Slashdot Mirror

The problem is that science cant prove anything either. It can hypothesize and make all kinds of claims each based on each other (circular reasoning is rampant), but it cannot disprove the Bible. It only offers an alternative view.

Science says the earth had to form a certain way because the timeline proves this and that happened at these specific times, which were all millions of years ago etc.
The Bible says that just like Adam was created having an "age" of around 20 years, so the universe also was created having an "age". Science claims that everything must have existed for millions of years but cannot disprove the idea that it could have just been created that way.

The Bible does provide some evidence, but it works different to science. The Bible says, if A and B, through X are proven to be true, then Y and Z should be assumed to be true. That is what faith means. Heb 11:1 says that faith is based on substance. Faith says that if God says X and it happened, then when he says Y that will also happen.

We have the jews in the land of Israel (Ezek 37), the destruction of the ancient city of tyre (Ezek 26), weakening of world governments (Dan 2) - resulting in the weakest form of government (democracy - where the power is upside down - with the people instead of the government). We have seen the disappearance of morals (2 Tim 3), and now as we speak we see events in the middle east as countries take sides - aligning perfectly with Ezek 38. The only thing left is the return of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:11).

The Bible spends just 1 or 2 chapters on the things science so proudly boasts as being so important. and yet science has no explanation for prophecy.

No one can prove God to an atheist, but the reverse should be equally true.

Finally, believing what religious people TELL you about the Bible is just as bad as believing the conclusions of scientists. Scientists dont look at all possible outcomes, just the ones that fit their pre-conceived ideas. Also, many religious people fail at reading. For example the notion of going to heaven at death isn't in the Bible. It also seems a bit strange to come up with the idea the Jesus and God are actually the same person. So Jesus effectively prayed to himself for strength? Or at his baptism he (God) anointed himself (Jesus) with himself (holy spirit). Doesn't really make sense does it? the alternative is much easier to understand - that when Jesus said "I and my father are one" that he meant they were simply united. Or when it says "the word was God...and the word was made flesh" that the words "was made" indicate that the flesh and the word were not the same thing. If God (the "word", if you like) had a son that "was made" of flesh, then that makes perfect sense. Anyway, too much to discuss here...but people fail to look at all of the possibilities, which is why science rejects theism and there are so many christian-based religions.

Criticism accepted! This is the truth as I see it, and I certainly could be wrong.

Religious #4 is me, personally. That's my answer. So it's definitely a religious answer, and the fact that it doesn't contradict science is a feature, not a bug.

Most westerners don't realize that there are a number of explicitly atheist religions. Jainism, for example, is much older than Christianity and still exists today. The dominant western theisms have worked very hard to convince people that religion and theism are synonymous, but any serious study of the history of religion will show this simply isn't true. People from Asia and the Indian subcontinent generally know this, people from Europe and the Americas generally don't.

As for my church, well, I am a pantheist, personally, but my church is Unitarian Universalist. We have been happily accepting theist, atheist and agnostic members since the late 1960s. Every UU congregation has its own unique flavor, but there are many thousands of them all over the world, so it's usually not hard to find one that works for you. Some strongly emphasize the exploration of religion, philosophy and spirituality, some don't; nearly all are active in social justice issues such as fighting ignorance, slavery, racism and injustice.

That is implied because the reason it is widely accepted is because it was established long ago. People tend to snicker and think the newer religions/sects are pretty wacky. Such as the mormons and rastafarians but these religions were created in the same way the established ones were, just newer. I have seen many long thought out reasons as to God's existence but never a self consistent one or one that stands scrutiny. You have never indicated one either.

If they were created in the same way, surely you could show us some historical or archaeological evidence of that? (And you will note, once again, I never said the new ones were wrong. What if the rastafarians are right?)

If I am to provide an example, I can and will. But I doubt you will agree. So first, I must ask, can you demonstrate your ability to think from another point of view? If you can't, I will be wasting both your and my time.

