Shadowy Man

hastalavista2u

The only problem I have is with pure intellectual reasoning,is when people hold you guilty of some kind of crime just for having faith--as if i am in obstruction or contempt of natural human intellectual reasoning.
And thus should stand trial before some celestial tribunal heads of the Big Bang council?

The way I see it,I would actually have to close down a part of my thinking process in order to adopt a purely atheistic mindset.
And likewise,an atheist would have to literally open up a part of their conscious that they probably don't realize they even possess,or either simply don't care.
So who then is the more close-minded??

Let's face it,emotions are not a separate entity from normal brain functions.
The mistake some make,even Christians,is separating the "heart" from the intellect,
when they are one in the same.
Even faith itself originates as a thought or idea,but is strengthened and aided by the Holy Spirit.
(Don't ask me to explain,I'm not in the mood.)

But faith is not really an emotion,but could be seen as a product of intellectual reasoning.
Meaning,when I exercise faith in God's existance,
i am obviously reasoning that it is much more likely the best explanation for my own existance.
And it is not really the amount of reasoning that determines one's conclusion,but the pre-determined intent of one's heart,or emotional side of the intellect.
I could think on these things just as long and hard as the doubter,but still feel the same in the end.
Bottom line is that somehow,there seem to be two distinct classes or groups of human's as far as
basic thought processes go.

But isn't it more logical to assume that I came from Someone or something that possesses some of,if not all,of the my own distinct human traits,only in a greater measure?
Why should I conclude that the original source of my being has nothing to do with what I am biologically made up of.
All that is in the cosmos is foreign material and perhaps some strange lifeforms.
But maybe some scientists here could further enlighten me on this subject?

But my point is why should the burden of proof lie with me?
If I am so wrong for believing,then shouldn't an atheist be obliged to provide more convincing proof of the Big Bang or any other theory?
They seem to believe any explanation for creation other than a Creator.
Why is this the only one that doesn't make sense?
What universal truth or law ever stated that it is always best to believe only what your intellect can see or perceive?
Science has only been around a VERY short time,in comparison to billions of years of this earth,and perhaps infinite years of the universe!
But along comes this little,and I mean tiny,blip on the radar screen called Science,and all of a sudden EVERYTHING changes!?
Yes,I suppose we all know for a certainty that after so many ions we have finally progressed to the stage of mastering our own destiny.

Bottom line is what the secular world knows full well. Which is you will never change anyone's mind without proof to the contrary.
At least not a STRONG person's mind.
Religion is often used as a major reason to doubt in a compassionate God.
Yet even without it,the numbers of infidels would be even higher.
So why even the need for religion as yet another point in one's argument against Creationism?

Looking at it from another perspective--
what if sides were reversed,and it was the Secular society preaching to turn to unbelief or your soul will die.
Personally,I don't think it would bother me that much,as long as it was done in an orderly and non-threatening manner.
As long as I was still a Christian,I would view this as just another cult,albeit a very large one.
And one in which speaking out against it would do no good,as with all other SET belief systems.

It seems to me the only thing worth expending any effort into oppossing would be to a legitimate threat against my own life.
Makes me wonder then why all the opposition against Theism?
Surely,I could come up with some bad examples of Atheism gone bad.
Perhaps,if I dug deep enough I could come up with past incidents of atrocities commited by "alleged" Atheists,since they have probably conveniently omitted their own stance of
unbelief from any public historical records.
Or maybe it just wasn't considered important at the time?

But if the modern atheist doesn't care what others choose to believe,then maybe they could act that way?
And maybe live up to their own lofty reputation as noble,fair-minded,unassuming,and TOLERANT.
Of course I am only assuming there is this reputation that you all are striving to attain,while at the same time just being yourselves.
But your actions/attitudes must also coincide
with your aspirations,as many have readily pointed out in the many mistakes and sins of those like myself...oh,I forgot that sin doesn't exist?


[Note:Ironically,most of the posts here have been very tolerant,so far. So the same should go for all others regardless of beliefs.]

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Theitist ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

The response....."Ah, but WE have Jesus!"

Okay.....so.....

Mageth

Theitist, I agree with part of your last post, but there are a lot of problems with the rest of it. I'll only touch on a few here.

The way I see it,I would actually have to close down a part of my thinking process in order to adopt a purely atheistic mindset.

What part of my thinking process do you think I've shut down as an atheist? And what is a "purely atheistic mindset?" Never heard of it.

And likewise,an atheist would have to literally open up a part of their conscious that they probably don't realize they even possess,or either simply don't care.

What part of my consciousness would I have to "open up?" Merely because I've examined the evidence for god(s) and found insufficient reason to believe they exist doesn't indicate that there's a part of my consciousness I'm not using.

So who then is the more close-minded??

If by close-minded you mean that I refuse to believe something exists just because some people claim it does (and can produce no evidence for it), then I guess I'm close-minded.

Meaning,when I exercise faith in God's existance,
i am obviously reasoning that it is much more likely the best explanation for my own existance.

This is actually the part that I more or less agree with. I think that some do examine the evidence rationally and come to the rational (for them, anyway) conclusion that a god is necessary to explain existence. I've examined much the same evidence and rationally come to the opposite conclusion.

