HelenM

I think that there is no-one so biased as the Biblical inerrantist who claims to be a scientist and yet rejects anything he/she sees as not supporting the Bible as satan's attempt to deceive the world.

As for your comment, well, it is meaningless because how do you define 'supernatural'? Are you defining supernatural as 'not having a process'? If you are then how can you know there is even such a thing? Scientists study the processes, the 'hows'. What is the dividing line between 'this was natural' and this was supernatural'? Do you time how long it took someone to be healed and decide, if less than X days, it was supernatural; if more, it was not?

Things happen all the time for which we don't have the explanation. But we can now understand the 'processes' of many many more things than 2,000 years ago. So if nn-theistic scientists take the view "we just don't know how this happened yet" I don't feel threatened by that. Knowing or not knowing the mechanics of a process is entirely separate from conjectures about God's existence, I would say.

It's a typical theistic excuse/whine that scientists are too biased against God. Not necessarily. They are just doing what they do as honestly as they can, for the most part. People who go into 'science' convinced that the only answer is 'the Bible is literally true and anything contradiction my understanding of that has to be false no matter how rigorously determined it was' - they are the ones whose presuppositions make it impossible not to be biased, imo.

love
Helen

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

Is. Is bad apologetics.

It shouldn't. Imagine the odds of you winning a certain lottery are 1 in 500 billion, to the billionth power (i.e., really unlikely). Yet amazingly, you win. Now tell me, what can you infer from this? That a supernatural being must therefore exist, and arranged it so you won? After all, it was "astronomically unlikely" for you to win. So you may decide that it makes more sense for some "guiding force" to have intervened, than to say you won merely by "blind chance."

Only if we disagree on what evidence is.

I'm not saying the supernatural isn't possible. I'm not absolutely certain that God, Santa, fairies, ghosts, etc. don't exist. I just don't have compelling reasons to think any of them do exist. I require more than assertions or testimonials. Let's make something clear: As the theist, you are the one with the positive claim, the claim that a supernatural being exists. I'm just the guy saying: Where's the proof?

<strong> To someone who doesn't know, it may appear that the cloud just comes into existence, out of nothing. And he may think it must therefore have a magical or supernatural cause.

<strong> &lt;snip of 'Oxford English Dictionary' definition of atheism&gt;

I don't care what some undergraduate volunteer working on an edition of Oxford's dictionary came up with as a definition for 'atheism.' Like I said, let's keep it simple. The word Atheism is from the Greek. The "A" part is a negation. The "Theism" part means belief in a god or gods.

<strong> No, God creating woman from Adam's rib is a myth. Weak atheism is a semantic distinction.

<strong> I have no idea what theists who lack belief in a god should really be called -- 'poorly labeled'?
Don't get bogged down with semantics.

<strong> I think the overwhelming majority of atheists lack belief in a god because they feel there isn't enough evidence. They think they smell a myth. I think theists believe for a variety of reasons, which range from wishful thinking, going along with tradition, and the understandable desire to be part of a group. For some people, there is a lot of pressure to be part of the group, to believe what everyone else does. Others may not care about being part of a group, but care about the hope and reassurance derived from belief in an afterlife. They like the idea of a supernatural being that watches over them. It makes them feel less alone. It also gives them an option of prayer when all seems lost -- a higher power to supplicate or invoke, so one doesn't feel totally helpless. It also makes them feel like there are reasons why certain things occur... Many feel belief in God gives meaning to their lives.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Dr. Retard

But the question is: why do they do this?

A hint of an answer is found: they do it because they are reassured by the thought of an atheistic universe. But what's reassuring about an atheistic universe? The ineluctable death of loved ones? The absence of divine guidance? The likelihood that evil will go unpunished? I can't psychologically relate to someone cheered by this scenario.

HelenM

Speaking for myself I can't psychologically relate to someone cheered by the scenario of billions of people, some of whom never even heard of Jesus, being eternally tortured in hell.

Do you find yourself cheered by that?

Andrew_theist

Hello Wyrdsmyth,

Having chatted with you briefly regarding my opinion of why some atheists believe as they do rather than repudiate my opinion you have confirmed it. Not that I am anticipating an agreement or acknowledgement from you for the very reason of the opinion I stated.

