Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

The idea that his faith was so weak that the mere existence of another sentience in the universe would wreck it (or at least that he asserted it would) is what floored me.  I mean, that's just pathetic.

The only thing that might give me a moment's pause is if we were to discover DNA-based human life fully compatible with us elsewhere, because the odds against that evolving independently are so long that it's genuinely more reasonable to assume interference by an older species and interplanetary seeding, long enough that I would almost credit an argument for divine intervention being more likely than independent evolutions.

Almost.  Interference by another sentience is still vastly more likely than divine intervention because it doesn't include a call to the supernatural.

That would merely prove that humans invent time travel, and have populated other planets, in the past using that technology.  Don't you watch Dr Who?

[Baruch]

Of course you'd respond this way because you start with the axiom 'we are the result of naturalistic forces' then wrap any facts, evidence or data around that flag pole. You reject data an honest inquirer seeking evidence of design would look for. Atheism doesn't offer an explanation for the evidence, it attempts to explain it away.

I see that reaction a great deal.

Suggestion that control of vocabulary is more important than even the novel 1984 says:

"THE BASIC TOOL FOR THE MANIPULATION OF REALITY IS THE MANIPULATION OF WORDS. IF YOU CAN CONTROL THE MEANING OF WORDS, YOU CAN CONTROL THE PEOPLE WHO MUST USE THE WORDS." PHILIP K. DICK

[fencerider]

I've been debating atheists (formally and informally) for over 15 years.

and your argument is still not a good one.

I am put in mind of a local fundamentalist minister who debated evolution vs. creationism with the head of the bio department at my college -- must've been in '80 or '81, maybe '82.  And in the discussions afterwards, I overheard him say that the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere would "destroy" -- his exact word -- his faith in his god, as if the mere idea that we're not the whole point of the universe was complete anathema to him.

Hillarious. If he actually read the Bible instead of listen to the dogma of the priest, he would know that there is nothing written in it that eliminates God from creating life on other planets.

[Sorginak]

First and foremost, when it comes to wisdom in relation to knowledge, there must be an understanding that there is factual scientific consensus in regard to the reality in which we all experience on this planet Earth.

Deviations are to be expected, because some people simply must create their own realities.

What makes their realities false can easily be examined and described as unrealistic through a process of reason.

There is an absolute one hundred percent positive consensus in relation to the physical world in which we live; we all agree accordingly that the sky is blue and that a rock is a rock when we experience it with our senses.

We can experience the air, although invisible, because we can see the effect it has on everything around it.  The air, the wind, causes actual  physical changes in the world that we can experience.

God, quite invisible, has no viable effect on anything.

And that immediately brings us to faith.

There is a distinct difference between religious faith and secular faith.  For instance, religious faith is making a claim with no basis of evidence to support it, such as god's existence.  Secular faith is stating that one has faith the sun will rise tomorrow, because there is actual scientific evidence that the sun does rise on a daily basis.

Religious faith is still the only thing to which any theist can cling.

No matter how much the theist tries to make it seem that religious faith is more than wishful thinking, it never will be.

The human race has had thousands of years to steadily approach reason through the fog of religious faith. 

After thousands of years with no evidence of god to provide, it becomes quite steadily apparent that there is no god.

And that is what we can state to be true at present; that there is no god.

When evidence of god, without the cloak of lie known as religious faith to obscure reason, is provided, then we can state that god is real.

Without evidence of something, it does not exist. 

It truly is that simple. 

After all, minds can be changed with sufficient evidence.

[Baruch]

"The human mind", quite invisible, has no viable effect on anything.  Descartes much?  I think y'all take the position, that the mind is simply the crap secondary consequences of neural actions, that only the neurons are real, but that the mind isn't real.  Though some might choose epiphenomenalism ... that the mind is real, but the consequence of neural action (notice non-plural words).

Part of the argument is whether universals/categoricals are real.  Is "humanity" a thing, or just flatus vocis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscellinus

And of course that ties into Plato, who took the view that particulars are unreal, but categoricals are real, on the basis of Pythagorean geometry.

So is there such a thing as humanity, or are there just 7 billion plus individuals?  I see it as non-dogmatic ... but pragmatic.  If it is useful for a particular ethical action, to treat humanity as a whole, then do that ... but if in another ethical action, to treat humanity as individuals, then do that.  Practice trumps dogma.

If universals are somewhat real, then the incarnate G-d can be somewhat real.  But dogma abhors the grey.

Problem of universals vs nominalism ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

This question is still alive in even mathematics ... with "constructivism".

Drew's primary complaint is that most people here are dogmatic ... and he claims to be less so.