"God does not exist" is not crafted to offend one party of the debate if the topic is "the existence of God". If it is then any statement claiming God exists is equally crafted to offend non-believers (and I really don't think that's the case).

"believing in "God" is *precisely* as irrational as believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns - no more, no less." Is crafted to offend. And that is what was posted originally. Again, kindly stick to what I was saying, not what you think I was saying. Thank you.

Perhaps you missed my caveat? I put it there specifically because I knew you would claim there is no "proof" that magic doesn't exist. I listed the base assumptions that I would think lead to a theistic conclusion. I can't possibly think up every assumption you might find to lead to theism. And it is your burden as you claim the assumptions exist. Want another one I just thought of? "Life could not have started without God". We have seen the mechanisms that create the basis of life occur; no God required.

I actually meant the assumptions that you claim have been proven wrong, not all assumptions. But to address that first one, don't tell me you've never heard of the argument of first causes? Sure you may not need god(s) for the big bang, but you can't prove that.

I understand the viewpoint you are trying to make quite well and I have encountered it many times before. Never make a claim that is testable or observable, hand wave about how someone, sometime made a good argument. Claim religion/god deal with topics outside science so therefore their assertions do not require evidence.

Well, lets see your scientific reason (with proof please) for the purpose of the existence of the universe. "There is none" is not an acceptable answer since it effectively dodges the question, and misses the point that "why does the universe need a purpose?" is also philosophy.

And the newtonian would be wrong. Testably wrong, reproduceably wrong and objectively wrong. They might be "close enough" that at a small scale their beliefs still work but they will never be "right". They've already been proven incorrect (I suppose I should thank you for that analogy).

Who says in the analogy newtonian represents my POV and not yours? What if it was untestable?

But I can assure you, a religious framework predicts the state of the world better than you'd think.

Excuse me? Care to explain what that even means?

Sure. All religions must explain the current state of the world. Including for example suffering. Whether it is sin/redemption, karma or simply satan running around, they all answer this question. Additionally most include a rational god/set of gods who create a rational universe, even if from time to time they interfere.

Additionally most religions I have seen consider science a valid way of studying the universe, while the universe contains predictable phenomena, r

But I can assure you, a religious framework predicts the state of the world better than you'd think.

Excuse me? Care to explain what that even means?

You seem to be under the impression I am here to prove God(specifically the Judeo/Chistian God)? I am not(and never said I was), I am here to point out that belief in gods/God does not automatically imply irrationality. Your inability to see that is unsurprising, but disappointing. If you wish to argue the existence of God, I suggest you go elsewhere.

I was only ever challenging the assertion that theistic belief doesn't imply irrationality. That a theistic conclusion means a logically flawed assumption somewhere in the mix. Your inability to see that is unsurprising, but disappointing.

> The principal of science is that you seek truth through observable, repeatable experiments.
That is only _one_ way to seek truth. The ignorance of Scientists is that they believe there is only the _logical_ way to understand truth.

> except for Noah, his sons, and all of their spouses along with two of each animal is ludicrous.
Only a spiritual idiot would try to read "Holy Scripture" in a literal fashion. Contradictions and Absurdities were _intentionally_ placed so one couldn't do this.

> Religions claim to "know" things and require absolutely no proof at all other than faith; which is belief without evidence.
Every scientists has just as much faith as the religious person. You have faith in the _process_ of Science that it will lead you closer to the truth.

> Does all of this mean God doesn't exist? No. Its just that there is no evidence for me of them existing,
FTFY. Just because _you_ haven't found evidence, doesn't mean there is none.

Both Theism, and Atheism are based on total ignorance of God. Only the gnostic/mystic _knows_ God. By definition.

the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human master-minding!

And it goes on to say "only god could create a pencil" because no man could create a pencil by himself because it is too complex a task, mining zinc, milling wood, logistics etc.. It's not an endorsement of god or theism or whatever you think it's about. Maybe if you took of the anti-religion/communist zealot hat for a while, quit acting like a sophomoric boob and read the essay you might actually learn something.

