Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[leo9]

I always liked the line from "Contact" where the scientist says she's an atheist because she won't believe in anything that can't be proved. The priest asks "Did you love your father?"

"Of course I did!" (We already know that her love of her late father is vital to her.)

"Prove it."

I've long compared the religious experience to falling in love. People who haven't been in love may be dismissive and point out, perfectly rationally, that you can't prove there's anything more to it than lust turned personal. When you've been there you know there is something more to it, but you still can't prove it.

I believe in ghosts because I met one, and it near scared me crazy. I believe in gods because I met one, and She loves me. But since I can't prove that any of that happened anywhere but inside my head, I don't expect or wish to convince anyone else that it's real.

[MMI]

Believers don't have to prove what they believe in, as long as they are happy with whatever evidence they feel is already available. It's only non-believers who demand the proof.

Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

It's still only a presumption, however. Just because you can't prove it exists and can't demonstrate that it exists doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Just that you can't, under current conditions and with current technology, prove it's existence.

In astronomy, especially, there have been many objects which were presumed to exist despite the fact that they could not be detected or measured. They were deduced based on effects which occur that seemed to require something of their kind to exist. That didn't necessarily mean they did exist (I can think of one that was shown to be untrue), just that they might exist.

How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.


True, one cannot "know" something exists without proof, and those who claim to know it are, indeed, liars. But believing something exists without proof does not make one gullible.

OK - if not gullible, deluded.

Until the time when a spacecraft actually orbited the moon and photographed the far side, scientist could only assume that there would be craters there. Believing that there were craters there did not make the scientists gullible, just trusting that their conclusions were accurate. And if that first spacecraft had shown that there cotton candy trees on the far side of the moon instead of craters, would you think the scientists were stupid to have believed in the existence of craters in the first place? I think not!

No, of course not. They formed their opinions on the basis of what they knew. Rational opinions that built up a viewpoint based on probability; but rebuttable by going tot he far side of the Moon and looking.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

I agree, you have a right to your point of view, and I don't criticize your comments just because I may not agree with them. I'm only trying to point out what I perceive to be logical fallacies in some of your comments. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!

Then I beg to differ

And for the record, I, too, am a non-believer. I long ago discarded the need for some supernatural magic worker in my life. I find there are far too many discrepancies even within single religions, much less between different religions, to make such a belief viable, for me.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!

And so do I

As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

[Thorne]

Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

That doesn't give non-believers the right to harass and attack believers of "A" whenever they feel like it. If believers want to build monuments to "A" with their own money, why not? If they want to celebrate the birthday of "A" with their own rituals, let them. As long as they aren't forcing non-believers to pay for those monuments or participate in those rituals what harm is done?

How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

Most believers already feel that their case has been proven. 5000 years of human civiliation is their proof. A 2000 year old book (or maybe only 1500 years or so) is their proof. If we don't choose to accept their evidence, their proof, it becomes incumbant upon us to prove them wrong.

OK - if not gullible, deluded.

That's rather condescending. One can only be gullible or deluded by believing in something which flies in the face of proof, not by believing in something for which there is no proof one way or the other. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat is deluded. Believing in God is faith. There's no proof one way or the other, and only one way (presently) to learn the truth.

As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

There may be thousands of explanations which you feel are better. Those same explanations may seem worse to someone else. It's all subjective, because there is no proof one way or the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, based on whatever existing evidence one believes in.

In which case, your opinions, and mine, are no better or worse than anyone else's. Without proof, one way or the other, they are only opinions, or beliefs.

[TheShadow.]

Whether you believe it or not is a matter of your own faith. However, the Catholic Church and, I believe, every major Christian religion, has that principle as one of their basic tenets: God knows everything; past - present - future.

Irrelevant to my position though. The man addressed me and thought I was silly for believing in something I don't believe in.

You don't have to be able to see something to know it exists. You can't see oxygen, but just try living without it. The atom has been proven to exist, through many detailed, and repeatable, scientific experiments. We know from experimentation that, if you combine certain atoms under certain conditions you will get the same result every time.

