David Mathews

Hello Splashing,

[quote]You don't think that believers must prove the claim to themselves? If no proof is needed to justify holding any particular belief, we should all simply choose to "believe" whatever is convenient at the moment. No need to practice the rituals, nor observe the taboos, of any religion.[/QUOTE}

David: I don't believe that anyone is obligated to do anything. Believers are not obligated to ask permission from atheists for their adhering to their religion. Atheists are not ogligated to ask permission from theists for their continued acceptance of atheism.

I don't believe in any obligations whatsoever. People who feel a need for self-justification will ask for permission and validation, people who do not have that need will not.

David: Obligated. By what law?

David: When you say "mundane conclusions based on observable evidence", I don't have the least idea what you are talking about. What are these ordinary, observable conclusions that you have reached?

David: When a person says that "atheism is more likely than Invisible Pink Unicornism" I can't help but wonder how you would know that atheism is in fact more likely than Invisible Pink Unicornism. Do you have empirical standards by which to objectively make these sorts of comparisons?

David: Yes, he is justified in his own mind.

David: While the diversity of religions may speak on behalf of atheism, I think it worthy of note that there are also a diversity of atheisms.

David: I would make no such conclusion about their taboos and rituals.

David: God saving the atheists does not contradict the Bible in any sense. The Bible nowhere declares that atheists are going to hell based upon their atheism or any other reason. God can save the atheists.


David: I was born into it, and converte to the faith at a young age in response to my own decision.

David; I suppose that the same could be said for the atheism.

David: Although you may not have heard a professional speaker give a sermon on behalf of atheism every Sunday, I suppose you adopted the viewpoint naturally in response to your environment. Of course, I wouldn't judge you no matter the source of your beliefs.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello rainbow walking,

David: Ideally, information is true. Practically, the subject matter of religion and God is so vast (The Universe, humankind, history, moral, ethics, philosophy, science) that it is impossible to verify the truth of all of the information that we receive.

For those people who do search for truth, many years are necessary and yet after all that effort the answers remain provisional. At some point, ultimately, all people collect just enough information to satisfy their curiosity and from that information form their convictions with finality.

David: No one is obligated to do anything in regard to their faith, convictions or opinions. If the information provided is relevant to the believer and impacts upon his or her belief in God, he/she will naturally respond to it positively or negatively. If the information is not relevant to the believer for any reason, the believer will disregard the information and therefore his or her faith will remain impervious to it.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Steve Carr,

David: To be perfectly honest, I don't find it offensive in the least. Death is not offensive or troublesome to me in any respect, though that opinion might change immediately once I directly encounter death.

David: You mean to tell me that when a person steps on a roach or kills an ant bed, that is "might makes right" morality?

It seems pointless for people who are fated to die to complain about the manner in which they will die. Does the stillborn have a less happy life than those who have endured a hundred years of strive, pain, sickness, death and sorrow?

I think that everyone should acknowledge as a basic undeniable truth that death is inevitable, and that all people will die before they want to die and in a manner in which they would rather not die. Would it make any difference if everyone lived until they reached two hundred fifty years old before they died? I don't think it would matter in the least.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Mrdarwin,

David: I do not believe that Satan will have a numerical advantage on Judgment Day. I don't imagine that billions of humans are going to go to hell on judgment day.


David: There is no denying that people suffer. But I suspect that people would suffer in any universe because humans do put themselves at risk (living on the coast subject to hurricanes, living near a river subject to floods, living in fault zones, living underneath volcanoes) and humans also commit atrocities against each other (prejudice, hate, violence, war, genocide).

If humans were not able to suffer, I suppose humans wouldn't be able to make any conscious choices or exerise any free will. I don't imagine that anyone would want to live in such a universe, though sometimes I get the impression that atheists demand as much from God:

If God existed we wouldn't have any death, sickness, sin or traffic jams.

Of course, anyone who is unhappy with the Universe will find some complaint upon which to deny God: God's doesn't exist because ..... happened.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

madmax2976

No door knocking for me.. I never really did like that particularly activity. It was too much of an "in your face" evangelistic tactic.

Anyhow, I think we can deduce some things from this thread:

1. David doesn't think atheists are headed for hell. He believes God will save us from such a place.

2. He doesn't think anyone is "obligated" to believe in Christianity.

3. He doesn't think he should tell us what we "should do".

4. He does believe that we all make a choice as to whether become Christian or not.

5. He doesn't believe we own our own bodies and uses the fact that we die, get buried and get eaten by worms to support this claim.

