There is empirical evidence for evolution by natural selection. Loads of it.
Life was not assembled through chance. It was carefully selected by natural processes.
I don't think I am able to relate to your points, sorry.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is empirical evidence for evolution by natural selection. Loads of it.The atheist believes that the bible writers are unreliable without empirical evidence.
They believe that life can be assembled through stochastic processes without empirical evidence, and lo and behold, that life cannot be assembled through chance is an everyday, empirical fact.
It was never about empirical evidence. Just the will for materialism.
So one day we will find a naturalistic explanation Seriously? Thats not even a scientific conjecture.
Personally, I'm much happier now after my "de-conversion". That's the utility side. I don't promote non-belief to people in real life because I know some people are happier believing in God. Now, if they try to "re-convert" me, I'll speak my mind. But most people don't even know that I'm an atheist because I keep it to myself. It's a non-issue.
Yes, thanks for adding the counter-evidence point.Close. It's a lack of evidence combined with an abundance of evidence for an alternative. The God of the gaps is shrinking. Meaning things that used to be explained with "goddidit" now have natural explanations. Rainbows are not divine. Disease is not cause by demons but by germs. The earth is not 6,000 years old. Humans are apes and share a common ancestor with other apes etc. Now, none of that is proof that God doesn't exist, it's just that many of the things that used to be unexplainable and therefore divine are now well understood. It's better to assume a natural explanation for everything that we don't understand because if we just say "Goddidit" and leave it at, we'll never learn anything new.
Dawkins appears more interested in truth than utility. Certainly I am.I agree. However, I think it may open ones eyes to doing a proper scientific study of the utility of beliefs rather than assuming a particular position is superior and hurling abuse at the other party. I am critical of Dawkins for not taking a scientific approach to this.
I can find pages and pages of testimonies by Christians of the utility they get from their beliefs. And Christians love to share this with one another and with non-Christians, presumably as an act of generosity, although some atheists interpret this as a threat. I have found it much harder to find atheists providing utility arguments about atheism to anyone. The usual line is "science says your belief is false so throw away its utility", but this is a rather feeble sales pitch. And I am not at all convinced that eliminating religion would eliminate acts of terrorism.
I'm not asking about your ability to analyze text though or apply evidence. Just indicating that your assertion that they embodied incompetence is your belief.
Uhh yes it is. That is the MOST scientific attitude that one could possibly have. "What is this phenomenon? There must be a natural explanation. I'm going to find it."
Youre feeding off your "men used to believe so life will be" belief. Its like a shock collar. Its not a belief I hold. And tracing back to the origin, we find man was created as man. Of course, I don't have to convince you that your "men used to belief" is wrong.You know what would not be a good scientific conjecture? "What is this phenomenon? I currently have no explanation for it. It must be supernatural."
So far, every phenomenon that we have found an explanation for has been 100% natural. Many phenomena that were previously thought to be divine have turned out to be natural. There is nothing that was previously thought to be natural but now is known to have a divine origin.
So based on that track record, it is better to assume that any phenomenon we see will have a natural explanation because all of them have been natural.
Uhh yes it is. That is the MOST scientific attitude that one could possibly have. "What is this phenomenon? There must be a natural explanation. I'm going to find it."
You know what would not be a good scientific conjecture? "What is this phenomenon? I currently have no explanation for it. It must be supernatural."
So far, every phenomenon that we have found an explanation for has been 100% natural. Many phenomena that were previously thought to be divine have turned out to be natural. There is nothing that was previously thought to be natural but now is known to have a divine origin.
So based on that track record, it is better to assume that any phenomenon we see will have a natural explanation because all of them have been natural.
I agree. However, I think it may open ones eyes to doing a proper scientific study of the utility of beliefs rather than assuming a particular position is superior and hurling abuse at the other party. I am critical of Dawkins for not taking a scientific approach to this.
