souls or spirits, and the very word "supernatural" more or less becomes meaningless in that context.

 

[Andreusz]

I'm saying consciousness is pretty much exactly what many or most people think IS the soul or spirit or both. Whether it has a natural explanation or not is really irrelevant. If it does, we have naturally occurring souls or spirits, and the very word "supernatural" more or less becomes meaningless in that context.

Well, I would say it is highly relevant. If consciousness has a natural explanation, then there is no need to postulate any kind of spiritual world.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, I would say it is highly relevant. If consciousness has a natural explanation, then there is no need to postulate any kind of spiritual world.

Or, that the spiritual world is perfectly natural. Since consciousness is the spirit, and we know it exists, if its nature is natural then spirituality is natural.

At this point you are merely picking nits over words. You don't like "spiritual" because you don't like religion, but religion is in actuality man's attempt to deal with his consciousness, his conscience, and so forth. Socialists want to make a break from religion. They want to establish a situation where what has gone before is simply declared obsolete rather than acknowledge that it is in actuality the sum of all man's attempts to deal with what they now want to control absolutely.

It is no accident that socialist reforms always come at the expense of democracy or self government. The back and forth of the history of religion is the continued attempt of elites to use it to control people, and people taking it back out of the hands of the elites and establishing their right to believe as they wish. Now socialists want to control what people believe concerning their nature and values through elite educational institutions, and to pass laws through the court in order to bypass the step of having to create public consensus, since they do not believe the general public capable of understanding these issues to begin with.

I, naturally, disagree.

 

[Jade Margery]

"Most poeple" do not have a hard time following me. Indeed, I made A's in pretty much every class I have ever taken that has to do with writing or reading, from history to literature to political science.

I'm sure William Faulkner and Henry James would have gotten good grades in writing/reading too, but that doesn't make them any less of a bear to read and understand.

It is only in situations where merely acknowledging what I say at all would be damaging to a persons argument that I find myself suddenly utterly unable to communicate with people.

This is a very annoying assumption. From what I have observed in your debates with others, people are trying to understand and acknowledge what you say. It is just difficult to do so, and you do not give them any credit for trying either. You are saying that they are all the problem, as opposed to considering that maybe your method of presenting ideas is at fault for the misunderstandings. Honestly, I have not seen anyone else on either side who generates as much confusion with their posts as you do, and from one writer to another I suggest that you clarify your ideas if you want to actually debate with people over anything besides semantics. That is all.

To state that a "lack of belief" is not synonymous with "not believing" is a word game. There are three states. You actively believe something is true, you actively believe it is false, or you are not yet sure either way. Being an atheist and insisting that the "default position" is the "lack of belief", then defining the "lack of belief" as believing something is not true is the logical fallacy of being not true. A "lack of belief" would be to be suspended between the two, and literally with no tendency toward either, which is a vanishingly small percentage of people.

*sigh* You know, at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, I don't think you read my posts or pay much attention to their content. I never said a lack of belief was not synonymous with not believing, in fact I said the opposite:

For clarification, a lack of belief DOES NOT EQUAL a belief in something. For example, I do not believe in the christian god, or any other god for that matter, but at the same time I do not assume that any of the current hypothesises about the origin of the universe are correct.

I don't know what you're trying to argue about here, unless you're strawman-building.

If you assert that there is no such thing as consciousness, or that you have the full explanation for the phenomenon, then back that up with something.

Whoa, back up and get those words out of my mouth. Where did I say there was no such thing as consciousness? Or that I could explain it? Seriously, do you read what other people write, or just sort of skim it for the parts you can misinterpret?

Otherwise I and most people throughout history have observed within themselves what we all define as a spirituality of some sort. Since I am not claiming that this proves there really is spirituality, it is also simply false to argue that this is argumentum ad populum, and it would be geatly appreciated by myself and others if those of you who obviously have no real grounding in logic or debate would stop putting yourselves forward as if you were experts on the subject.

Do you mean it is false for me to argue agumentum ad populum, or false for you? And again with the condescension. It always seems silly to try to bring credentials into an online discussion, like 'I was a valedictorian' or 'I was captain of the debate team', as if that means anything to the discussion at hand, so I'm not going to bother trying to prove I have a 'real grounding in logic or debate'. Suffice to say, I doubt you are any more or less of an expert on the subjects than I am, and for you to assert otherwise is rude and presumptious. I've responded to your past posts with an attitude of respect for a fellow debater, but I must say that I'm a little insulted by this one.

The only point I am making is that the assertion that the default belief concerning spirituality is NOT the atheistic presupposition that there is no such thing. It is not true from a logical point of view, and it is not true from the historical point of view.

More confusion. What, exactly, is not true from a logical point of view? The athiestic presupposition, or the assertion? Please clarify and I will try to respond.

It's just plain not true. So please stop using that argument. It is nonsense, and repeating it over and over merely creates spam and makes more meaningful conversation impossible.