Another POV is that people here are anti-realist... which isn't the same as idealist (vs realist) but "an outer hypothetical being is not assumed".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

[SGOS]

and your argument is still not a good one.
Hillarious. If he actually read the Bible instead of listen to the dogma of the priest, he would know that there is nothing written in it that eliminates God from creating life on other planets.

When the Bible was written, planets were just specks in the sky that wandered about the planets.  The idea that they may have similarities to Earth probably never occurred to the writers, so life on mere points of light didn't seem worth addressing.  As our knowledge expanded to understand the universe, life outside presented a situation that couldn't be resolved with the Bible, because God apparently didn't know anything about planetary systems and never addressed the issue in his literary gift to man, so men had to fill in he blanks.  Of course God still gets the credit for man's opinions.  It's only fair.  The knowledge that God would never create life anywhere else becomes an unwritten addendum, understood by men of great inspiration, who pass the knowledge on, but crediting God as the actual source.

[Baruch]

Theologians, both pagan and Christian, resolved this with "stars are angels" but "planets are mis-behaving angels" and that "comets and meteors" are fallen angels.  Just because that isn't in the Bible, doesn't mean that isn't what people used to believe.

The question of the inspiration of the Bible, and the omniscience of G-d are rather non-atheist questions.  I would deny both, just saying.  If G-d wrote the Bible (this idea goes back to Sumeria and Old Kingdom Egypt) and is omniscient (this is a Greek Christian concept) then we have a problem ... but both are ridiculous to me ... then the Bible would include everything moderns believe in (which unlike prior generations is the result of our modern omniscience (the Internet makes me feel omniscient)) including Quantum Mechanics.

[Mike Cl]

First and foremost, when it comes to wisdom in relation to knowledge, there must be an understanding that there is factual scientific consensus in regard to the reality in which we all experience on this planet Earth.

Deviations are to be expected, because some people simply must create their own realities.

What makes their realities false can easily be examined and described as unrealistic through a process of reason.

There is an absolute one hundred percent positive consensus in relation to the physical world in which we live; we all agree accordingly that the sky is blue and that a rock is a rock when we experience it with our senses.

We can experience the air, although invisible, because we can see the effect it has on everything around it.  The air, the wind, causes actual  physical changes in the world that we can experience.

God, quite invisible, has no viable effect on anything.

And that immediately brings us to faith.

There is a distinct difference between religious faith and secular faith.  For instance, religious faith is making a claim with no basis of evidence to support it, such as god's existence.  Secular faith is stating that one has faith the sun will rise tomorrow, because there is actual scientific evidence that the sun does rise on a daily basis.

Religious faith is still the only thing to which any theist can cling.

No matter how much the theist tries to make it seem that religious faith is more than wishful thinking, it never will be.

The human race has had thousands of years to steadily approach reason through the fog of religious faith. 

After thousands of years with no evidence of god to provide, it becomes quite steadily apparent that there is no god.

And that is what we can state to be true at present; that there is no god.

When evidence of god, without the cloak of lie known as religious faith to obscure reason, is provided, then we can state that god is real.

Without evidence of something, it does not exist. 

It truly is that simple. 

After all, minds can be changed with sufficient evidence.

I would quibble with only one point.  I don't think there is secular 'faith'.  This is what I mean.  I 'think' the sun will rise tomorrow because scientific fact has shown why it should do so--and that it has done so for billions of years and will do so for billions of year more.  I think the sun will rise tomorrow--but if it doesn't then I will revise my 'thought process' taking into consideration  the new facts.  I don't have faith in anything. 

[Drew_2017]

Sorginak,

First and foremost, when it comes to wisdom in relation to knowledge, there must be an understanding that there is factual scientific consensus in regard to the reality in which we all experience on this planet Earth.

See we agree already.

Deviations are to be expected, because some people simply must create their own realities.What makes their realities false can easily be examined and described as unrealistic through a process of reason.What makes their realities false can easily be examined and described as unrealistic through a process of reason.There is an absolute one hundred percent positive consensus in relation to the physical world in which we live; we all agree accordingly that the sky is blue and that a rock is a rock when we experience it with our senses.We can experience the air, although invisible, because we can see the effect it has on everything around it.  The air, the wind, causes actual  physical changes in the world that we can experience.

I assume you mean delusional alternate realities not real realities but I'm with you so far...

God, quite invisible, has no viable effect on anything. And that immediately brings us to faith.

No viable effect with perhaps the exception of causing the reality you agree with live in.

There is a distinct difference between religious faith and secular faith.  For instance, religious faith is making a claim with no basis of evidence to support it, such as god's existence.  Secular faith is stating that one has faith the sun will rise tomorrow, because there is actual scientific evidence that the sun does rise on a daily basis.

I'm sure there is such a difference but you are hopefully aware (since you claim to have read what I have written) that I don't promote any religious belief. My belief in the existence of a Creator is a philosophical one, just as you claimed your disbelief is a philosophical one. So lets agree to shoot down the religious straw-man you are erecting.