6. He believes humans are evil creatures.


I must say that, from what David has said here, he is a very radical C of C member

In my 15+ years as a C of C member, atheists were going to hell, no if, ands or butts about it.

We were expected to tell people they should become Christians. This was part of the great commission and was necessary to save their souls from eternal damnation. Without Jesus, they were doomed - period.

We fully accepted the fact that people could make a choice, however, there was only one choice that was the "right" choice and only one choice that was going to save you. You weren't "obligated" to choose that way, but even so, you had better choose that way.

The very fact that humans are "evil" creatures, according to C of C teaching, drove home our duty to save them from themselves. Muslims, Jews, Hinus, atheists, Wiccans, etc. were all going to go to hell unless they converted before they died. Afterwards was just too late.

Now I've been out of the loop so to speak for a number of years, but I find it amazing that the C of C could have changed so radically in such a short time!

Having read some stuff from David's website, its apparent to me that Dave is not being completely upfront with us with his non-confrontational attitude. Some examples:

Quote:

"For that reason, I advise atheists to give glory to God, humbly accept their own limitations and praise God for the blessings of life and death."

Obviously futile advice to those who don't believe an entity such as God even exists.

Quote:

According to the Bible, God's testimony is found in the universe, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmaments shows His handiwork", and His revelation to man, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart ." (Psalm 19:1, 7-8). Atheists reject this evidence, but their rejection is not justified.

The "evidence" here is a quote from the ancient writings of a nomadic, warrior tribe concerning their tribal deity. It is an assertion and nothing more. Our rejection of this pitiful evidence is more than justified.

[/quote]
Humility is not a common attribute of humans, and it is especially absent among atheists. They suppose that the tools of human reason and technology can result in trustworthy conclusions regarding what is or is not possible.
[/quote]

Atheists, more than most, recognize and accept their own relative insignificance in relation to the cosmos. It is theists who tend to believe they are the special creations of some almighty creator, destined to live eternally. It is theists who tend to hold that their lives have cosmic significant and importance. So this accusation of lack of humility appears to be a very misguided one and a bit hypocritical.

As far as using our tools to determine what is or is not "possible", I'm not really sure what is meant here. As far as I am aware we don't use our tools to determine what is merely possible. We use them to determine what is true.

Quote:

Atheists know much less about the origin of the universe and life. Atheists do not possess knowledge sufficient to exclude the existence of God.

Know much less than whom? Theists? Theists speculate about the origin of the universe and life. It does not appear to me they actually "know" anything about it.

This atheist does not "exclude" the existence of God. I see no reason to conclude that it would be impossible for a deity to exist. I think there are many reasons to conclude it is very unlikely. I think there are many reasons to conclude that the Christian God is even less likely than other deities. But the point is, this "exclusion" business is little more than a straw man.

Quote:

Atheism is a religion. Karen Armstrong classifies humanism as a religion:

Equating atheism with humanism shows the profound ignorance of this statement. Atheism has no creeds, no dogmas, it states no principles or morals. Atheists can be Buddhists, naturalists, supernaturalists, materialists, pantheists, and even adherents to the "Force". They only thing that binds all atheists is the disbelief in any Gods.

Atheism may indeed be a part of numerous woldviews and philosophies (such as humanism) which DO expouse such things, but that is another matter entirely. If someone chooses to call a philosophy (humanism) that has no Gods, no prayers, no supernaturual entities, a "religion" I suppose they can, although I think it greatly warps the concept of what a religion is.

Quote:

Atheism itself is unjustifiable, it proudly boast of its reliance upon rationality and science without realizing that atheism's rationality and science are bound to atheism's dogmatic assumptions about God and reality. If those assumptions are wrong, atheism itself must fail.

Atheism is at least as "justifiable" as is any theism. I say it is more likely to be true as the evidence we have favors it over theism. Could it be wrong? Well of course it could be wrong. Likewise if the assumptions of the varoius theisms are wrong, they too must fall. David has only stated the obvious here.

What are these "dogmatic" assumptions about God and reality that atheists supposedly have? I'm very curious.

Its clear to me that many theists will always lash out at science due to the fear it instills. It is demonstrably the most successful method we have devised for determining the truth of things. That its meticulous methods tend to push the existence of the supernatural further and further into the realm of the less likely, will forever be a thorn in the theists side. Its no wonder some rail against it as often as they do.

