Lobstrosity

Well this is a silly thing to say. If scientific evidence pointed to a god, I would believe in that god, just like I believe in special relativity because scientific evidence makes a strong case for it. For example, if we find encoded in human DNA the message "Copyright © 4000 B.C., God Creations Inc., All rights reserved" I will instantly forsake the theory of evolution and thank god for making me. It wouldn't take much, you know. God supposedly made us in his image, which means we have an intelligence that can comprehend other human-like intelligence. Clearly God can muster a demonstration like this that would make his existence clear. If aliens in Contact can believably get us to recognize their intelligence and hence the fact that other sentient beings exist in this universe, so too can God. Atheists aren't people who refuse to believe in God at all costs, they are people who hold beliefs based on the logical implications of the objective evidence they are provided. If God exists, objective evidence will make this clear and then people will accept the existence of God just as they accept the existence of dinosaurs.

Hawkingfan

No you do not. That is where we must agree to disagree. It is illogical and unreasonable to suggest something to exist outside of the realm of science.

Hawkingfan

Excellent points. In other words, "apply Occam's Razor".

doodad

My answer to your last question is no, a figment of the imagination cannot do squat, either way. Having that in mind, what then is the point of your pointing out the negative things associated with God? It appears you have a fundamentalist background in Christianity and were taugh to interpret the bible verbatim. If you don't then where are you getting such ideas? I'm not wanting to criticize you or some of your fellow moderators who have come from a fundie background, but people with a fundie backround tend to be quite vocal and bitter about their disbelief and rejection of religious principles. Rightfully so, I would say, because they've been sold a bill of goods that just wasn't true as advertised. It's no wonder they wised up and walked away from it. I've been around you and two others on this site for maybe two years or so, and I have come to know a little bit about your previous religious experiences. Hey, I'd be the first to walk if someone threw a load of that stuff at me. People who swallow an extreme or bigoted view of religion are bound to take a hit someday because the facts of living just don't bear out their screwball beliefs. Some adjust and some reject their religion entirely.

Believers, i.e. some believers, idolize their God as a supreme being that has the o-o-o attributes and they don't want tainted merchandise so they choose to see him as perfect in every way and do not want to judge his actions. To me that's a form of rationalization or denial, but that's people for you. They've been sold a bill of goods and they are too proud to take it back. To do so would admit their ignorance or gullibility.

I guess my point is this. If god truly does not exist in the corporeal sense what is to be gained by speaking as if he did in order to point out the fallacy involved? Is it some sort of entertainment? If so, it's rather sadistic to me. Are atheists
needing to vent their frustration with the treatment they have received at the hands of bigoted believers? If so, I can understand that, but why such a massive effort from a relative small percent of the population. The home page speaks of the mission of the site, but I don't think you'll get there by employing such childish tactics.

People will tend to believe in something, be it a supernatural god or the tooth fairy, so I cannot see fighting it.
If their belief in God on the whole is more beneficial than not then let it lie and move on to something more constructive. Fighting a believer and his hangups is like trying to tell a football fan that his team isn't the best. He doesn't want to hear it, and fans can get pretty mean if you push them. The same goes for believers.

I post on a regular basis to some fundie forums, and it's an uphill battle to get those fools to even consider an alternate opinion of what scripture means, let alone convince them they only have half the picture. It amazes me that otherwise gifted and intelligent people can be so bull headed about their religious beliefs.

Kvalhion

People often appeal to Pascals Wager in this sense. They assume that they have nothing to lose; if religion is accurate, they get to go to heaven. If religion is not accurate, no harm done. Right?

Wrong. Try applying this principle to something outside of religion. Let's say you have a treasure map of Australia with a large red X in the middle of the map with a note saying "Riches beyond your wildest dreams!" next to the X.

According to your logic, you have absolutely nothing to lose by searching for this treasure. If the treasure exists, you will be rich beyond imagination. If the treasure doesn't exist, what have you lost? So you spend the remainder of your life seeking the treasure.

The most obvious answer is that you have lost precious time and resources in your quest. This is referred to as an opportunity cost: the cost of doing something is that you are not doing everything else. Thus the opportunity cost of playing a free game 18 hours a day is that you are not working, or exercising, or learning, etc.

When I look at all the religious dogma with rules and regulations of what someone who is a "true" Christian can and cannot do, I see a huge price to be paid to be a follower; a price I am not willing to pay.

Instead, I approach life with a free mind and no debts. That is reward enough for me.

theophilus

There is no such thing as "objective" evidence. Evidence is always evaluated against prior assumptions about the possibility of knowledge, the nature of reality, etc.

