Steven Carr

No, you mean factual evidence. You have no factual evidence.

Or do you think scientific evidence and factual evidence are different things?

Gawdawful

While I will not convince you with what I think about this, I will say that atheism has no doctrine, no mission, no dogma, and really no fellowship. To adopt the view that there is or most likely is no god or gods is a lonely position to take, it is to swim against the tide, not the easiest path to take. Why would one make a choice that can and would alienate friends, relatives and neighbors?
I disbelieve in psychics for the same reason I disbelieve in gods, no convincing evidence.

Emphasis mine. In #1., who told you to pray? If is was God, as in #2., how was this communicated to you? In example #3., how was your wife "instructed"? Be specific, please.


Warrenokie

nessa20x

quote:
To me it's simple: either God is true or He is false. From the evidence I have, He is true

There is no way to prove that a god exists or doesn't exist, or that supernatural beings exist or don't exist.
However some people believe in things that aren't backed by any sort of evidence, and others don't. I don't believe in psychics because there is no evidence to prove they are true. In experiments, psychics statistically fail. I also don't believe in gods because there is no evidence to support that belief. Evidence doesn't come from written texts, miraculous but unreproducible events,... it comes from repetitive, testable, observable phenomena.

No scientist would put forth a hypothesis that was untestable. Supernatural beliefs are untestable. So I don't believe in the supernatural world because it is an untestable and undefineable world that is, therefore, not supported by evidence. Maybe there is a god, maybe there are griffins, maybe there are ghosts, maybe there was something before the singularity of the bigbang. However there is no evidence to support any of this...therefore until evidence is presented, tested, verified, and retested, I won't believe in these things. They are non-issues, and only exist in the incredibly creative human mind.

blindwatchmaker

4God, you are putting up a brave fight, but unfortunately logic and reason are not on your side and without them, you are bound to lose this debate(That and the fact that you are rather unfairly outnumbered! )

Forgive me if I sound patronising, but the main basis of your argument (that lack of belief in god is a religion) is simply untrue. No matter how you turn it around, rearrange the words or desperately hope, it is still untrue. Several others have already said this but I feel it's so important it needs to be repeated: The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

Also, please give a clear (logically sound) reason why you believe that the millions of muslims who say Allah has answered their prayers (and believe the validity of their experiences as much as you do) are all wrong. What criticism can you apply to their beliefs which does not apply to your own?

The problem with religious beliefs is that many are mutually exclusive. Therefore by definition, any religious belief is statistically likely to be false.

A Hindu person will claim that their beliefs are backed up by historical evidence, as you do.

They will say that they too have "spoken" with their god.

They will claim the same flaws in your beliefs that you do in theirs.

Is it really not possible that what you interpret as evidence for your beliefs is not as solid as you think? I'm sure you're quite happy to suggest that for all the Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Mormons etc

Incidentally, the website you pointed to in your earlier post is full of lies and false accounts designed to deceive people like you.

Doesn't that make you angry? Don't you think you deserve to be told the truth when you ask for it? It is a verifiable FACT that almost every web site or publication by Christians that deals with scientific issues such as creation or evolution presents a false version of the real theories that they can tear down. This is called a Strawman version. The reason they do this is because the real theories are not vulnerable to their arguments. They claim to use science to defend religion but they are using lies.

Many ex christians that I have spoken to, say the thing that finally made then deconvert was realizing that they had been lied to all this time. If you explore what I'm telling you further, you will realize that it's true. I guarantee it.

If I could prove to you that websites such as origins of the universe .com are lying to you and misprepresenting the scientific position in order to keep you happy, quiet and faithful, would you not feel a bit cheated? Would you consider reading some non biased sources? Please answer this question as it is an easy thing for me (or anyone else here) to prove.

Best wishes

BW

4God

please do.



-this is true. It is statistically unlikely that I will win the lottery. Doesn't stop many from playing. Like Ray Charles says, "where else can you buy a dream for a dollar?" Point is the statistical probability of an occurence(or truth) does not make it false. It was/is highly unlikely that life would form, but it did happen. Are we false?

again, please do. I'd love to take a look at "unbiased" websites you may know of. Also, i hear this word "strawman" alot. I have found it here and also at "christian" scientific websites. Interesting that both positions often times call the others rebuffs to theories - strawmen. A website i've been at for about an hour is

http://www.talkorigins.org

would you say this is an unbiased forum to learn more about evolution? If not, i justed wasted an hour of my life.Also, do you know of any creationism websites that are unbiased, or all are such websites biased? I'm hoping you say no and have checked out a site for your own personal education.

steven
as i'm sure you're aware science is the interpretation of facts.

science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
..from...http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

so yes there is a difference as factual evidence can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I presented my prayers(fact: i did utter words requesting something) and the answers(some time after these words are uttered events occured corroborating the prayer). These are FACTS. How you and i interpret them would be called science.

orpheus

You also stated that atheism is not a positive claim. So, are you saying that since it is not a positive claim(such as there is a sun) it must not prove itself?

