Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xeren · 01-07-2003, 11:57 AM

Unum, you single-handedly RUINED this thread with your unsupported non-sense.

Start another thread if you want to continue this, as it has almost nothing to do with the original post.

I'm telling thechort to ignore every post that has the word UNUM so that he can actually stay on topic.

Keith Russell · 01-07-2003, 01:29 PM

Greetings:

Geez, Unum.

Of course, if you want to say that 'God' is the universe, I'm not going to try to argue that 'God' (using that definition) doesn't exist.

(But, I still wonder what evidence you have that 'God' is something more than just 'the universe'.)

Keith.

Biff the unclean · 01-07-2003, 01:58 PM

Let's try to get back to the OP.
I think that we can immediately discard the notion that if people don't want to see evidence they wouldn't. That simply doesn�t match the human condition. I want to believe that I have a full head of lustrous hair but the evidence simply doesn't allow me to believe that.

Evidence is, after all, evident.

So if we are going with the assumption that a god created everything and we look at the evidence of it doing so we find none. If we look for the god itself we have no way of detecting it. When we look at nature, astronomy, biology, paleontology, etc. we find evidence that tells us that our god stories are in error.

We have to ask why this is? It couldn't be "free will." To hide the facts and to plant misinformation violates any thought of "free will." You can't make choices by free will if they aren't informed choices. Without information choices are reduced to mere guesses.

The only answer I can come up with--still assuming the existence of a god--is that the god doesn't want you to know about him. He must be hiding on purpose or he wouldn't have gone to so much trouble to cover his trail so completely.

This god, whose will we can see by his absence, would be much more likely to punish people FOR believing in him.

Keith Russell · 01-07-2003, 02:31 PM

Bill:

If one reads much about 'God'--any 'flavour' of 'God'--one soon realizes that this is exactly what the 'God' of most tales does...

Keith.

xeren · 01-07-2003, 03:27 PM

Okay, thechort is rather busy right now, and there are actually a few unanswered questions my discussions with him have brought up, so i am going to play a bit of a devil's advocate here:

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
I think that we can immediately discard the notion that if people don't want to see evidence they wouldn't. That simply doesn�t match the human condition.

What about when a person is not very attractive at all, yet they think they're hot shit, despite all evidence to the contrary? I remember when i was in high school, i had a face full of acne and i had yet to kiss a single girl. But i was convinced that every girl was secretly attracted to me, but to shy to come up and talk to me. I didn't want to see the evidence that I was flat out not attractive to girls in high school. The evidence was there, yet i did not see it.

I'm actually looking for someone to tell me how the belief that i was hot despite evidence to the contrary is different than belief that god doesn't exist despite evidence to the contrary.

Though with being attractive, there are lots of evidences for and against it, and those things add up to make you how attractive you are. Maybe you have beautiful eyes but a crooked nose, so that's one bit of evidence for and one against. I guess my question is, can the evidence for or against god's existence be added up in much the same way? And is this evidence really objective as you imply? Which brings me to the next quote...

Quote:

Evidence is, after all, evident.

So if we are going with the assumption that a god created everything and we look at the evidence of it doing so we find none. If we look for the god itself we have no way of detecting it. When we look at nature, astronomy, biology, paleontology, etc. we find evidence that tells us that our god stories are in error.

But is it all that evident really? Thechort will say that nature, astronomy, biology, and so on all quite obviously bear the thumbprint of god's design. You could say that they obviously don't, and I'll be the first to agree with you, but you can't deny that thechort sees it that way. It may be evident to me; when I look at the world it only continues to confirm my atheism, but when a Christian who believes god created everything looks at the world and sees what he believes to be god's creations everywhere, it only more and more strongly confirms his beliefs.

The same goes for the evidence of God's existence. When i look at the evidence for god's existence, i see only hearsay and tall tales, but when a christian looks at the exact same evidence, he sees that Jesus sacrificed his life for humanity. So evidence may be evident, but it is evident in different ways to different people.

Someone take me off of my high horse and show me where I've made an error in my view of the situation. This is somewhere i have been stuck for the last couple of days. Is there actually any objective measure of evidence?

-xeren

Clutch · 01-07-2003, 04:13 PM

xeren, I believe my earlier post addresses these matters. I do not assume that "evidence is evident" -- how could I, when I hold that theists are themselves often deeply deluded by wishful thinking?

Fact is, the Christian must hold that the evidence is so unmistakeable that the cognitive failing of not recognizing its force amounts to a moral failing that warrants the greatest condemnation imaginable.

The irony of it: Christians typically accuse atheists of intellectual arrogance! While I think that Christians are seriously mistaken, I do not conceive of their errors in a fashion that makes them worth the death penalty. The intellectual arrogance implicit in the Christian perspective is really astonishing.

Keith Russell · 01-07-2003, 04:19 PM

xeren:

Are we arguing about whether 'God' exists, or whether people really believe in 'God'?

I have no doubt that many people are very sincere in their beliefs, but that in no way makes those beliefs valid.

Keith.

xeren · 01-07-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
xeren:

Are we arguing about whether 'God' exists, or whether people really believe in 'God'?

I have no doubt that many people are very sincere in their beliefs, but that in no way makes those beliefs valid.

Keith.

I completely agree. I don't think that we're arguing either one of these. I think that the current discussion assumes that god exists.

Dr Rick · 01-07-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren
I'm actually looking for someone to tell me how the belief that i was hot despite evidence to the contrary is different than belief that god doesn't exist despite evidence to the contrary.

Your opinion of your own appearance is not analogous to the question of whether or not a god exists.

The existential equivalent of questioning your appearance in the same way one questions the existence of god would be worded in the following manner:

How is the belief that I didn't have looks despite evidence to the contrary different/similar than belief that god doesn't exist despite evidence to the contrary?