Religious faith is still the only thing to which any theist can cling.

I suspect you haven't read anything I've written. Unless this is just an open letter to religious theists...

Here are a few faith statements I've heard from several atheists in this thread.

1. God isn't necessary

They don't even offer it as an opinion. I've noticed most atheists never state anything as a belief or even an opinion. They usually state their counter beliefs as if they were an ironclad incontrovertible fact that are all but scientifically proven. They have so much faith in their belief God isn't necessary they state it as a fact. In reality they don't know for a fact God isn't necessary and they don't offer evidence the statement is true. As you know complete faith in a belief requires no evidence.

2. There is no evidence (or facts) that support theism.

This isn't a faith statement, its a flat out lie.

[trdsf]

I would quibble with only one point.  I don't think there is secular 'faith'.  This is what I mean.  I 'think' the sun will rise tomorrow because scientific fact has shown why it should do so--and that it has done so for billions of years and will do so for billions of year more.  I think the sun will rise tomorrow--but if it doesn't then I will revise my 'thought process' taking into consideration  the new facts.  I don't have faith in anything.

It infinite risk of a completely pointless digression...

...I really wish there were better words than "sunrise" and "sunset".  The sun has never risen nor set, and it never will, barring a catastrophic gravitational interaction that would have probably destroyed the Earth before we could witness it.

The best I can do is 'horizonfall' and 'horizonrise' respectively, but they lack a certain poetry.  At least they sound better than "rotationally-driven illusion of motion".

[Baruch]

I would quibble with only one point.  I don't think there is secular 'faith'.  This is what I mean.  I 'think' the sun will rise tomorrow because scientific fact has shown why it should do so--and that it has done so for billions of years and will do so for billions of year more.  I think the sun will rise tomorrow--but if it doesn't then I will revise my 'thought process' taking into consideration  the new facts.  I don't have faith in anything.

Drew may have meant the "civic religion" that is politics in the US.  He was quoting US founding documents earlier.

And yes, you have no blind faith, the only kind you acknowledge ... because you control the meanings of all words.

[Mike Cl]

It infinite risk of a completely pointless digression...

...I really wish there were better words than "sunrise" and "sunset".  The sun has never risen nor set, and it never will, barring a catastrophic gravitational interaction that would have probably destroyed the Earth before we could witness it.

The best I can do is 'horizonfall' and 'horizonrise' respectively, but they lack a certain poetry.  At least they sound better than "rotationally-driven illusion of motion".

I do grok what a 'sunrise' really is.  Which fuels my not using faith and belief when talking about the actual physical world.  Actually, I don't use faith or belief much for anything.  For example, I don't have 'faith' in my wife; but I trust her.  I don't believe she will do right; I think she will, for she has done so in the past.

[Mike Cl]

Drew may have meant the "civic religion" that is politics in the US.  He was quoting US founding documents earlier.

And yes, you have no blind faith, the only kind you acknowledge ... because you control the meanings of all words.

I don't know what Drew meant--I don't think Drew knows.  I don't have any faith, Baruch.  I have trust, but not faith.  Of course I control what words mean for me--so does everybody else.  That's why I keep saying that we have to define what the major terms we are using mean to us if we are to have any communication at all. 

[Godis]

Coward atheists don't really ever say much that's directly derogatory about Jesus.   It's as if they're scared or something.  If you don't think Jesus is still alive and that he will ultimately judge you, then what's holding you back? Come on, let's get it on the record what you really think about Jesus.  That way, you are fully accountable and not some sniveling idiot hiding in the shadows.  Come on, say what you want.

[Mr.Obvious]

Coward atheists don't really ever saw much that's directly derogatory about Jesus.   It's as if they're scared or something.  If you don't think Jesus is still alive and that he will ultimately judge you, then what's holding you back? Come on, let's get it on the record what you really think about Jesus.  That way, you are fully accountable and not some sniveling idiot hiding in the shadows.  Come on, say what you want.

Are you goading us?
Fine. Jesus is a cumslut that couldn't get enough of fucking his twelve; braind-dead sugerdaddies. It's all because of his delusional daddy-complex. He never knew his real father, because his mother Mary fucked a bunch of strangers, got preggo and found the dumbest fuck in the world and made him believe she'd been 'blessed by the lord'.
He liked giving handjobs so much he had special holes fitted in his hands for them.
He was a pervert that's always tried to force his way into people. He cames in you without asking. And he was an emo, little dipshit.
Jesus was an asshole that preached barbaric laws and for every wise thing he said, he said something backward.

But even with all of that. I can forgive Jesus.

Because there is one more thing he was.

Imaginary.