From an atheist anonymous site...http://www.geocities.com/atheist_anon/terms.htm
...ok let me use a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

The website says atheism is a neutral claim. the dictionary seems to indicate vis a vis "dis" a negative claim. It would seem that evidence would be needed either way to suggest that there is no God. Just seems to me that one would need to know why one disbelieved that a being existed. You'd need some reason to state there is no God? If you don't have to, why not, given that most of the world believes there is at least a god(s) and that science does not rule out or confirm that possibility. Is it that you have deemed the question "meaningless"?

But how is it meaningless to ask a question that naturally follows "How did life begin on earth?" I guess in answering how life began if there is no intelligent designer then there is no need to ask "if there is a god" and thus by your description of life's formation of earth you answer the second question and it doesn't follow naturally to even consider it. Let me know if I'm even in the ballpark on this one.

In such way, that would make atheism a non--religion because it never asks the question. It never asks the question because the answers to prior questions do not lead to a logical progression to such a question.

That leads me to this question...why didn't that happen for humans? Why did we ask such a question?

...getting really theoretical here......

..as for my name- it's Don and last i checked it was the 96th most common name in the us.


...simple answer, no. He likes people to come to Him out of their own free-will. He does not want to "force" them into it.

one last to orpheus...atheism could be a religion. It's simple: you go to "church" and sing "there is no god." You go home. Anything can be made into a religion. IMO all anything needs to be a religion is participants willing to "worship" something/idea/mindset.

worhsip:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=worship
The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.

the object here being the fact that there is no god.....just some food for thought. atheism can certainly not be a religion within these terms...though i still think it is a religion, based upon other terms...which i could expound upon in a different thread.



As has been pounded into my skull since arrival to this site-happiness does not equate truth when that happiness comes from self-delusion. I only mean to counter the prevailing winds of "god ain't real" and "what you feel is self-delusion" with the same on the flip-side, if that makes sense. It is not meant as a personal barb against you in any way.

=======================================

A final thought-evolution has nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of God. Evolution doesn't confirm or deny God, so how have many of you come to your atheistic views?

Gawdawful

You got that right.


As for atheism being a positive or a neutral claim (BAD ANALOGY WARNING):

If I were telling you that there are invisible blue giant squirrels living in the woods behind my house and you deny there is because such a claim makes no sense to you, who has the burden of proof for such a claim? You wouldn't because you aren't the one making the claim, only denying one. If an atheist says he disbelieves in god or even denies the existence of god (doesn't matter), why would it be up to the atheist to prove there isn't something he says doesn't exist?

However, I can understand why the theist might think differently about that. It would be the same as me coming to you saying I had a factory stock metallic pink 1964 Pontiac Tempest and you deny one that color existed even though I showed you a brochure I printed off the internet that showed that particular color was available in 1964. I would then say that it did exist because it's in the brochure. The publication aside, in order for me to concretely prove there is such thing to your satisfaction, I might have to come up with evidence sufficient for you to believe me. Again, I'm making the claim, not you. You don't have to prove a thing.


Warren

P.S. The actual color was Firemist Red (pretty darn pink-looking to me).

Jeremy_the _Atheist

A strawman is a misrepresentation of the opponents view point. The opponents view is represented in such a way that that it looks ridiculous and so is easier to knock down than the real think. It's a 'straw man' as opposed to a real man.

The point is that so-called "Creation Science" presents a version of evolution that no evolutionary scientist actually subscribes to. On the so-called "creation science" websites, they present a bogus version of evolution and then present arguments that disrove that bogus version of it.

The Talkorigins website presents the way that the theory really works. I don't think that the word 'bias' really applies here. If I tell you that I subscribe to X and that X is my lifes work, then you can generally trust that my explanation of X is going to be accurate. It's going to be more accurate than an oppenants explanaiton of X.

Right now, I suggest that you forget about the way that so-called "Creation Scientists" present evolution and focus on learning on how evolution REALLY works. Then look at the evidence.

cricket

Hi 4God; welcome to the neighborhood. I've been enjoying 'your' thread. Doesn't stop people from playing or from hoping but it does stop people from *believing* they will win. So how does this relate to your religious beliefs?