Actually, it might work better to phrase it something like: Atheism isn't a belief; it's a non-belief. Something can't be both a belief and a non-belief at the same time.

A non-belief in the manner you pose is just a fancy way of saying a belief in not-X. For example, Theism is a belief that there is not no god(s). An actual non-belief would be something more like a non-conception; something that someone never thought of before thus can't form a belief about. i.e. babies have lots of non-beliefs about politics.

What you are demanding, is that atheism be favored over any other theism.

So far as I can see, he's not asking that "In God We Trust" is replaced with "In No God We Trust". He's asking that the phrase is removed entirely. I don't see how that is favoring atheism over religion; while it's clear that the original phrase is favoring monotheistic religions over everything else.

Atheism is a belief. You believe that there is no God, and no gods. Theism is a belief that there is a God, or that there are gods. Neither position is provable. But, you demand that people believe as you do, and that the government respect your belief more than other beliefs. And, "vacuum is a gas" is a totally irrelevant non sequitur.

Which religion? WHICH ONE?

Basically any and all branches of monotheism.

Read the damned sentence as it was written, not one single phrase. No laws that respect any religion, no laws that create a state religion, no laws that will favor one religion over another.

Ok now, I guess you are reading a different sentence than I am, because none of those statements are anywhere in the entire bill of rights much less the 1st amendment.

What you are demanding, is that atheism be favored over any other theism

So, this sounds like you are one of those people who thinks that atheism is a religion. Just like vacuum is a gas.

Which religion? WHICH ONE? Right back at you, McFly. Read the damned sentence as it was written, not one single phrase. No laws that respect any religion, no laws that create a state religion, no laws that will favor one religion over another.

What you are demanding, is that atheism be favored over any other theism. Now, is that clear enough for you, McFly? You're a hypocrite, because you demand that government respect YOUR beliefs, instead of anyone else's beliefs.

No, seriously, fuck you.

Theism doesn't provide any kind of basis for morality -- look in any holy book and you'll see that plain as day. Assuming you agree(*) with that proposition, how do can you explain the fact that humans are apparently better at deciding moral truth than $GOD?

(*) Otherwise, you'll essentially be endorsing slavery, mutilation of girls/boys/etc. etc. (Your holy book may contain small differences, but they're basically the same misogynist, homophobic bullshit.)

I know a fair number of forms of attempt to provide a functional basis for one's ethics outside of theism, and a fair number of the issues with them.

Pretending that theism is a basis for morality is a problem unto itself, as we've seen throughout history.

Whether or not you think my basis is "made up", this at best, if you were correct, would mean that -neither- of us have any justification for claiming rights, or forming any useful consensus, because then one's ethics would be entirely subjective and arbitrary. If so, well, then back to my original question--if they are subjective, how would my subjective choice to be overtly hostile toward you be in any way demonstrably less-correct than the default of me not being, which you've learned to expect, and probably require, solely because a cultural ethics you benefit from by default, while you do nothing to support them, when not actively attacking the only basis for them that's "on the table"?

Wow, I guess you can think when you try. You've now discovered the true cause of much of the conflict in the world. Not everyone's subjective morality is compatible, and in cases where it isn't, not everyone is tolerant of that. We may largely agree on many things, but we all make somewhat different exceptions to the rules, and carve out special circumstances all over the place. Our rights are only what we can defend.

I'm basing that claim on the fact it's actually quite difficult to justify one's ethics in terms of their metaphysics, and the fact that on the face of it the contrary stance to mine doesn't have such a justification to demonstrate, by the very nature of a naturalist metaphysics. The claim is further supported by the fact you, and the poster I was replying to, were directly asked to provide yours, and didn't. Feel free to remove this support by justifying your stance, rather than evading the question.

I know a fair number of forms of attempt to provide a functional basis for one's ethics outside of theism, and a fair number of the issues with them. I'd like to know if you have something better, or anything at all.