Maybe you could practice not using the word 'it' in your writing at all? I recall my sixth grade science teacher taking a point off for each use of 'it', forcing us to identify what we were talking about. I think she was on to something. Really, I have no idea what argument you are talking about. As far as I can tell, you're not responding to anything I said in a recognizeable manner. Unless you are attempting to win debates by obfuscation?

 

[Andreusz]

Or, that the spiritual world is perfectly natural. Since consciousness is the spirit, and we know it exists, if its nature is natural then spirituality is natural.

At this point you are merely picking nits over words. You don't like "spiritual" because you don't like religion, but religion is in actuality man's attempt to deal with his consciousness, his conscience, and so forth.

Well, the distinction is very important, I think. You are trying to prove the existence of an immaterial world. If the phenomena you cite as evidence for this IW can actually be explained in material terms, then your evidence loses credibility.

Socialists want to make a break from religion. They want to establish a situation where what has gone before is simply declared obsolete rather than acknowledge that it is in actuality the sum of all man's attempts to deal with what they now want to control absolutely.

It is no accident that socialist reforms always come at the expense of democracy or self government. The back and forth of the history of religion is the continued attempt of elites to use it to control people, and people taking it back out of the hands of the elites and establishing their right to believe as they wish. Now socialists want to control what people believe concerning their nature and values through elite educational institutions, and to pass laws through the court in order to bypass the step of having to create public consensus, since they do not believe the general public capable of understanding these issues to begin with.

I, naturally, disagree.

What has socialism got to do with the issue at hand? Red herring, I'd say.

 

[Ectezus]

Again, the problem with claiming that atheism is a neutral, default position is that it demonstrably is not, both in terms of logic and in terms of the historic treatment of the subject of spirituality.

So we've got "historic treatment of the subject" and 'Logic'.
I've proven why using the historic treatment in favor of your argument is bogus and I've yet to see any logic from your part.

Basically you convinced yourself that you can ignore every Atheistic claim simply because THEY need to provide evidence that your invisible man does not exist. Give me a break.

It doesn't work that way, you believe in certain things because you've seen data that supports the idea. I don't believe in Zeus because I've not seen a shred of evidence, as do you. To say that a spiritual feeling is a natural feeling and therefore spirituality is true is one of the worst claims you could possibly make.

You have no evidence to back up your ideas so you try to shift the need for evidence on Atheists. Guess what, it's impossible to proof an invisible man in the sky! The very fact that there's no evidence is the reason WHY atheists are atheists.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

- Ectezus

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, the distinction is very important, I think. You are trying to prove the existence of an immaterial world. If the phenomena you cite as evidence for this IW can actually be explained in material terms, then your evidence loses credibility.



What has socialism got to do with the issue at hand? Red herring, I'd say.

Your one sentence replies and simple contrariness without response to issues indicate to me that you are not attempting to discuss anything, so I will leave you to it.

 

[Andreusz]

5 =/= 1.

 

[Ectezus]

Oh and by the way Shane, to claim we humans are born with a spiritual nature clearly shows you're an american.
Many countries over the world are largely atheist and yet they don't show any signs of disorder or the need for spirituality like americans do.

Your argument only applies in the protective american religious bubble you life in. Major parts of the world prove you wrong.

It's like those claims that atheists can't be moral... Hello..!? Just look at REALITY and you know it's not true.

- Ectezus

 

[Shane Roach]

Oh, okay, so to you spirituality = consciousness? Would have been nice to know that sooner in the conversation. Like I said, define your terms, especially since both of those words will mean different things to different people and no one is going to understand your definition automatically.

1. Miracles are often subjective or vague
2. All of the so claimed miracles have no trace of being different from the ordinary

Prove to me you are capable of conscious thought.

I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that as an intellectual exercise.

Much of life simply is not amenable at all to direct observation, and even more of it is unreasonably difficult to submit to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Consciousness, and by extension spirituality, to my way of thinking belong to that portion of life that simply is not amenable to direct observation. There is simply no way to scientifically study something you cannot directly observe. There will always be correlations, but some of the underlying facts, possible causes, etc, simply cannot be observed at all, rendering questions on the subject outside the sphere of science.

If conscious, willful action is possible, and I suggest that it is, then there is nothing particularly remarkable about the assertion that there is a God, especially given historical evidence. It is a short hop, skip and a jump from there to studying the various religions or spiritual traditions and finding the one that seems most likely to be true.

If the God of the Bible exists, the fact that you cannot pluck the past out of thin air and push it under a microscope effectively renders all arguments as to the distant past irrelevant to a Bible believing Christian. In much the same way you cannot guarantee a marble rolled across the floor of a crowded room will continue across the floor until it hits a wall, you simply cannot prove that the creator of the Universe did not do things that would render any hypothesis about what happened in the past useless by merely having done something that would not be detectable later by scientific means.

