True atheists?

[BrianOnEarth]

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.

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.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

So one day we will find a naturalistic explanation Seriously? Thats not even a scientific conjecture.

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.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

Some people just didn't hold the atheist high enough to have him rearrange text where God is now visible and man is not.

If a man came up to me and tried to tell me radio waves are visible and the voice is not evidence, he would need the complex of the atheist as well to influence some.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

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.

Yes, thanks for adding the counter-evidence point.
Like you say there is a sort of trajectory of doubt over time as more and more myths are exposed. The trajectory points towards a complete absence of any intervention by any super-beings. This reinforces the judgement against the existence of a caretaker god as described in the bible.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

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.

Dawkins appears more interested in truth than utility. Certainly I am.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

Beliefs about ancient people's beliefs =! beliefs about God.

 

[Greg1234]

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."

Again, its not science. One day (we don't know when) somehow (we dont know how) we are going to find (we dont know where) a naturalistic explanation for life (probably). Its not science. Its a belief. A materialistic belief. One you embody as a materialist. Science deals with the empirical. Like the fact that life is not being assembled through chance.

Science is, we are going to find the cause and explore it. Which we have, and which we do.

And your evidence, man used to.... Even that belief is massively mangled. No, its not science.

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."

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.

I'll just wait until that belief propels you into scientific data on the man, where you think you "have it" because "man used to", and catch you there. You'll come again and you'll get caught again. We'll do it over and over because you havent realized that your "man used to" belief is corrupted.

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.

The track record? The track record regarding what was actually given? First we lose vestigial organs then we find function for Junk DNA, then we find tht DNA is not just a code but a bio computer on a network acting as a transceiver, that adaptation is not random but intelligently guided.

The track record is exactly where it should be. But I guarantee you, you will keep reciting "but man used to"

Further, youre merely repeating yourself. See last.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7512756-20/#post56107546

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

Strike out meaningless baggage "natural" and "supernatural":

Uhh yes it is. That is the MOST scientific attitude that one could possibly have. "What is this phenomenon? There must be an 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 ..."​

Much simpler.

 

[variant]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Religion necessarily warps our powers to evaluate truth, thus it warps our values and their utility as well.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

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.

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?

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.

Ok. On what basis will you judge whether or not one should believe in God?

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.

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.

Religion necessarily warps our powers to evaluate truth, thus it warps our values and their utility as well.

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.

 

[variant]

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?

You said it yourself that it would make you feel better if we did a scientific study on the subject. Why?

The better we are at consistent rational systems, including empirical claims, the better we will be at evaluating the truth of any proposition, including what is most useful for us.

Ok. On what basis will you judge whether or not one should believe in God?

As I said, one can not consistently come to the the position that any particular God exists using the best methods we know for evaluating truth consistently.

If one does come to this conclusion it will necessarily warp all subsequent value and utility positions that depend on it.

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.

A theist can not constantly evaluate utility if the position depends on their theism.

The theist in your example makes a good scientist despite their theism, not because of it.

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.

Warps as in distorts.

And no, I did not say it was not a net benefit, I do not know on that question, or whether religion itself is responsible for the values that are beneficial to society.

 

[Tielec]

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.

For clarification (and please correct me) you think the atheist argument falls apart because of the utility of theism?

 

[Jig]

In other words, you're a strong atheist; a position you claim is irrational.[/quote]

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

 

[Alive_Again]

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

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

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

Yes. You are a strong atheist: you believe there is no Zeus, no Shiva, no Coyote.

I'll go look.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Bully for you, chiclet. Why should I believe you?

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

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

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.

 

[Jig]

I have no objective evidence to prove that the purpose of life is to end suffering. But then, I've never made that claim.

You are Buddhist. You make that claim by claiming that religion.

 

[Jig]

Yes. You are a strong atheist: you believe there is no Zeus, no Shiva, no Coyote.

I'll go look.

Is "dogmatic atheism" the same as "strong atheism"?

 

[Alive_Again]

<Bully for you, chiclet. Why should I believe you?
<Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

I don't know what either of these mean.

I do know that like all men, you'll face death, and you don't want to obscure your source of mercy by rendering final judgments. Be fully persuaded, but how can you give me your "final answer" without giving it a chance?

If you're a thinking person, you won't want to fall under the category of willfully ignorant. There's no need at all to get riled since I am appealing to your sense of reasonableness by being open to something you're just not aware of.

I asked you to "dream with me" because it IS possible to have supernatural fellowship with the creator, and thankfully, He is love.

Jesus said that there are 2 fathers. His Words always prove to be true. One ministers lies and is the father of all lies.

It wouldn't hurt you to consider that there is purpose and divine order for everything would it? Take a listen to some of the NDEs (Near Death Experiences) people have had on youtube. They were clinically dead for a time. There was more...