Modern science wants to restrict "evidence" to that which can be experienced by sensory aparatus. The problem with this, as with all empirical systems, is that there is no sensory experience which can validate this standard (forgetting that there is no "objective" evidence that our senses are reliable).

It is a mistake to think that all "things" are (or can be) proven in the same way, i.e., by sensory experience. What sensory experience validates the laws of logic?

Atheists must begin with a set of assumptions which they cannot prove and for which there is no "objective" evidence, e.g., their own existence, that all things have a naturalistic explanation, that their senses present them with a accurate data, and that their brain (there is no mind for naturalists) correctly interprets the data.

It's no good arguing that "shared experience" validates these assumptions, becuase experience is not shared, it is individual. All that can be "shared" is the report of an experience and that report, of course, must be filtered through the sensory apparatus and interpreted by the brain, which brings us back where we started

JCS

Really? Why do I have to assume anything about my existance?
If my assumption is potent enough to allow me to precive everything as real or reality, why can't I just assume a whole different reality on a different planet on a completely different plane of existance. Why is this assumed reality so limited in scope? If they are my set of assumptions why am I powerless to change them? Also if I really don't exist than who's assumption am I a part of?

Hawkingfan

There is too. Scientists universally agree upon what is evidence and what is not. They call it the Fundamental Quantities of Science (physics term). Examples are time (seconds), mass (kilograms), length (meters), temperature (Kelvin), electric charge (coulomb), magnetism, sound, light, mechanics, forces, work (force over distance), conservation. Everything in this universe is some form of energy. All matter (mass or energy) in this universe gives off electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths including visible light; and we can detect it objectively.
Not true. Some theories are based on mathematics alone. That is how black holes were first discovered. It wasn't until many years later they were seen in space. Calculus is the best tool we have at coming close to quantifying and gauging that whose existence is difficult to conceive otherwise (for example, infinity). Calculus can clarify/define relationships between things such as instanteous speed and area.
It is not a mistake to to think that everything in reality can be concluded to exist via the scientific method. Scientific abstraction (observation and mathematics) is irreplaceable when it comes to describing reality. In fact, it is completely idiotic to suggest that something exists outside of science.
[/QUOTE] What sensory experience validates the laws of logic?[/B][/QUOTE]
Taste, feel, smell, sound, and touch. Science and math.
No. Scientists begin with questions and no assumptions, a desire to know the truth about how the world we live in works. It is universally agreed upon what constitutes existence, and what does not as I said before. They do not only just use their own senses. Computers and technology do not have senses. The scientific method is unbiased. Experiments are designed with a control group so that results are objective.
The universally-agreed-upon Fundamental Quantities of Science are irreplaceable when it comes to defining existance. For instance, if someone said that an invisible rock sits on top of my computer, according to you, it is EQUALLY reasonable to say it really is there than to not. Because there is no such thing as "objective" evidence. That may be, but scientists universally agree that a rock as proven by the Fundamental Quantities of Science means that it will have mass, length, temperature, etc. and therefore, it is more reasonable to say it is not there. This is called using Occam's razor, a logical tool. Occam's razor realizes that there are millions of ways something can exist (proven or not), but we can only accept the one that makes the most scientific sense in order to be the most reasonable because no proven scientific facts would have to be re-written in order to believe that most reasonable choice.
It is universally accepted at what would constitute our own existance. It is agreed upon that a human being has mass, temperature, etc. Therefore, using Occam's razor, we can cut the nonsense that we don't really exist and conclude that we know that we exist as human beings because we have those quantities of science.
Same thing with god. The god in the bible has physical characteristics that would fall under the Quantities of Science (there is documentation of him being touched, felt, heard, and seen), yet he is not evident. The miracles Jesus performed fall under human perceptions (for example, making the fig tree wither). He said Christians would some day do things greater than himself, yet this has not happened.
Not true. There are apparatuses that detect things for us so that we can obtain objective facts (ie temperature).

theophilus

I didn't mean that only atheists have to do this. We all begin our thinking with certain "presuppositions" about ourselves and our existence.
Read my message again and tell me where you disagree. What is your "evidence" that you don't have such presuppositions?

Oxymoron

Assuming that this is true (and I'm not sure it is), does that invalidate evidence entirely?

It's not just a case of "either subjective or objective". It's a continuum. There are degrees of objectivity. You could be right, we might never get to true objectivity. But we can attempt to maximise objectivity. Interestingly, the approach that attempts to maximise objectivity by testing, prediction and evaluation is called... science. Anything that does not maximise objectivity via testing, prediction and evaluation is therefore less objective, which implies that science is as objective as you're going to get.