How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Loudmouth]

Why can you think Christianity is wrong, but a Christian can't think being gay is wrong?

The problem is that your reason for homosexuality being wrong is, "because a human pretending to be a deity said it was wrong in a book, and I am not allowed to have a different opinion."

"I am just following orders", is not a moral code.

Answer the question, but I'll probably avoid getting into gay rights, as it's far off topic.

We can pick other topics where secularism and christian theology clash, or have clashed in the past.

 

[HitchSlap]

I honestly have no idea what this statement means. If you're declining to agree or disagree then you are uncertain, which would make sense because all atheists are uncertain about their beliefs when you really get to the bottom of things. Please don't take that personally, I'm just making an observation after talking with many atheists.



On the contrary! I am very willing to engage in genuine dialogue using sound reason that makes sense.

The fact you claim I am uncertain about my beliefs is enough to expose your intentions. If you're truly interested in discussing, then you should actually demonstrate what you can, rather than word vomit your opinion of what you think others believe. It's obvious you've woven this snug little cocoon around your personal beliefs, and is contingent on what you think others should believe, but this is not a good way to have genuine discussions with other. If you're truly interested in what I or other atheists believe, then ask. I don't think any of us here are truly interested in what you think we believe.

 

[Chriliman]

The fact you claim I am uncertain about my beliefs is enough to expose your intentions. If you're truly interested in discussing, then you should actually demonstrate what you can, rather than word vomit your opinion of what you think others believe. It's obvious you've woven this snug little cocoon around your personal beliefs, and is contingent on what you think others should believe, but this is not a good way to have genuine discussions with other. If you're truly interested in what I or other atheists believe, then ask. I don't think any of us here are truly interested in what you think we believe.

I have asked many questions. The problem is I haven't received answers that make more sense than the answers I've already found. If you can't provide answers that make more sense than the answers I already have then I'm not inclined to believe you and I'm even less inclined to take your position as an atheist. I'm sure you can say the same about the answers I've given, thus the beauty of life and our ability to choose.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have asked many questions. The problem is I haven't received answers that make more sense than the answers I've already found. If you can't provide answers that make more sense than the answers I already have then I'm not inclined to believe you and I'm even less inclined to take your position as an atheist. I'm sure you can say the same about the answers I've given, thus the beauty of life and our ability to choose.

Looks like you know everything you need to, then.

Adios.

 

[Davian]

What are you feeding your hamsters?

Premium unleaded. The hamster food was gumming up the filters.

 

[HitchSlap]

Premium unleaded. The hamster food was gumming up the filters.

Well there's your problem right there. Tiny engine hamsters run best on holy bananas (you know, the kind god makes - Ray Comfort style). Be sure and run the bananas for a solid two weeks. Should work out the squireliness.

 

[Chriliman]

The problem is that your reason for homosexuality being wrong is, "because a human pretending to be a deity said it was wrong in a book, and I am not allowed to have a different opinion."

"I am just following orders", is not a moral code.



We can pick other topics where secularism and christian theology clash, or have clashed in the past.

I think the reason the issue of homosexuality is so ambiguous is simply because it's so hard to tell if a person is born homosexual or not. We can't be sure if it's a choice or if they've had no choice because they were born that way or if they are gay because they were raised improperly as a child. However, there have been many studies done to find the "gay-gene" and so far it has not been found, even though we've fully mapped both the X and Y chromosome. Neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosome contains any “gay gene.”

Here's an interesting article on the topic:

http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php

If homosexuality is not genetic then it must be a choice, or the person was raised improperly. Nurture not nature. If it's a choice or a result of how a child is raised then according to my beliefs, it is a sin.

 

[Michael]

I do not see how it is applicable. The burden of demonstrating that is on you.

In this case, nope. There is no guarantee of falsification in physics. You're imposing a greater restriction on the concept of God than scientists impose on string theory, or SUSY theory, or inflation theory, or dark energy theory, or dark matter matter theories ad nausium.

That the universe exists in not in dispute.

So really the only thing you can complain about is me ascribing "awareness" to it. At least 'awareness' shows up here on Earth in the lab, unlike gravitons, or SUSY sparticles, or dark energy gnomes.

That you project your concept of awareness onto the universe does not make it true.

That you reject the idea is irrelevant. It's still 'possible'. You've basically backed yourself into an indefensible corner.

I can even show that the current carrying structures that give rise to awareness exist on *much larger scales* in the physical universe.

http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/07/brain-structure-mirrors-the-universe/

 

[Michael]

But not having full understanding of something doesn't preclude the faithful from condemning people to hell,

Ya, but some of us, including early Church fathers like Origen promote universal salvation rather than eternal torment.

collecting tithes,

Almost every organization collects tithes/dues/membership fees, etc. So what?

hatred towards homosexuals and the occasional jihad, does it?

Well, Jesus told me not to judge others, and he was completely non violent. I personally tend to follow such teachings to the best of my ability.

At this point you're talking about *religion* rather than discussing the scientific possibility of an intelligent creator. I was more interested in the scientific question.

 

[Davian]

In this case, nope. There is no guarantee of falsification in physics. <snip unrelated text>

You have not shown that your "gods" have anything to do with "physics".

So really the only thing you can complain about is me ascribing "awareness" to it. <snip unrelated text>

Indeed, in the absence of substantiating evidence.

That you reject the idea is irrelevant. It's still 'possible'. You've basically backed yourself into an indefensible corner.

You have yet to establish this as possible. That burden lies with you.