Quote:

If atheism is science, then it must share the limitations and tentativeness of science. If atheism is human rationality and philosophical reasoning power, then it relies on a human mind which perhaps is not capable of comprehending the universe -- much less God.

The atheist doesn't seek to comprehend God. He/she doesn't believe a God exist so that would be absurd and it makes this is a fallacy. How could we seek to comprehend that which we don't even conclude exists??

Just come up with a demonstrably superior system to science for determining facts about the world David, and then we could view these statements as accurate. My guess is that you have nothing you can demonstrate to be more successful.

Quote:

All arguments, whether theistic or atheistic, are built upon presuppositions. Atheists and theists seek common ground upon which to answer the question of God's existence. Where are the undisputed premises upon which theists and atheists share agreement? Even if theists and atheists share belief in several undisputed premises, is that reason enough to accept the truth of these premises? In the end, atheism is as difficult to prove as theism.

So far, neither has been "proven". If they had these discussions wouldn't occur. We attempt to find out what is most likely based on the evidence available to us at the time. In my opinion, the evidence goes against the theism/supernaturalism and in favor of atheism/naturalism.

Quote:

If a person begins with the assumption that God does not exist, he must ignore aspects of the universe which are contrary to his assumption, or else he must seek an alternative explanation.

Fortuantely many atheists don't start with the assumption that God does not exist, they look at the evidence and conclude that some particular deity most likely does not exist, or that its at least reasonable to disbelieve in such entities. But the point would be that David apparently doesn’t understand what it means to be an atheist.

Quote:

God does exist, even if atheists do not want God to exist. God does exist, even if science is not powerful enough to prove His existence.

Ah, the old lets assert it strongly enough and it'll be true tactic. Interesting. Let me try it. "God doesn't exist, even if theists want it to exist, that won't make it come true." Hey, works like charm.

Quote:

Atheists are troubled by the notion of God, because they are offended by the idea of an infinitely powerful God.

Now David has taken up mind reading. Just how would you know this? I for one find nothing offensive about a God. It could even be a neat discovery.

I might however find many things offensive about the actions that God performed or condoned. It would all depend on "which" God or Gods we discovered.

Quote:

They should not suppose that their own unwillingness to believe in God is reason enough to conclude that God does not exist

Yes, and theists should not suppose that their own unwillingness to give up their fanciful myths is reason enough to continue to believe in a God. See how such reasoning works both ways David?

Quote:

Atheists must challenge their own assumptions about the universe. Atheists must question their own beliefs as severely as they question the beliefs of Christians and theists.

I do. Christians should question their beliefs just as often. Its my experience that they don't.

Quote:

Atheists must read works which are contrary to atheism. Atheists ought to read the Bible.

I do and I have - considerably.

Quote:

If atheism is true, it has nothing to fear from investigation.

Likewise with Christianity.

Quote:

Examination will validate the truth of atheism. Questions will lead to answers which are consistent with atheism. If atheism is not true, then examination and questioning will overturn that religion.

Likewise, if atheism is true, examination and questioning can overturn Christianity. For me, thats exactly what it did.

However I salute your openmindness in investigation David. In my time, few would have concured and even fewer would have actually done it. I whole-heartedly encourage every Christian to study the arguments of atheism/humanism/agnosticism/naturalism, not as interpreted by attackers, but as given by atheists themselves. Again its been my experience that many theists are reluctant to so do, as it entertains the idea that they might be wrong - a consideration that was typically not allowed.

Jobar

Mr. Mathews, it seems apparent to me that you do not believe in the same God that Douglas Bender does. Your God seems much more merciful, far more sensible, than his.

You, and Christians generally, say that they believe in one God (who is also, somehow, three- but leave that aside for now...)

Yet the attributes, the behaviours, the history, and the personality of this singular Being are wildly inconsistent from denomination to denomination. The RC God is not the same as the CoC God- He demands different behaviour of His followers, says different things- remember that the Bible used by Catholics is significantly different from the CoC one- and requires different standards for salvation.

