GunnerJ

Examples, please? How do you ascertain that because their veiws were stated "forcefully," they imply universal agreement by all atheists? I've heard a lot of very "forceful" Muslim preachers, and I doubt they can claim to speak for you by this logic...

On the existance of god(s) forum, you rarely see atheists openly disagreeing... not surprising, really.

Interestingly, you previously treated the dissagreements shown in this thread as some sort of point, but now you seem to convey that the lack of disagreement works in favor of your arguement. It's almost like you're saying, "See? Atheists disagree with each other, so there's contradiction in Atheism... what's that? Atheism isn't a worldview with universally accepted tenents? But how come atheists disagree so seldomly?" Uhhhh... can you see a probelm here? I can, but I'm willing to grant that it might be a mistake on my part in interpreting what you're trying to say. If so, please show me how I'm wrong.

In addition, the fact that you may see little issue taken with the veiws of atheists by other atheists on this forum proves nothing, really. The Internet Infidels Discussion Boards does not have enough active members to be a good sample group for the opinoins of all atheists, and certainly not enough to make conclusions about the status of atheism as a "religion." In other words, could be all of us on this forum just happen to agree on certain things.

BTW, as I think was mentioned before, if you want to see atheists in disagreement, take a stroll through the Political forums.

GunnerJ

Actually, yes. I have a problem with asserting that (a) god(s) would have to prove him/her/it(/them)-sel(f/ves) through supernatural, or "miraculous" means. What, exactly constitutes "supernature?" How would we define it?

I think there are perfectly naturalistic ways for (a) god(s) to prove him/her/it(/them)-sel(f/ves). For example, I remember a poster's random number generator challenge. He asked theists to pray to their god(s) to give them a 32-digit number. He then promised that if a random number generator produced that very number, he would commit to the theist's religion. This is, too me, a pretty good example of a way (a) god(s) could prove him/her/its(/their)-sel(f/ves) without what might be called "miraculous" events.

Of course, if the Bible predicted that we'd find a pulsar that flashed out the first commandment in morse code, that would be good too!

Doubting Didymus

Actually, that is exactly what I mean by a miraculous event: something that could not possibly have any explanation other than god. I don't like your random number generator challenge, because there are too many opportunities for someone to committ fraud.

The most important thing that I think would have to be part of gods self proof would be that he shows which god has been proven, and what his commands to us really are.

Suppose that some theist passes the number generator test. Which god is proven?

GunnerJ

Um... I don't think I mentioned anything about this standard...

I don't think such a standard is nessisary, actually. More on that below.

How so? The number is asked for over the internet. Assuming he programmed the RNG himself, and it's on a passworded laptop with no internet connection, how could the theist in question tamper with the results? (These are reaosnable precautions).

The challenge is for the theist to pray for their god(s) to send them a number. The number is, therefore, presumed to be the result of the theist's attempted communication with (the) god(s), if it matches.

Note that on the occasion that the number matches, the person who posted this challenge (the "tester") said that he would commit to the theist's religion. After all, it's possible that some other god(s) could have given the number to the theist other than the one(s) the theist believes in. But why advertise for a religion that does not represent the god(s) in question? Remember, the idea of talking about how god(s) could prove him/her/it(/them)-sel(f/ves) is the the god(s) want(s) to be believed in.

Of course, it's also possible that the number comes up by coincidence. But this is a 32-digit base-ten number; that's a 1-in-10^32 chance. A good deal of science is based on probability, and these a very good odds against accidental matching.

There are two details I forgot to mention, though. One, the original post stated that the tester would commit to the religion for one year. The rational behind this is that if some god(s) is/are endorsing a religion by telling believers to cast their vote for the lucky number, he/she/it(/they) have some interest in contacting the tester. Following the endorsed religion is thus a sign of good faith; if inspiring the right number is analogous to a letter, then joing the religion is analogous to sending a reply. If after one year, no more personal contact by the god(s) in question was made, then the tester will assume that either the god(s) doesn't care about his belief, or the match was a fluke.

Second, each theist would get one and only one guess.

I wish I could find the original post... can any moderators help me out?

Doubting Didymus

what I mean is that the miracle that I am after does not need to be supernatural. It just has to be somthing that does not have an explanation that excludes god. For example: if a picture of jesus is found on a tree trunk, the possible naturalistic explaination is the human psyche's tendencey towards anthropomorphy. If huge statistical improbabilities consistently occur when someone asks their god for it, I consider that to be a supernatural event, no?

I think your suggestion would be a good test, but imagine the hypothetical situation: a christian theist passes the test, thus proving that god exists. What do you, as an atheist, do? Apart from the fact that he exists, what has god revealed to you about himself? Will you think you are going to heaven, or to hell? this is why I think God must not only prove that he exists, but must also tell us what he needs from us, his creatures.