Of course, I would argue that my metaphysical basis for rights isn't "made up", and we can go there if you like, but the core point here is it doesn't matter for the argument at hand. Any arguable basis is better than nothing at all, as having nothing at all is tantamount to just denying you have any such thing as "rights" or other core ethical attributes. I'd actually prefer you to say you have not the slightest idea what provides you with rights, but you acknowledge some justification is needed even if you aren't going to provide it, than just completely defaulting on the question.

Whether or not you think my basis is "made up", this at best, if you were correct, would mean that -neither- of us have any justification for claiming rights, or forming any useful consensus, because then one's ethics would be entirely subjective and arbitrary. If so, well, then back to my original question--if they are subjective, how would my subjective choice to be overtly hostile toward you be in any way demonstrably less-correct than the default of me not being, which you've learned to expect, and probably require, solely because a cultural ethics you benefit from by default, while you do nothing to support them, when not actively attacking the only basis for them that's "on the table"?

Dream on.

Again, everything I said, precisely accurate, precisely correct according to theism, precisely correct according to basic mathematics.

When you have those 64 examples, let me know. Until then, you have billions against you. And, of course, as you know, I never claimed I would "abandon" it, only that it would require me to reevaluate some core assumptions.

Don't even try to convince me of of "defying God". What I -know- by direct experience of such isn't going to be ludicrously dissuaded by the tortured equivocations of a random Anonymous Coward.

And, I disagree with Young Earth Creationism as well. I'm definitely OEC.

My response had a specific context, regardless of what you might make up that the context was. The clear notion was the construction of a False Dichotomy Fallacy presenting science as the exclusive valid means of acquiring knowledge. I presented a challenge to the application of scientific methods in response. No, in no way am I suggesting religion is the only approach, and thereby falling for the False Dichotomy I was arguing against.

It is a remarkable prediction. Theists have the flexibility of allegorical interpretation, naturalists do not. The figure was given, thousands of years in advance, and has held correct with specifically the digits of accuracy offered. With only one possible try. This is a major difficulty to explain, it is not a case of random guesses being provided and one happening to hit. It is, quite simply, very significant evidence.

You're just dancing around two positions, neither of which you will take, to semi-address issues you alone know in the face of compelling evidence you have directly at hand. You seem to want to semi-accept theism, or something... fine. The remarkable nature of the prediction remains just as remarkable as it is.

The room gets positively chilly the moment the words "macro" or "micro" are brought up. Because guess what? Even if those terms were appropriated from actual biology, they have long since fallen out of use precisely because they have been appropriated.

I'm curious--how would you propose I differentiate this "chilliness" from abject awareness in the "other side" that their argument is erroneous, and psychologically preparing to equivocate and dissemble and misrepresent the (perhaps more reasonable) positions of -their own field-?

Apart from the wider discussion, I find this fascinating. You precisely describe -the very definition- of symptoms of evasion, and present that as your evidence they are comfortably correct.

I conclude "the way they act is obvious evidence of misrepresentation", you conclude "the way they act is obvious evidence of their truthfulness", with -the exact same- input. Is it possible we both can actually honestly believe these diametrically-opposed positions? An interesting sideline discussion, someday...

But anyway...

As for what I believe, though of course irrelevant to a -scientific- discussion of the questions at hand, it wouldn't matter at all to the viability of my overall worldview. To me, like a car factory, designing a system that produces an entity is equivalent to designing the particular end result. There's little conceptual difference between me saying "individual biological forms were designed" and saying "the process that produced individual biological forms, evolution, was designed". The questions of particular acts of design applying to particular biology would be fascinating from a -scientific- perspective, however--precisely as we see people trying to ensure we never investigate this, and thereby damage science, on the supposed behalf of science.

I have no need to find "gaps", because my worldview works equally well with or without "gaps". This was just something that Dawkins wanted to make up about theism to fit an argument he was prepared to type something about for some book-cash. Not actually true at all.