The inquiry just doesn't make any sense unless you assume that:

1) you really believed that you didn't have looks, and
2) there is evidence that contradicts the non-existence of god, or to word it without the double negative, there is evidence that god exists.

Even if #1 is correct, it does not substantiate #2 in any way. #2 is really just begging the question by assuming the conclusion as a premise.

Rick

xeren · 01-07-2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch
xeren, I believe my earlier post addresses these matters. I do not assume that "evidence is evident" -- how could I, when I hold that theists are themselves often deeply deluded by wishful thinking?

Clutch, I went back and read your post. The first time, i didn't understand where you were going with it, but upon reading it over, i just realized you were a couple steps ahead of me in my thought process.

Let me first tell people were I am at (and I think you are too).

If God existed, then in order to be a benevolent god, He would have to give out enough evidence that he exists, so that the rational person can conclude he exists. If he didn't put out enough to allow a rational person to believe he exists, then sent that person to hell for not believing in Him, he would be an evil god...

Now, of course, Christians believe that there god is a benevolent, not evil god, so they must believe that God put out enough evidence for the rational person to conclude he exists.

Therefore a person who doesn't believe in god, despite the evidence, must be choosing not to see the evidence in a clear light, as the chort said in his first post in this thread on page 1:

Quote:

Now suppose for the sake of this argument that God does exist and that sufficient evidence for His existence is present in the world. In no way do I take these things to be trivial, but for the sake of this thread (a discussion of punishment being warranted or unwarranted), I will assume these things to be true. If this is the case, then a person "B" could ignore or dismiss or simply not seek this evidence. Would God be unjust in punishing this person for his unbelief? I see a very strong parallel between person "A" and "B," and if "A" is punished for murder (a manifestation of his belief that a certain group of people is inferior and ought to be killed), then I think person "B," after ignoring the evidence for God's existence, would not be unjustly punished if he were indeed punished by God. Intellectual disbelief in God would strongly influence many of the life choices of that person; in other words, action follows from belief, as in the example with "A".

I conceded early on in the thread that if god did exist and there was sufficent evidence for his existence, then it would be true that the unbeliever looked at the evidence incorrectly. I then moved on because i thought that was a minor point in the discussion, but after reading thechort's 1st post, i realize that i misunderstood him somewhat. Whether it's right to punish someone for not being able to believe, is the discussion. By moving on to the next step, I accidentally pushed the discussion into a run-of-the-mill "is there in fact enough evidence for god?" thread, which is not what i want it to turn into.

So, for all you people that i have confused unintentionally, where does that leave us? Well, it puts us at the original argument, which Clutch put rather succinctly:

Quote:

Fact is, the Christian must hold that the evidence is so unmistakeable that the cognitive failing of not recognizing its force amounts to a moral failing that warrants the greatest condemnation imaginable.

If in fact a benevolent god were to exist, and there was sufficient evidence that he exists, does that mean that the atheist, who cannot force himself to believe, is at fault?

whew.
-xeren

01-07-2003, 11:57 AM	#41
xeren Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Place Posts: 285	Ruiner Unum, you single-handedly RUINED this thread with your unsupported non-sense. Start another thread if you want to continue this, as it has almost nothing to do with the original post. I'm telling thechort to ignore every post that has the word UNUM so that he can actually stay on topic.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-07-2003, 01:29 PM	#42
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Geez, Unum. Of course, if you want to say that 'God' is the universe, I'm not going to try to argue that 'God' (using that definition) doesn't exist. (But, I still wonder what evidence you have that 'God' is something more than just 'the universe'.) Keith.

01-07-2003, 01:58 PM	#43
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Let's try to get back to the OP. I think that we can immediately discard the notion that if people don't want to see evidence they wouldn't. That simply doesn�t match the human condition. I want to believe that I have a full head of lustrous hair but the evidence simply doesn't allow me to believe that. Evidence is, after all, evident. So if we are going with the assumption that a god created everything and we look at the evidence of it doing so we find none. If we look for the god itself we have no way of detecting it. When we look at nature, astronomy, biology, paleontology, etc. we find evidence that tells us that our god stories are in error. We have to ask why this is? It couldn't be "free will." To hide the facts and to plant misinformation violates any thought of "free will." You can't make choices by free will if they aren't informed choices. Without information choices are reduced to mere guesses. The only answer I can come up with--still assuming the existence of a god--is that the god doesn't want you to know about him. He must be hiding on purpose or he wouldn't have gone to so much trouble to cover his trail so completely. This god, whose will we can see by his absence, would be much more likely to punish people FOR believing in him.

01-07-2003, 02:31 PM	#44
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Bill: If one reads much about 'God'--any 'flavour' of 'God'--one soon realizes that this is exactly what the 'God' of most tales does... Keith.

01-07-2003, 04:13 PM	#46
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	xeren, I believe my earlier post addresses these matters. I do not assume that "evidence is evident" -- how could I, when I hold that theists are themselves often deeply deluded by wishful thinking? Fact is, the Christian must hold that the evidence is so unmistakeable that the cognitive failing of not recognizing its force amounts to a moral failing that warrants the greatest condemnation imaginable. The irony of it: Christians typically accuse atheists of intellectual arrogance! While I think that Christians are seriously mistaken, I do not conceive of their errors in a fashion that makes them worth the death penalty. The intellectual arrogance implicit in the Christian perspective is really astonishing.

01-07-2003, 04:19 PM	#47
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	xeren: Are we arguing about whether 'God' exists, or whether people really believe in 'God'? I have no doubt that many people are very sincere in their beliefs, but that in no way makes those beliefs valid. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.