I can find pages and pages of testimonies by Christians of the utility they get from their beliefs. And Christians love to share this with one another and with non-Christians, presumably as an act of generosity, although some atheists interpret this as a threat. I have found it much harder to find atheists providing utility arguments about atheism to anyone. The usual line is "science says your belief is false so throw away its utility", but this is a rather feeble sales pitch. And I am not at all convinced that eliminating religion would eliminate acts of terrorism.
Would you elaborate? To evaluate the utility of a belief system requires the ability to measure utility and a definition of utility. Is this what you mean by seeking truth?That is because you feel you are committed to the scientific process, whereas I think truth is simply more fundamental than utility.
To properly evaluate utility you first need to be able to grasp truth and handle it consistently. Studying the utility of truth requires the ability to seek truth, and one must recognize the scientific process as a process of attaining truth in your case to allow you to actually grasp utility.
Ok. On what basis will you judge whether or not one should believe in God?Those are two different questions I think. I am addressing whether or not one should believe in God.
Which is of course not the same as saying that religion has no meaning to anyone.
Only if one is consistently inconsistent. Theists are selectively inconsistent. Theists can be perfectly competent scientists and so I see not reason they cannot evaluate utility.I repeat however, that consistent claim evaluation will inevitably lead to atheism, and without consistent claim evaluation one is markedly impaired in finding truth and will necessarily have a problem evaluating utility.
It clearly warps people's acceptance of certain empirical truths. Why do you use the word "warps" rather than, say, "shapes"? Whether or not religion has a net benefit to utility and values is a huge question. Christians have a pretty strong case for their religious beliefs re-enforcing socially beneficial values.Religion necessarily warps our powers to evaluate truth, thus it warps our values and their utility as well.
Would you elaborate? To evaluate the utility of a belief system requires the ability to measure utility and a definition of utility. Is this what you mean by seeking truth?
Ok. On what basis will you judge whether or not one should believe in God?
Only if one is consistently inconsistent. Theists are selectively inconsistent. Theists can be perfectly competent scientists and so I see not reason they cannot evaluate utility.
It clearly warps people's acceptance of certain empirical truths. Why do you use the word "warps" rather than, say, "shapes"? Whether or not religion has a net benefit to utility and values is a huge question. Christians have a pretty strong case for their religious beliefs re-enforcing socially beneficial values.
Would you elaborate? To evaluate the utility of a belief system requires the ability to measure utility and a definition of utility. Is this what you mean by seeking truth?
Ok. On what basis will you judge whether or not one should believe in God?
Only if one is consistently inconsistent. Theists are selectively inconsistent. Theists can be perfectly competent scientists and so I see not reason they cannot evaluate utility.
It clearly warps people's acceptance of certain empirical truths. Why do you use the word "warps" rather than, say, "shapes"? Whether or not religion has a net benefit to utility and values is a huge question. Christians have a pretty strong case for their religious beliefs re-enforcing socially beneficial values.
I didn't claim to KNOW there are no other gods. I just BELIEVE that there are no other gods.
Also, Rilke's GD - you forgot to answer my question. http://www.christianforums.com/t7512756-6/#post56107463
Sending out a line of mercy to an atheist...
Wouldn't you like to be pleasantly surprised? Dream with me for a moment...
Wouldn't it be great if you suddenly had a sense that there was something more? Something more than the natural course of life and death? When you bury your friends or family, that there was a certainty that there was more than the end of theirs or your current identity? That the sum total of all of your moments, hopes, dreams, and accomplishments did not vanish (to borrow a movie line) "like tears in the rain"?
Forget (for a moment) everything you know about how you perceive church or even many Christians you've met.
Imagine if your life was like mine...
My life today was one where I got up to go to church, and I knew I was going to truly locate the mercy of God. The manifest, tangible, anointing. The refreshing presence of the Lord that you cannot make up. Even though I had come up well short of His desire for me, I entreated His mercy and was reconciled and entered into His divine peace. His love for me for fulfilling and full of hope. Even though my life in "the natural" (the place of naturally occurring circumstance, at the seeming whim of nature) is currently totally lacking, and somewhat dismal, I had an inner sense of God's plan and hand on my life. It sustained me. As surely as I know He has worked in my life to restore and make new, that He would complete the work that He started.