There is nothing illogical or even unscientific about even the most outrageous (to most modern minds) beliefs of a "fundamentalist". We merely start with an axiom that science cannot deal with at all.

People say that science does not presuppose anything, but it is ultimately useless to argue then that science should by now have uncovered evidence for something that would not be detectable by scientific means at all. Sure, science does not presuppose that there is no soul, spirituality, or God, but it also has no methodology for dealing with the interplay between these things and that which can indeed be studied and measured scientifically.

So, if you define a "scientists" as a person who presupposes that there is no God, you might well find some support for the idea God hates such individuals.

Ps 53:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God .
KJV

Then, as now, David was well aware that God was Spirit. The fool takes advantage of this spiritual nature of God to argue, "What? I don't see anything! Why should I believe there is a God?"

Of course you don't. What'd you expect?

Show me you are capable of conscious thought. What? I don't see anything. You haven't shown me your consciousness.

I guess I could argue then that I can do with you as I wish. You are not truly alive. You are an automaton. There is nothing about you to warrant treatment as an equal. You probably don't even truly feel in the human sense of the word "feel".

Weak logic, in my view. Don't you agree?

What did you think I was talking about when I asked him to show me he is capable of conscious thought? What did you imagine I meant by, "You haven't shown me your consciousness?"

The problem here is not my writing. The problem here is partially inherent in the medium we're being forced to use, and partially still I think in your insistence that everything be demonstrated to you rather than acknowledging we have separate points of view, and taking responsibility for explaining yours to me and asking questions related to what precisely you do not understand.

How was I supposed to know you had no idea I had been on about the exact issue of consciousness for pages?

The thing I try to do when coming into the middle of an ongoing discussion is, first, explain my viewpoint. I completely and utterly cede the useless and ridiculous opportunity to argue, "you made an assertion, I don't need to defend my beliefs." I explain what I believe and question what others believe.

If you would do that rather than depending over and over on the assumption that unless someone explains something to you, it must not be true or relevant, you would not need me to worry so much about where or whether I use the word "it".

Also, it is difficult to read your posts and others when within the first few sentences I find evidence that you have not read mine at all, such as in this case where you actually say I have been unclear about associating consciousness with spirituality when in fact it has been the focus of the conversation from the beginning.

Also, you do not call your compatriot atheist to account for how he continues to dodge this issue. I'm not asking you to get all in his face, but for example a day or two ago one of the guys here started talking about long hair, and I admitted to him as how I have long hair, wore casual clothes, and asked him to what extent he placed me in the same category.

I rarely see this kind of internal conversation amongst the liberal Christians and their atheist counterparts here. It is one big happy family, universal in their commitment to hammer Bible based Christian beliefs.

*shrugs*

I also really think that it is precisely because my posts are understandable that so many people feel the need to respond to them. There is a sense in which I really feel this entire discussion about me being clear is really just a red herring to lead the discussion away from the actual points I make, and to make excuses for not addressing them. Again, confusion as to what I am talking about seems to disappear if it is not associated with a point of contention based entirely on an argument that something does not exist in some sense, or otherwise based on contorting words and then refusing to acknowledge the contortion.

 

[Shane Roach]

So we've got "historic treatment of the subject" and 'Logic'.
I've proven why using the historic treatment in favor of your argument is bogus and I've yet to see any logic from your part.

Basically you convinced yourself that you can ignore every Atheistic claim simply because THEY need to provide evidence that your invisible man does not exist. Give me a break.

It doesn't work that way, you believe in certain things because you've seen data that supports the idea. I don't believe in Zeus because I've not seen a shred of evidence, as do you. To say that a spiritual feeling is a natural feeling and therefore spirituality is true is one of the worst claims you could possibly make.

You have no evidence to back up your ideas so you try to shift the need for evidence on Atheists. Guess what, it's impossible to proof an invisible man in the sky! The very fact that there's no evidence is the reason WHY atheists are atheists.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

- Ectezus

There is nothing extraordinary in pointing out that you can no more show me your consciousness than I can show you God.

Until you understand how this applies to the conversation, and it seems to me that you are not interested to begin with, there is nothing more to add.

Believe me when I tell you though that this is a well established line of reasoning that many people have discussed. You can look it up if you care to. Your argument is simply false. It is made up of talking points you demonstrably do not fully comprehend, or else you would be able to address the issue more forthrightly as others before you have.

 

[Ectezus]

There is nothing extraordinary in pointing out that you can no more show me your consciousness than I can show you God.

Wait, so because I can't show you my consciousness you prove your argument?

Me : Can't proof consciousness

You: Can't proof conscioueness AND you can't proof your god.

2-1.
I win.



To say we start of with a religious state and therefore everyone who doesn't belief needs to proof your invisible man up in the sky is just hilarious.
You admit you can't proof god. Yet you seriously think it's weird Atheists don't just take your word for it?

Once again, you're clearly an american inside his protective religious bubble. The rest of the world aka reality proves your argument wrong.

- Ectezus