I am sure that you will answer this problem by saying that all these inconsistencies are due to the imperfect interpretations made by humans, who are sinful and erring by nature. If this is so- by what right do you claim that your own interpretation is the correct one? You have no more basis for your claims than do the Catholics- or, for that matter, than do Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, or for that matter <a href="http://pub90.ezboard.com/binstituteforunicornresearch" target="_blank">Invisible Pink Unicornians.</a>

On the other hand, we atheists- in particular 'weak' atheists, who only state that there exists no evidence for any God, and therefore God remains in the same category as tooth fairies, hobbits, fire-breathing dragons, and Santa Claus- have nothing to prove. We make no positive claims- we only ask for evidence. And if no evidence is presented we form no beliefs. (I note here, that I have never met an atheist who states he will not believe in any God no matter what evidence is presented. I am doubful that such a 'blind faith' atheist exists.)(I also note I have met *plenty* of Christians who state that no possible evidence can convince them of God's nonexistence!)

In short, we feel about your God the same way that you feel about Odin, or Baal, or Athena. You too are an atheist, except for one specific God.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

sandlewood

David, you are certainly becoming busy in this thread.
So what is the purpose of Hell then? What exactly are we being saved from? Do you believe that Hell exists? Is it empty except for the devil?
The only thing that can be said of an atheist is that he does not hold a belief in a god or gods. That’s it. Apart from that, atheists may be completely different from each other. There is no atheist message and there is no atheist world view. There is no atheist dogma. Notice definition 1c above. Many atheists rely on the methods of science to try to discover the truth of reality. Science works in the opposite way as dogma.

You mention that the “message” of atheism is taught through many sources. I fail to see where atheism is taught at all. On the contrary, I think most forms of entertainment in the US push Christianity. Imagine a sitcom in which the outcome was no god existed and the characters lived happily ever after. It would not be allowed. Have you ever seen the film Contact? I was very disappointed at the last five minutes in which things seemed to take a turn and it had a religious ending. I never read Carl Sagan’s book, but later I was told by someone who had read it that the last five minutes were not the same as the book and that it had been changed. This was obviously done to appeal to the Christian-American viewers.

In the US culture, atheism has been unfairly associated with immorality. You say that atheism’s power is pervasive. Perhaps you have no idea what it is like to live in a society where you avoid revealing your religious (atheistic) status for fear of discrimination. When you say “I’m an atheist”, what people hear is “I’m immoral” or “I have no ethical standard”. Do you think a person could ever be elected president if he or she openly claimed to be atheist?

You speak of “the moral standard of atheism”. Atheism has nothing to do with a moral standard. All atheism means is that a person does not hold the belief that a god or gods exist. No more than that. Atheism says nothing about a person’s morality. Atheists can have different morals. But as it happens, atheists in the US tend to have the same morals which also tend to be the same as Christians in the US. It seems to me that morality is bound together by culture more than by religion.

After reading that last quote from “Introduction”, I’m a bit confused as to why you think atheists will end up in heaven. Do you believe we will be made to see the folly of our ways before we are allowed in? Or do you believe we will be allowed in exactly as we are, without being brainwashed first? Do you think the “real” Christians will us being there and there and still being “immoral” atheists?

Either you don’t understand how science works, or you are pretending not to in order to further your argument. If you have a link to information about scientists seeking a new theory based on evidence contrary to the Big Bang, it would be appreciated. Maybe add it to that page. As far as I know, the existing evidence is in favor of the Big Bang. I would not be surprised if scientists are seeking other explanations. This is the way science works. We explore all possibilities. In fact, it is set up so that people who successfully overturn the widely held beliefs are rewarded. If anyone could show, with sufficient evidence, that another theory is a better explanation than the Big Bang, they will probably win a Nobel Prize or something. It doesn’t weaken science methods at all. But up to this point, evidence favors the Big Bang. When you say “Scientists who believe in the Big Bang minimize the importance of evidence against the Big Bang while emphasizing evidence in favor of the Big Bang”, do you really think that all scientists in the world are secretly in collusion to interpret evidence a particular way? Do you think they all have a secret agenda to push the Big Bang theory as opposed to merely finding out the real truth whatever it is? Why would they want that?

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

madmax2976

I found a few more gems from David's site:

[ii] This is quite wrong. David continues to demonstate he knows litte about atheism.

Atheists do not "know" how the universe came to be, or even that it actually "came to be" in the sense we are familiar with. Of course Christians do no "know" either.

Furthermore, this attempted character assassination that atheists are somehow afraid to discover a deity exists, should be beneath David. The only reason I would fear the discovery of a deity is if that deity were an evil entity that intended to do me harm. Otherwise, why should I fear it?

Christians might have no faith in atheistic speculations but they seem to have a tremendous amount of faith in their own speculations. At least atheists attempt to construct mathematical models and run tests to verify their speculations. Most Christians seem content to rest on their speculations and pretend they are solid facts.