Obviously, God can determine and make his own exceptions. The entire history of Judaism did not miss what you hope to be a contradiction a few paragraphs apart.

Nonetheless, we have clear, quantifiable evidence of what the case is -outside- of such stated exceptions.

Billions of cases, in fact.

As far as what is more probable, setting aside your vastly wrong (and intentionally wrong) description, theism is more probable by virtue of being a fact. The fact I personally know it to be a fact through direct empirical means, is not altered by anything you do, or do not know.

In general, on any given topic, you not knowing something does not give you the psychic ability to know nobody else on the planet does either. Claims like this are -always- epistemologically invalid.

> I wasn't arguing against any points you made.
Read again:
me: ...Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe".
you: "I don't believe" is not enough when you actually want to take an active stand...

So, if you were eating an apple and saying that it tastes funny for an apple, tasting and looking more like an orange, and I came along and pointed out that you are actually eating an orange - I'd be arguing against your point?
I just pointed out a simple misconception you were working with there.

Arguing would be me claiming that it is NOT enough for ATHEISTS to say "I don't believe".
Pointing out that those are not the atheists you are looking for does not argue any of your points.

The strawman: "anti-theism" because of crimes committed in the name of religion (are you "anti-math" because of financial frauds?), the circular reasoning: No god/s exist, therefore worship is "a decision" by early men.

How is explaining ones stand/belief on the subject a strawman?
Are you saying that antitheists don't actually favor taking an active stand against religion for all those reasons I mentioned originally?
And not just "because of crimes committed in the name of religion" - that would be like being against death penalty because electric chairs use up valuable electricity.

You know... a highly limited and specific example of one aspect of negative effects of a phenomenon that has far greater and wider range of negative effects and influences on society and humanity in general.

Also, THAT what you did there - that is a straw man argument.

the circular reasoning: No god/s exist, therefore worship is "a decision" by early men.

For someone who apparently can't tell a strawman from explanation of a misconception you are quite adept at using them.

If anything, your "definition" should say something like:

There is no PROOF that god(s), by any definition of god(s) that does not also define superheroes, exist.
BUT the abundance of various gods in human cultures who could be influenced by prayer/sacrifice indicates instinctive human tendency towards worship in order to secure favors from supernatural beings, while at the same time huge discrepancies and differences among AND WITHIN religions, gods and their associated myths proves that every single one is simply made up by humans.
Therefore there are strong indications that worshiping is an instinctive reaction by the more primitive parts of the human logic/mind, as an attempt to answer to uncertainties of existence and life and provide some protection from them - by trying to gamble and haggle with the universe for favorable results.
Kinda like five stages of grief - only stopping at "bargaining".
Ergo, every religion and every god humans ever worshiped was invented by humans - proof of that is in the fact that every single religious text is riddled with logical and plot holes and falls apart with mere introduction of an inquisitive five-year-old in the equation.
That is if you need more proof than the fact that bargaining with the universe does not work - you can't pray away gravity when falling from a roof.

THAT would make sense from an atheist or antitheist point of view. Also, that would no longer be circular logic.
Yours is, because it is a strawman.

There is no "deciding" in deity-worship-in-order-to-secure-favors, no more than there is deciding in love. It's an instinctive reaction. Like vomiting when anxious.
But, as we are smarter than the average bear, we want to logic-out the world around us.
We NEED the world to be logical, with OUR logic, which is favorable to US - so we invent logic that will fill for us all those scary "holes in the world".
We take that instinct and make into a tool to control the world around us.

And what better tool for that than an all powerful anthropomorphic being which created and controls everything?

> I wasn't arguing against any points you made.
Read again:
me: ...Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe".
you: "I don't believe" is not enough when you actually want to take an active stand...

The strawman: "anti-theism" because of crimes committed in the name of religion (are you "anti-math" because of financial frauds?), the circular reasoning: No god/s exist, therefore worship is "a decision" by early men.