I've heard people who claim that something which seemed miraculous to them proves the existence of God. For example, someone surviving an accident which, by all rights, should have killed them. But there are far too many accidents in which someone who should have survived doesn't. Why didn't God intervene there?

I've heard people who claim that God must have created the world because it's just too complex to have developed on its own. Yet when confronted with the all too frequent breakdowns of those complex systems, something an infallible God should have been able to avoid, they place the blame on Satan. Why is it that anything bad that happens has to be Satan's fault, and not God's?

No, I'm afraid that we can never prove that God exists until the time that he stands in front of the world and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he does. But by the same token, we can never prove that he does not exist, either. It is, and always will be, a matter of faith.

Funny, where did I try to prove God exists? the thing is, that is not my job. Either he exists, and I am fine for believing in him, or he doesn't and I am wrong. Doesn't really matter unless I am right that he exists but wrong about who he is.

Anyway, the purpose of my post was to illustrate that people believe in a lot of things that they have no proof of except that people tell them it is real. On the other hand, I have built a homemade cloud chamber, and have proven to my satisfaction enough of the theories surroundin nuclear physics to accept them as real. Yet people stand up and call themselves skeptics yet blindly accept what scientists say, believing that they are better than me. Witness the OP in this thread as an example. I wonder if he ever thought to question science, or simply accepted them blindly and without question.

Bit ironic, don't you think?

[TheShadow.]

Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.

Why do I have to prove I am right if you don't? I think that is a double standard. Let me disprove your logic with a simple example.

Fermat's Last Theorem: If an integer n is greater than 2, then the equation ato the nth + b to the nth = c to the nth has no solutions in non-zero integers a, b, and c. Mathematicians searched for proof of this for centuries, yet no own is trying to claim they are crazy for doing so. Mathematicians believed in that proof long before it was discovered. Yet by your standard they were all either liars or gullible.

The lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof.

[MMI]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMI
Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

That doesn't give non-believers the right to harass and attack believers of "A" whenever they feel like it. If believers want to build monuments to "A" with their own money, why not? If they want to celebrate the birthday of "A" with their own rituals, let them. As long as they aren't forcing non-believers to pay for those monuments or participate in those rituals what harm is done?

Who's harrassing the believers? Not I. For by far the most part, it is believers who try to impose their beliefs on non-believers and on believers in other things, for no better reason than they believe it themselves.

Quote:
How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

Most believers already feel that their case has been proven. 5000 years of human civiliation is their proof. A 2000 year old book (or maybe only 1500 years or so) is their proof. If we don't choose to accept their evidence, their proof, it becomes incumbant upon us to prove them wrong.

I would agree with that if mere existence or if an ancient book did amount to persuasive evidence of a greater power. But it does not. There are other equally or better answers that are just as ancient, venerable or self-evident. There are also competing religious proofs that are mutually exclusive or contradictory.

It may be the best they can offer, but it is not convincing proof. So it is still up to them.

Quote:
OK - if not gullible, deluded.

That's rather condescending. One can only be gullible or deluded by believing in something which flies in the face of proof, not by believing in something for which there is no proof one way or the other. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat is deluded. Believing in God is faith. There's no proof one way or the other, and only one way (presently) to learn the truth.

I'm nothing if not condescending, as I've demonstrated frequently on these threads - but only for effect. I respect everyone and their beliefs also.

What I meant was, people who listen to the liars who claim to know of God's existence as an undeniabe, certain fact, and who accept what they say without question are gullible or deluded. People who believe after enquiry and who know that their faith is just a belief are not necessarily gullible or deluded.

Quote:
As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

There may be thousands of explanations which you feel are better. Those same explanations may seem worse to someone else. It's all subjective, because there is no proof one way or the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, based on whatever existing evidence one believes in.

In which case, your opinions, and mine, are no better or worse than anyone else's. Without proof, one way or the other, they are only opinions, or beliefs.

No, that's wrong. For non-belivers, no explanation is called for at all. why explain what does not exist? But if someone tries to make the case for God, they have to show that the existence of a deity is more likely than not.

Until that happens, a non-believer's position is better than a believer's



Quote:

Originally Posted by MMI
Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.

Why do I have to prove I am right if you don't? I think that is a double standard. Let me disprove your logic with a simple example.

