diana

But we can try. We've noted that you don't even try, and even that you're quite proud of that.

Also, you've been told countless times already that many of us began with the assumption that God exists and tried to believe it, which means that the assumption that God exists (the predisposition to belief or the "bias," as you like to call it) does not preclude intellectual honesty regarding the actual *evidence*.

The intellectually honest will respond to all arguments against their positions and seriously consider adopting the ones for which they have no answer. After all, we are all human and prone to mistakes. The only reason people avoid arguments against their position is fear of realizing they are wrong.

So. If most of us presupposed anything when we began our journey of interrogation, it was that God exists, thanks to the fact that most people, even today, are raised as at least nominal theists. However, we didn't stubbornly cling to that position when presented with myriad reasons to discard it.

That's the only real difference between you and us, I think.

d

David B

Here is another position. 'Hey, here I am, alive, so where did I come from, what am 'I' anyway, where did the world I live in come from, and what is it, anyway, what is the best way to live, Hmm - treat people as you would reasonably wish others to treat you, and do your best to find out what it's all about'.

I see no evidence that any god exists, or, if I were wrong about that, why it shouldn't be a deistic god rather than the christian or islamic.... sort of god.

So far, I've seen you fail to establish that the dating you ascribe to Daniel is foolproof, because there are counterargumets that seem to be plausible.

Unless the dates you ascribe to Daniel are more or less right, then the prophetic power of Daniel is thrown into question.

You have not established your dating of Daniel.

Therefore you have not established, as you claimed you would, that any sort of god exists, leave alone the biblical one.

Now - do you want to give up on this one, which you have lost, and see if you can establish the Noahchim flood, against the evidence?

David B

mdd344

DavidB,
Well, in fact, no one can really be an athiest. No one can know that God does not exist. People really are agnostic, they believe, based on the evidence, that God does not exist, but they cannot know it in the aboslute sense.

Those moral things you noted btw, cannot be explained by evolution.

As to the evidence, it is left up to the reader to decide. I am comfortable in the evidence I have read and studied. I am particularly comfortable in the fulfillment of prophecy that I can observe (Dan. 2/Acts 2).

mdd344

David,
Ironically, even those dating the book incorrectly at 165 A.D. still have failed to get rid of all the prophecy. Even if Daniel wrote in 165, the fact is he predicts things that would happen over 195 years later. They happened.

The predictive prophecy cannot be undone.

cjack

Well DavidB, do you see it now? Not only does mdd344 not plan to give up, because he believes he's actually won the debate, but he's apparently concluded that atheists don't even exist!

Talulah

Then I guess it reasonably follows that no one can be a Christian because no one can know in the absolute sense that God exists, therefore "Christians" really are agnostics.

diana

We've been through this before, but ok. Some people need repetition to infinity before they absorb even the most basic ideas (my students taught me this).

So. Again. Atheism isn't about what we know. It's about what we believe. (Agnosticism is about knowledge. If you claim to know God exists, then you are gnostic.) I, an agnostic atheist, do not know of any god's existence (that is, I am agnostic), and I do not believe in any god's existence (that is, I am also atheist).

Simple.

So you are...what? A gnostic theist? But wait...you cannot know anything about any god's existence either in the absolute sense (as that is the requirement you place upon knowledge of god or gods, which is fine with me). That makes you an agnostic theist. Yes?

d

Sauron

No, their purpose is the same.

David B

Dawkins addresses this very point in his recent book, and he agrees with the position I've held for many years.

What holds for the goose, holds for the gander. One can take the metaphysical view that, looked at very strictly, no-one can be certain of anything. Neither you, nor, I, can, under sufficiently strict criteria of proof, disprove solipsism.

But if no-one can be an atheist, and must needs be an agnostic, then by similar reasoning that makes you agnostic. And renders the whole concept of agnosticim redundant, since everyone would be agnostic.

You are not agnostic, though. You believe, on faith, that there is a god, and that the bible is true.

Neither am I. I think the evidence against gods in general, and the christian god in particular, and the literal biblica account of the christian god in even more particular, is strong enough for me to get off the fence, and be something more than agnostic.

Please specify which moral things, and make a case for saying that they are inconsistent with evolution. You are making the claim, so it's up to you. I will argue against you, since I don't think I've made any noral claim inconsistent with evolution.

Well, you have false comfort, IMV. But then, faith sucks. The 9-11 people acted on faith.

David B

Sauron

Then you admit to not being objective. Objectivity requires that you be willing to give up beliefs that cannot be supported.

Except you have been unable to show how the bible proves that. Every time you've tried, you have been badly embarrassed by people who are better acquainted with the evidence.

You are confused about what "objective" means. You use the bible as an absolute standard - but you are not using it as an objective standard. There is a difference in those two terms.

You also admit to not caring about evidence, unless it works in your favor. According to your position, evidence that works against you can be safely ignored. Given that approach, your claim that the bible "proves" anything is simply not credible.

No, your standard is your personal, circular belief about the bible. Let's be clear about the difference here. You've decided it is correct, not because of any evidence, but because you believe it is correct. You have placed yourself in a logic-proof box due to your fear of dealing with reality.