I can even show that the current carrying structures that give rise to awareness exist on *much larger scales* in the physical universe.

http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/07/brain-structure-mirrors-the-universe/

Look - a mermaid on Mars!

Or is that Bigfoot?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the reason the issue of homosexuality is so ambiguous is simply because it's so hard to tell if a person is born homosexual or not. We can't be sure if it's a choice or if they've had no choice because they were born that way or if they are gay because they were raised improperly as a child.

Why does that even matter? No one is born a christian. We choose which religions we will join. Since it is a choice, does that mean freedom of religion is not a protected right, or a basic human right?

It is hard to tell if someone is born with an attraction to people of a different race. You could probably argue that being attracted to someone from a different race is a choice. Does that mean we should stop couples of different races from getting married?

What about what we choose to say, what we choose to print in the press, where we choose to gather, or whether we choose to keep the police from entering our premise? These are choices as well, and they are constitutionally protected. In fact, the whole point of freedom is choosing how you want to live your life.

If homosexuality is not genetic then it must be a choice, or the person was raised improperly. Nurture not nature. If it's a choice or a result of how a child is raised then according to my beliefs, it is a sin.

The real question is whether your beliefs are moral.

 

[Davian]

Well, Jesus told me not to judge others, and he was completely non violent. I personally tend to follow such teachings to the best of my ability.

Someone reminded this week that Jesus made whips and chased people with them. Do you do that?

 

[Michael]

You have not shown that your "gods" have anything to do with "physics".

Sure I have. You just don't like the implications. I haven't even ascribed four different *supernatural* properties to the universe like 'physics' keeps trying to do!

You have yet to establish this as possible. That burden lies with you.

No it doesn't. *Empirical Possibilities* come with with no burden of proof. Only *theories* require such evidence. Compared to the dark matter fiasco, and that Bicep2 fiasco last year, you have nothing to complain about. In comparison to what passes for "science", the "possibility' that the universe is aware is *way* better supported.

As much as you'd like to simply deny the similarities, the structures of the universe carry current just like any human brain, and the mass layouts are very similar. Futhermore every chemical that exists here on Earth, and in our brains, exists throughout the universe. Flippant ridicule isn't much of a scientific argument.

 

[Michael]

Someone reminded this week that Jesus made whips and chased people with them. Do you do that?

Not recently.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not recently.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus

 

[Davian]

Not recently.

I'm okay with anything that happens between two or three consenting adults.

 

[Michael]

I'm okay with anything that happens between two or three consenting adults.

LOL!

 

[Michael]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus

Except the only time anyone actually used a real sword to defend him, he healed the guy and admonished the man wielding the sword.

I say that it's pretty clear from a historical perspective that his teachings split humanity into "believers" and those who lack belief, often within the very same family. I'd say his teachings represent the "sword of truth".

 

[HitchSlap]

Except the only time anyone actually used a real sword to defend him, he healed the guy and admonished the man wielding the sword.

I say that it's pretty clear from a historical perspective that his teachings split humanity into "believers" and those who lack belief, often within the very same family. I'd say his teachings represent the "sword of truth".

So, like most rappers, he's all show, no go.

 

[The Cadet]

@Michael as said, cosmology is not my wheelhouse, so I'll bow out of that discussion.

The lack of belief in deities poses a new problem for atheist, the new problem is answering the question as to why we're all here.

How do you answer that question, though? Believe me, I am most certainly interested in the answer to that question. It's an important question! So important that I'm not willing to accept an answer that is just there. The answer has to be demonstrably correct. And "Because a deity wants us to be there" is not demonstrably correct in any meaningful sense.

So you accept the answer that there is no answer to life?

I didn't say that, nor did I imply that. I do not know if there is some objective outside meaning to life. I'm going to keep looking for one that is justified.

You can solve the problem of hard solipsism with belief. We must believe that objective reality is absolute and not dependent on our minds to exist. We must believe that other people are conscious like ourselves. We must believe in God in order to experience God. Makes sense to me.

But simply believing something does not make it true. I could believe as hard as I wanted that aliens were going to abduct me and that still wouldn't cause them to swoop down and take me. We can believe all we want that our objective reality is true, but that does not necessitate it being true. Even if our beliefs somehow warped the reality we experienced in such a way that I could believe really hard that the bottle in front of me is not empty and the bottle became full, that still would not make my reality involving the bottle any less subjective.

Right, it's obvious to each one of us that we are each conscious, but it's not obvious that anyone besides ourself is conscious, which is why it requires belief that others are conscious. Belief solves all philosophical problems.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Your belief that, say, I am conscious, does not necessarily grant me consciousness. Belief does not solve this problem. The way I resolve the problem is that it is irrelevant whether anyone else is actually conscious, or merely simulating consciousness to an extreme degree - I still am forced to interact with them as if they were. Pragmatically, it makes no difference.

So you "believe" neuroscience can answer the philosophical problem of consciousness, even though you just previously stated that we must accept that a tentative understanding of reality is the best we can do. Seems like you're contradicting yourself. You're believing in something that hasn't been proven yet, but then you're claiming you're an atheist because you lack belief in what has not been proven.

Because a tentative understanding of reality is all we can muster. At a certain point, we are forced to live our lives. If you waited on absolute certainty before doing anything, you would never do anything. What we do is make models of reality in order to better understand it, and so long as we hold certain things. What's important is that this tentative understanding has a consistent, reliable basis. Science, empiricism, and our senses have a tendency to do this fairly well, as far as we can tell. No other method offers similarly good results.