Quote:

Atheist share the same difficulty, which means that any time an atheist makes an assertion about how the universe came into existence, he is not speaking facts of science but rather his faith in a particular speculative theory which seems credible to him.

This is ridiculous. Atheists offer possible explanations regarding the universe and then go out and attempt support them. They do not hold to them in the fanatical manner that Christians hold to the idea that some God created the universe. They would give them up gladly if evidence for another theory proves superior. Would Christians be willing to do the same?

Quote:

Christians have no faith in the speculations of scientists, and feel no need to place faith in dogmatic declarations of atheist.

Thats good because I sincerely doubt the scientists would want anyone to have "faith" in their speculations either. They would want you to look at their evidences and make a reasonable conclusion. It might be sufficient evidence, it might not be.

Christians on the other hand do accept the speculations as laid out in the texts of the ancient Hebrew tribes. And they do so without any evidence whatsoever.

Quote:

Atheist seek a "natural" theory of the universe's origin by necessity, motivated by a desire to reject God

Perhaps more of David's mind reading capabilities at work. I suspect most of us recognize it for the character assassination attempt that it is. Probably motivated by the intense need to cast atheists in as poor a light as possible to bolster his own beliefs.

As if atheists sit around all day attempting to find ways to "reject" something they don't even believe exists.

Quote:

Atheist are not allowed to postulate an infinite number of universes, nor can they offer any evidence to support their assertion.

Not that I am an advocate of the many worlds hypothesis, but atheists can postulate any damn thing they please. As for offereing evidence for that particular idea, I tend to agree, but as Christians offer no evidence for their hypothesis, its certainly no worse off.

Quote:

Evolution is the primary dogma in the atheistic materialist world view, and has been utilized from the beginning to undermine faith in God.

Completely unsupported BS. I dare David to support such an accusation. Evolution might undermine faith in the biblical God and the book of Genesis, but that is a problem for bible believers, not other theists.

There are also a good number of Christians who have no difficulty with the theory of evolution, so David's assertion that it would undermine faith is obviously wrong in any case.

Quote:

Atheists must believe in evolution. Evolution is crucial to their world view.

Untrue. We could have been created by immortal aliens from a distant galaxy. We could have emerged from the eternal Tao or the Cosmic Consciousness.

Evolution is crucial to naturalists, not atheists in general.

Quote:

B. C. Johnson does not realize that his own belief system demands that the materials forming life gradually organize themselves and develop over millions of years. He does not know that biological chemicals can organize themselves and develop, yet he accepts it as a dogma of the religion of atheism.

Christians do not "know" that a magical deity can "zap" life into existence from nothing, yet they accept it unequivocably that it did do so. Thus the atheist position is certainly no worse than the Chrisitan position.

However, the atheist does have the weight of history behind him that demonstrates naturalistic causes for things and continually pushes aside supernaturalistic causes. This gives good weight towards the atheistic speculation that a naturalistic answer to the puzzle will be forthcoming rather than a supernaturalistic answer. The evidence we have favors naturalistic atheists.

Quote:

No scientist has ever observed the chemicals which are components of life organize themselves into a living cell.

No one has ever observed a deity magically create life from nothing either. And?

Quote:

Theists reject B. C. Johnson's belief in the ability of organic chemicals to organize themselves into a living cell. Evolutionists are compelled to believe it, even though they recognize the severe problems that confront their dogma.

Yes, and Christians simply hand wave over their "dogma" that a magical sky god called Yahweh created life from nothing. They are compelled to believe it even though they recognize the severe problems that confront their blind acceptance of magical powers and supernatural entitites. In spite of the evidence that works against such things.

Quote:

Also, an axiom such as "Life was always there" would automatically exclude an evolutionary origin for life. Eternal objects have no origin. If life is eternal, then it does not have an evolutionary origin.

You should become more aware of a subject before you attempt to critique it David. It will help you to save some embarrassment.

Evolution has nothing to do with the "origin" of life. That is abiogenesis. Evolution deals with the development of life [i]after[/] it has begun. A deity could have jump started the first living organism or aliens could have planted it here and evolution could still be true.

Quote:

In spite of the lack of evidence favoring a natural origin for life, evolutionists are forced to believe it.

In spite of the lack of evidence favoring a supernatural origin for life, Christians are forced to believe it. In spite of any verifiable evidence for the supernatural at all, Christians are forced to believe it. In spite of the huge success of naturalistic explanations, Christians are forced to believe in the supernatural.