An interesting comment, coming from a creationist. (do you think it was unlikely that your God created us? Did He waffle about it; almost didn't do it; hmm?)
However likely or unlikely that life would form, we know for sure it did.
But how does this explain your belief in Christianity? How does this relate at all? You admit that most religious beliefs are unfounded. So how do you grab onto your long shot and manage to firmly believe it?

cricket

It's not that I 'came to' this view; it's that I was unable to shake it no matter how I tried. Always felt this way.

blindwatchmaker

please do. (Show that creationists present a strawman version of evolution)

It is very easy to demonstrate that the creationist version of evolution is not the "real" one but it requires a small investment of time on your part.

What you really need to do is read a book that explains how evolution works and you will see that it is different from what the creationist propaganda sites tell you.

An excellent book that will leave you with no doubt is "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.


It is statistically unlikely that I will win the lottery. Doesn't stop many from playing. Like Ray Charles says, "where else can you buy a dream for a dollar?"

That is correct. You have proved my point. Nobody believs by faith that they will win the lottery.
They might hope and pray for it but because it is so unlikely, a belief that it will happen is likely to be untrue. (Incidentally, Ray Charles was right. Christianity and other religions are a dream, but they will cost you much more than a dollar)

Point is the statistical probability of an occurence(or truth) does not make it false.

This is also correct. But it does make believing it by faith stupid.

I'd love to take a look at "unbiased" websites you may know of.

For a start, please look at the following article.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...49809EC588EEDF

It was published in Scientific American which is an entirely impartial publication that would be one of the first to publish an article debunking evolution if such evidence arose.


Also, i hear this word "strawman" alot. I have found it here and also at "christian" scientific websites. Interesting that both positions often times call the others rebuffs to theories - strawmen.

There is a very simple way to determine whether a theory is a strawman version or not. Read a version of the original theory. (ie a version by someone who believes it). Then read the opponents version. If the opponents version is different to the original, then it is a strawman.


A website i've been at for about an hour is

http://www.talkorigins.org

would you say this is an unbiased forum to learn more about evolution? If not, i justed wasted an hour of my life.Also, do you know of any creationism websites that are unbiased, or all are such websites biased? I'm hoping you say no and have checked out a site for your own personal education.

The site you mention does not misrepresent the creationist position does it?
Obviously any site promoting a particular point of view is going to be biased towards that view. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the bias doesn't lead the site to make dishonest or misinformed statements about the opposing view.

I have looked at many creationist websites and have no problem with them being biased. What I have a HUGE problem with, is them using factually incorrect statements to back up their claims. This is not bias. It's called dishonesty and I suspect that Jesus wouldn't have approved of such a tactic.

If I posted a website declaring that "Creationism can't be true because all creationists believe that the Earth is made of cheese and clearly that is ridiculous", it would not be a fair representation of the creationist position. It would be a strawman version, and any creationist would have every right to criticise me for doing so.

This is exactly what many creationists do. The thing is, they do it in a very sneaky and insidious way. Many of their sites and books are filled with what appears to be science that looks and sounds really credible, but upon examination turns out to be nothing but hot air, totally unsuported by real evidence and in many cases utterly meaningless. This is a very cynical tactic, because unless someone has a science background, it is very difficult to tell the nonsense pseudo-science made up rubbish from proper science. They count on this in order to convince people like yourself that what they are saying has validity.

Let me illustrate my point.


Scientific quote 1:

Combine the spin-2 particle called the graviton, which carries the gravitational force, with certain other new particles of spin 3/2, 1, 1/2 and 0. All these particles could then be regarded as different aspects of the same "superparticle," thus unifying the matter particles with spin 1/2 and 3/2 with the force -carrying particles of spin 0, 1 and 2. The virtual particle/antiparticle pairs of spin 1/2 and 3/2 would have negative energy and and so would tend to cancel out the positive energy of the spin 2, 1, and 0 virtual pairs.

Scientific quote 2:

The increase in entropy within the system, results in a negative flow of charged particles from the nucleic to the non-nucleic. The amount of energy released by this process is proportional to the rate at which new particles are re-combined. The overall effect can be seen as a "shift" towards a higher energy state for the entire system(providing it is closed).

One of the above statements is from a well known scientific text that is accepted as "fact" throughout the world.

The other one, I made up. It is meaningless twaddle.

Someone with an understanding of physics could probably tell which is which, but I would guess that the majority of people who belive what they are told by creationist web sites couldn't tell which of the above is real science and which is nonsense. It is easy to blind people into thinking you know what you are talking about and that's why creationists win over so many gullible people.



A final thought-evolution has nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of God. Evolution doesn't confirm or deny God, so how have many of you come to your atheistic views?

I have come to my atheistic view by really looking objectively at the evidence for both sides and going with the most consistent, honest and convincing one.