GunnerJ

Ah. I see. I think, though, that you could do this with quite a few suggested proofs. A VERY advanced alein civilization COULD be playing a prank on us with those Bible-quoting pulsars, the RNG could just happen to match the theist's guess by accident, two independant speicies from different planets capable of mating would be evidence for design... but not nessisarily divine design.

As my endorsement of this test shows, I would consider it probable. But I have mentioned that there are non-theistic explanations for the matching numbers.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you should read more carefully. The test proscribes that given a match, the tester will commit to being a member of the religion of the theist's choice. The test is, essentially, tantamount to divine endorsement of a religion. This religion would, presumably, match the opinion of the god(s) in question on those matters raised. And while it's possible that the god(s) in question does/do not agree with the religion of the theist's choice, why would he/she/it(/they) endorse it by giving the theist the matching number?

Obviously, this could cause a conflict if all religions are wrong, and whatever god(s) exist(s) has/have a different plan for humanity than is prescribed by any religion. In this case, there is a way for the test to apply. There are, I would posit, many people who believe god(s) exist(s), but are seeking his/her/its(/their) will. If (the) god(s) want(s) the tester to know the one true path, which happens to be very different from what any rleigion prescribes, then he/she/it(/they) has/have only to explain to such an individual what the one true path is, and tell this person to call the tester and tell him a certain 32-digit number. The more people do this, the stronger the proof would be. The tester could then ask the caller what religion he speaks for.

Synaesthesia

But there's no such thing.You see, that just the problem with God.

Koyaanisqatsi

First, if you all don't mind, let me point out a minor quibble of mine (ironic, too, because of my dyslexia). The word is "tenets" not "tenents," which isn't even a word.

Yes, "we," as in our society. Surely you've heard of or at least seen the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind?" Perhaps you weren't aware that the title is derived from an actual, official classification system for UFO's (itself an official classification meaning "unidentified flying object")?

If memory serves, it goes something like this:

These were developed by NASA and the USAF for official classifications that in turn became part of the popular lexicon because of the movie, but they are nonetheless "real."

The point being, of course, that we set up hierarchical standards of "proof" all the time. The so called "scientific method" is entirely hierarchically based; a series of steps employing falsifiability, redundancy/repeatability, longevity, etc., etc., so that "we" can account for as many variables as possible in order to arrive at a reasonable standard of certainty, that inherently and tacitly accepts the overriding, ultimate fact that nothing is certain and everything mutable.

In other words, an open system consciously designed to account for as many variables as possible so that the kind of arbitrary, irrational conclusions theists draw do not occur.

"Universal?" What a silly paradigm and even sillier counter-argument, if indeed that was meant to be a counter-argument?

I never said anything about it being "universal" nor would there be any requirement for it to be "universal," but it certainly is an apt description of the hierarchical structure I was talking about.

In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," yes?



A trivial, if correct statement I suppose...

I made it up. It's called paraphrasing. I apologize for not spelling that out in BIG E Z 2 READ TYPE.

If it's that important to you, by all means...

Again, that would be perfectly paraphrased by the quote attributed to Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," so unless I'm missing something in your post, I fail to see what your problem is.

Why not? If you claim that an ineffable, incomprehensible, invisible creature called the Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo factually exists in a "supernatural" realm and this creature created the universe ex nihilo in order to punish us eternally for not obeying him, for example, don't you agree that the level or standard of evidence to support such a claim should be rather high for any intelligent person to accept it (discounting here, for the sake of argument, the fact that this kind of belief is normally simply inculcated from birth onward as a means to secure its blind acceptance and therefore not offered "in a vacuum" for said intelligent person to assess without bias)?

Democritus theorized the existence of atoms some five thousand years ago and it wasn't until this century that their existence was conclusively demonstrated as fact.

Do you know how long it took for both the scientific community and the world in general to accept the idea that certain kinds of sickness were not caused by "humours" or "demons" or other such childish nonsense, but by microscopic creatures called "viruses" that lived by the billions in a tear sized drop of water?

Look at what is still going on with the Theory of Evolution! The evidence for it is so overwhelmingly in favor of it that one could in fact state that it is universally undeniable, yet people still deny it.

Regardless, what's the alternative you propose? That one need only make the claim big enough that everyone will simply believe it is true?

You know, somebody else made a very similar observation along those lines about sixty years ago in Germany....he had a mustache?

I guess I'm not quite sure what your argument is. Are you saying that extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence?

(edited for formatting- Koy)

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

AJ113

Doubting Didymus:

MIR - the Croatian word for peace is frequently seen written in the sky over Medugorje.

The sun frequently has been seen to go multi-coloured and spin wildly in the sky, viewable by the naked eye without harm.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: AJ113 ]</p>

AJ113

Koy:

When I said that your view is not universal, I meant that your opinion on this matter is different to other peoples'.