I think many atheists spend a great deal of time, effort, considerable intelligence and imagination convincing and reassuring themselves this world is free for us to do as we please with no meddlesome God to interfere. I think the atheists who participate in boards like this are less sure of their convictions and do so to help shore up their beliefs.

You write,

It shouldn't. Imagine the odds of you winning a certain lottery are 1 in 500 billion, to the billionth power (i.e., really unlikely). Yet amazingly, you win. Now tell me, what can you infer from this? That a supernatural being must therefore exist, and arranged it so you won? After all, it was "astronomically unlikely" for you to win. So you may decide that it makes more sense for some "guiding force" to have intervened, than to say you won merely by "blind chance."

Of course it won’t for the person who is not really giving consideration for any possibility other than the one they have already concluded is true. Your fundamental commitment to blind chance, not the odds is what ices it. If I hit the lottery with one chance given the odds above it wouldn’t be proof of divine intervention but it would be over whelming evidence to any reasonable person that a fix was in place. The only reason a sane rational person would think otherwise is if they had already concluded a fix wasn’t possible. This underscores exactly the point I was making about using considerable intelligence and imagination. Not that to no one’s surprise you will respond with more rationalizations because you have already concluded the only answer you find acceptable.

I'm not saying the supernatural isn't possible. I'm not absolutely certain that God, Santa, fairies, ghosts, etc. don't exist. I just don't have compelling reasons to think any of them do exist. I require more than assertions or testimonials. Let's make something clear: As the theist, you are the one with the positive claim, the claim that a supernatural being exists. I'm just the guy saying: Where's the proof?

As the dialog above clearly indicates no level of evidence will suffice. This is part of the rationalization the idea that you are an objective person merely looking for evidence. When in reality the only interpretation of evidence you will accept is what you believe to begin with.

I wrote,

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny; To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Your response,

I don't care what some undergraduate volunteer working on an edition of Oxford's dictionary came up with as a definition for 'atheism.' Like I said, let's keep it simple. The word Atheism is from the Greek. The "A" part is a negation. The "Theism" part means belief in a god or gods.

You are correct when you say you don’t care what someone says. When any thorn potentially threatens to burst the bubble you have created you immediately attack the messenger. If the same source confirmed the only view you are willing to accept it would be authoritative.

There is really little point in my conversing further. As far as you are concerned the entire universe and reality must wrap itself around your version of intrepretation, or be false.

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

PopeInTheWoods

Argh, the old definition game again! I hope this quibbling over atheist doesn't get as heated as Koy's and Monk's brutal slugfest concerning cult over on MRD. Andrew, my Webster's agrees with your OED as far as atheist goes (but see digression below). But I think your cavalier dismissal of the "weak atheist" position goes too far. Webster's refers to one with simply a lack of belief as (big surprise) an unbeliever, although it could be covered by what Webster's considers an agnostic. But Andrew, why the nitpicking over definitions when Wyrdsmith specifically stated that he's talking about "people who lack belief in any gods"?

[digression] I'm not sure of what, if any, theological axes Webster's is grinding. But I recently read <a href="http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/winchs/oed.htm" target="_blank">The Professor and the Madman</a> (subtitled A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary). First off, I enjoyed it and would recommend it as an interesting read in general. Additionally, it is somewhat relevant to this discussion because it discusses the religious beliefs of some of those involved in the creation of the OED. My conclusion based on this info is that the OED has an inherent xian bias. [/digression]

Andy

Dr. Retard

Nope. That's why if anyone told me that the reason people are Christians is that they are reassured by Hell, then I'd be very skeptical. Some people, no doubt, get a thuggish delight from contemplating certain people in Hell (their enemies, ethnic groups they hate, famous evildoers like Stalin and Hitler), but I would speculate that those people ignore the scenario you mention -- good, misguided people in Hell -- since it's difficult to imagine anyone being reassured by that.

HelenM

A Christian is saying this to an atheist? Somehow that seems very ironic to me!

love
Helen

Andrew_theist

Its obvious Helen you have become an apologist for atheism. So why bother passing yourself off as a believer?

Love, Andrew.

Bill Snedden

This sounds like quite the conspiracy theory. Are you claiming that lotteries and gaming houses the world over are all fixed? That when any extremely improbable event occurs, the fix must be in?

I'm hoping that you just mis-stated yourself, rather than actually meaning this, for it would belie a rather poor understanding of the very topic upon which you seek to discuss...

Regards,

Bill Snedden