Now, getting back to closed-mindedness, I am ready, willing, and able to change my conclusion that it is highly probable no god(s) exist if I receive solid evidence to indicate that is the case. Most theists I know are not willing to change or even challenge their conclusion in spite of evidence that the universe and existence can be explained naturally without requiring god(s).

But my point is why should the burden of proof lie with me?

You claim the supernatural, so the burden of proof to prove the supernatural rides with you. People that believe in the supernatural (e.g. God) seem to have a strong interest in getting unbelievers to believe them (gotta witness, save their souls and all).

I claim naturalistic explanations for existence. Other than a general desire to have the world abandon superstition, I really have no stake or interest in changing the mind of any particular supernaturalist. You can believe what you want; my belief system doesn't condemn you to hell for your belief or lack thereof.

What universal truth or law ever stated that it is always best to believe only what your intellect can see or perceive?

Tell me how one can believe something one can't see or perceive with one's intellect? (And think about what that means - I would say that the God you believe in is one that you "perceive" intellectually. I "perceive" that God as well; whether that God actually exists or not is another question).

The Naked Mage

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Which is easier to do, assert with all your might that a Hebrew war god controls our destiny and then provide a compelling argument, or search the multiverse, and beyond, for some sign of the war god in a futile effort to discredit the claim?

Stop asking us to disprove your childhood delusions for you. Stop asking us to do your work for you. Stop being lazy. Think rationally on the subject for a change, Christian friends and neighbors.

The burden of proof will always lie on the individual making the positive claim.

JerryM

The Bible was written by a priestly class that wanted to maintain authority over the masses. The less the people would think for themselves, the more control religious leaders would have. The exhortation to favor faith over reason goes back to the Eden myth. What was the tree from which Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat? Of course, the Tree of Knowlege. Knowlege (of good/evil, or whatever) is a bad thing. Belief is good. That's the eternal message of religion.

Starboy

Douglas Bender:

Take my statement as a working hypothesis.

Starboy

Oxymoron

I am profoundly concerned with this line of argument. Sure, there is a thing such as Truth (capital T), it's just that we're broadly not party to it. But there is a good approximation, let's call it little-t truth, that can described as the set of all testable properties of the universe.

Science is just a precise refinement of testability, and so we can define a subset of truth to be "things that are scientifically true".
But testably true things can be statements such as "I am useless" (which I often accuse myself of being when I f**k up). Or "black people are inferior" (just to be clear, I absolutely DO NOT believe this)

The "no such thing as truth" argument disturbs me because it leads down to a world where we all have our own personal truths which are all equally valid no matter how nutty, immoral or depraved. Eg believing blacks are inferior.

The truth is important. Rational people value it, religious people (and paranormal believers) degrade it to the detriment of us all.

Starboy

Douglas J. Bender:

For you I will go slow and spell things out very carefully.

Most religions of the world and certainly Christianity in particular are founded on the acceptance of certain supernatural assertions. Even though in the case of Christianity these core assertions can be explained by natural means, in order to call yourself a Christian you must accept the supernatural explanation. That is the meaning of my first statement. Hence the statement:

Religious – accept supernatural explanations over natural.

Douglas J. Bender, this is a statement of fact and not an opinion.

The second statement is based on the common understanding of a rational explanation. In day-to-day life to explain an event by claiming a ghost did it, or that a gremlin broke it, is considered just plain silly. Anyone who honestly believed such things would be considered to be irrational. It is our custom to consider rational explanations to be based on natural causes. Thus the statement:

Rational – accept natural explanations over supernatural.

Again Douglas J. Bender, this is a statement of fact and not opinion.

Let us take the foundational belief of Christianity. The salient events are as follows:

1. Jesus nailed to cross.
2. Jesus considered dead and placed in tomb.
3. Next day tomb found open and the body of Jesus is found missing.
4. Several days later Jesus is seen walking the streets.

If for the sake of argument one accepts these events as facts, the question then is how can they be explained. To be a Christian you must accept the supernatural explanation that Jesus is god and that he was resurrected. But, there is an obvious natural explanation, Jesus was not god and just a person like any other and that he was not dead when he was taken from the cross. That evening he was removed from the tomb and revived, several days later after some recovery he was seen in the streets getting the hell out of Dodge. There have been other equally natural explanations consisted with the stated events. In any case, as far-fetched as the natural explanation may seem to you it is an all-natural explanation, and as such is infinitely more reasonable than the supernatural Christian explanation. Thus to be a Christian is to be irrational.

Starboy

DigitalDruid

Douglas,
So unless the economist claimed to have thoroughly studied fevers or astronomy you won’t treat him as an expert in those areas. So just because he is an expert in one area, you won’t automatically deem him to be an expert in others. That was my point too.

I agree that skills do transfer to varying degrees across related fields. But science and metaphysics (which was your example) seem too far apart. The two are different to such a significant degree that while metaphysics has been around for ages, science had to wait for its development until its methods and skills were refined and accpted. The way a scientists approaches a question is quite different from the way a metaphysician approaches it. The skills and tools they bring to bear are different too. I would think scientists would find their skills are not a good fit for the task of metaphysics and vice versa. Yes, a scientists can be good at metaphysics, but he would have to use a different set of skills. Skills transfer only across related fields. And then there is the question of familiarity with content too, not only general thinking and reasoning skills.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalDruid ]</p>