God has already established many times within me, that His Word (as contained in the Bible) is His absolute truth. Within the context that each passage was written, I know that His truth is more sure than any contradictory circumstance.
If I am obedient, I'll walk in joy, peace, love, and fulfillment, all the days of my life. I'll know His voice on the inside of me more clearly. The more I give of myself to Him and others in service, the more His love will flow through me like a vine to the branches. The more I align myself with His will, the more manifest power works in me to bring His change through me to others.
I realize that you think I am deceived to say this about His Word, but I have already had the experience of Him coming to me personally in response to my heart's cry and I was reborn. One cannot possibly fake this. His love is what you want to experience forever. It's what you want to continue in when you pass from this world.
The part about His Word being true, when He took up residence on the inside of me, He made this clear, as He has many times. He has magnified His Word above all His name. His name is above every name. The Word was given to provide a sure foundation for all persons. That we might overcome when we are judged...
Consider this as something of a litmus test. When you're ready my words to you, were you really thoughtfully considering them, or did you kind of skim over them, as something you've heard before? Was there something in you that felt like attaching a phrase like "ad nauseum"?
The condition of our heart is what enables us to be able to "see" or "hear". The same thing applies to believers. If they approach hearing their church service's message with: "I've heard it all before!" They won't hear with the ear of the spirit. Even Christians. The ability to "hear' or "see" with the spiritual body has everything to do with being humble before God, seeking mercy, and wanting truth.
We know from the Bible, that your being has three parts. It has a spirit, a soul, and a body. Your spirit and soul work together and will remain existent forever. Your soul is to your spirit very much like your brain is to your body. Your spirit has every part that your physical body has. Jesus mentioned Lazurus who was in torment after he died (stay with me, I'm really NOT going to talk about Hell), wanted Lazurus to dip his fingers into water to cool his mouth. He had a body that was spiritual. Your spiritual body now is housed in your physical body. When your physical body dies, your spirit body will take leave of your physical body and go to where the state of being you had here on earth. Life or death. (With God or without God.)
My point is that your spirit has eyes and ears. For God's grace to manifest in your life, you want to avoid "heart/spirit conditions" of anything that resembles terms like "willfully or boastfully ignorant", "prideful", claims to sight in moments where you can't see, in spiritual matters, etc. If you are, you'll be resisting the Spirit of grace that wants to reach out to people as yourself, who are unaware of the presence of the reality of God.
The one thing the agnostic has going for himself over the aetheist. The agnostic hasn't made up his mind and closed himself over the issue. He's hoping to be pleasantly surprised. One thing I have learned about walking with God: Our words "permit" or "loose" blessings or curses. If we render a final judgment on something (with our words), we (to our destriment) "loose" a spiritual "force" upon our own lives that can keep God's grace from bringing us truth and liberty in that area.
So if you entertain in the back of your mind even the most remote possibility that if God were really alive and that He really cared about you enough to let you know, and that if He were to hold you accountable for what He "supposedly" said, then He would certainly make a point to get through to you, in some way, in order for Him to be fair and just...
I would challenge you to make a "move of faith" however minute by moving away from your stance of what is seen to be before God: "Hey everyone (God and all His creation)! I've happily rendered final judgment on myself, and am convinced that God isn't real, and that I'm not accountable to anyone."
You might eventually find that rather than opposing yourself and closing your eyes and ears (which you truly possess), that God might make what would otherwise be a wasted effort and begin to provide something to see with your spiritual senses that will turn you in the direction of true fulfillment (which means actually knowing God, and finding true peace (not just natural peace) and not just finding "church").
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My Laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."
Heb 8:10-12
What objective evidence do you have to prove that the purpose of life is to end suffering? Why bother, right?
I have no objective evidence to prove that the purpose of life is to end suffering. But then, I've never made that claim.
Yes. You are a strong atheist: you believe there is no Zeus, no Shiva, no Coyote.
I'll go look.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?