I at least have something to support my assumptions of naturalistic explanations David. What have you got?

Quote:

The question of the origin of life has no answer. Atheist who believe in evolution have accepted by faith a story which is identified as "speculation" and accurately compared to mythology.

Actually I am rather open regarding the origins of life on earth. We may well find we were planted here either on purpose or accidentally. Its even possible we were created by a deity of some kind.

However when I go to weigh these possibilities to determine which is more likely, the first one to drop out is the supernatural creation by a deity. Why? At least the other options have some evidence to support them, even if indirect. I have nothing thats supports a supernatural origin by a magical deity.

At the very least, the atheist position is no worse than the Christian position. I happen to think its significantly superior.

Quote:

A multitude of different scenarios are presented by scientists, contradicting one another in their explanation of how life originated. Evidence indicates that these contradicting theories are self-refuting. None are confirmed through laboratory experiments or historical evidence. For these reasons, evolution's greatest opponent is science itself.

Horse hockey. Separate theories aren't supposed to be complimentary and may very well oppose one another so I don't know what your trying to imply by the phrase "contradictory theories".

As for self-refuting, you'll have to be a lot more specific.

Science will be used as the tool that confirms or falsifies any of the given theories that are presented. Science is the tool that will confirm whether we ever actually solve this particular puzzle. Given its obvious success, it has proven itself far more superior in such an endeavor than blind religious faith. If you must use an inferior validation methodology to allow your hypothesis to continue to have credence, then so be it.

Icarus

Hello David,

Though an atheist, I find myself gripping at my armrests and looking upward from my fourteenth floor office in anticipation of the apocalypse, for it is a rare occasion to encounter an employed preacher who is both a universalist and a 'non-sectarian' of the Stone-Campbell variety. Are the members at your congregation aware of your beliefs?

Regarding your statement, upon what do you base your position, what type of exegetical methodology do you use in general, and what other fascinating theological mysteries do you have up your sleave?

Like many others here, I find this position to have a much higher degree of probability than standard Christian fare, but being a former member of the church of Christ, I am curious how you managed to come to this conclusion and how being a Christian can be important to you in light of this.

To save time (assuming you're interested), I attended for twenty-five years--ten as a baptized member. I graduated from Abilene Christian with a degree in biblical preaching and was attending Harding Grad. and studying missiology when I became an atheist. I'd consider outlining my reasons for deconverting, but it looks like you already have alot on your plate. Perhaps another time.

I'd love to stick around this evening and see where this is heading, but it's quitting time for this lucky individual.

Have a good one. Glad to have you around.

Icarus

Bible Humper

Hello again David.

Come on now, I'm not talking about permission from society here. If you really feel that there is no need to prove to yourself that Yahweh exists in order to justify belief in him, why not apply this standard of proof to Dionysus and live hedonistically?

Logic.

Mundane conclusions rather than extraordinary conclusions. An extraordinary conclusion for what we perceive to be the world around us would be my "brain in a bottle" scenario. It doesn't contradict anything we can observe, but is vulnerable to Occam's razor. What I'm saying is that supernatural entities should be held to the same standard of proof as the "brain in a bottle" scenario, if we have no evidence of any kind to support either one, both must be rejected unless proof is found.




<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> I'm guessing that you want to dissect the semantics of know? I don't know that I'm typing these words if you want to get technical, I could be a peruvian purple penguin having dreams about being a talking ape for all I know.

Are you saying that since we can't know that Yahweh isn't hiding somewhere out there that we should become believers? I can say the same thing about any extraordinary scenario. And please don't answer along the lines of "Nobody should do anything".

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience &lt;empirical data&gt;
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment &lt;empirical laws&gt;

Yes

No. Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities, it doesn't include anything else.

What could your conclusion be if not that? If the Christians are right, the others are wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts. If the taboos and rituals of non-christians aren't primitive attempts to explain and influence the unknown, what do you think was the process that resulted in them putting faith in these? All religions have their faithful, but since one is true and the majority are false, in your opinion, what does this say about human faith? Not very reliable is it? But faith is all the believer has to justify his belief.

Oops, I meant the loving and merciful assertions contradict the Bible.

Well now that you are older and wiser, you should re-evaluate that faith IMHO. Nobody is born with the ability to understand all sides of the arguements, it must be developed through education and maturity.

Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born with any sort of religion but must instead learn it as they mature.