Fermat's Last Theorem: If an integer n is greater than 2, then the equation ato the nth + b to the nth = c to the nth has no solutions in non-zero integers a, b, and c. Mathematicians searched for proof of this for centuries, yet no own is trying to claim they are crazy for doing so. Mathematicians believed in that proof long before it was discovered. Yet by your standard they were all either liars or gullible.

The lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof.

Because, if you want me to believe, like you do, in a hare-brained notion that, somewhere out there is a being that is eternal, omniscient and omnipresent, who is goodness in its purest form, and who wants to be worshipped (why? isn't that rather vain? vanity is a sin) but refuses to make himself known to us (and hecould if he wanted to), then you must demonstrate to me that, at least, such a thing is more likely than not. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist any more than I have to prove the existence of nothing. That's not double standards; it's expecting you to live up to normal standards.

As for Fermat's Last Theorem, it was a problem set by Diophantus in the 3rd century that Fermat managed to solve (so he claimed) in the 17th century. So for 1400 years or so, it would have been Diopantus's Proposition, and during that one-and-a-half thousand years, anyone who believed in it who have had to admit that his opinion was founded on belief, not proven fact.

Unfortunately, Fermat did not record what his proof was, so for four more centuries, that proof had to be rediscovered. During those 400 years, people who believed that the problem had been solved relied on Fermat's claims and nothing more. They had to accept that their belief was founded upon their trust that Fermat was not lying and that he had not made any mistakes, as so many others had.

You put the cart before the horse when you say "lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof".

The lack of proof that something does exist does not prove its non-existence, but it does indicate that it probably does not exist.

[Thorne]

Funny, where did I try to prove God exists? the thing is, that is not my job. Either he exists, and I am fine for believing in him, or he doesn't and I am wrong. Doesn't really matter unless I am right that he exists but wrong about who he is.

I didn't mean to imply that you did try to prove it. Obviously you must believe there is enough evidence to justify your faith in God, but that does not mean you have to try to prove his existence.

Actually, I think from what I'm seeing here that you and I are approaching the same point of view from different sides. We believe what we believe and don't feel the need to prove our positions to anyone. The real difference between us is that you believe in God, and if you're wrong you lose nothing. I don't believe in God, and if I'm wrong, I'm screwed!

Anyway, the purpose of my post was to illustrate that people believe in a lot of things that they have no proof of except that people tell them it is real. On the other hand, I have built a homemade cloud chamber, and have proven to my satisfaction enough of the theories surroundin nuclear physics to accept them as real. Yet people stand up and call themselves skeptics yet blindly accept what scientists say, believing that they are better than me. Witness the OP in this thread as an example. I wonder if he ever thought to question science, or simply accepted them blindly and without question.

Bit ironic, don't you think?

Well I, for one, don't necessarily take scientist at face value. I always try to make certain that one scientists claims have been checked, double checked and triple checked by those considered responsible, and then I do my best to understand what has been stated. That's not always easy so yes, I do sometimes have to make the assumption that those dozens of scientists who have corroborated the data are right. Still, I always reserve the right to change my opinion pending receipt of new data.

I remember when cold fusion was being touted in the newspapers as the greatest breakthrough in scientific history many years ago. Scientists, those with the resources and the training, immediately set about trying to duplicate the results, working quietly and diligently. For my part, while I would have liked to see something like that work, I do know enough science to have had serious doubts.

It's true that we all have to take some things on faith at some point. We have to pick and choose our battles. I prefer to place more faith in a system that at least tries to correct itself through repeated experimentation and peer review than in a system whose only source of "data" is a book which has undergone numerous rewrites and translations after being written down from an oral history handed down through generations of "believers".

[leo9]

There are other equally or better answers that are just as ancient, venerable or self-evident.

That's where most religious arguments break down: they present it as a dichotomy, believe in my God or nothing. But any halfway educated person knows there are other options.

What I meant was, people who listen to the liars who claim to know of God's existence as an undeniabe, certain fact, and who accept what they say without question are gullible or deluded. People who believe after enquiry and who know that their faith is just a belief are not necessarily gullible or deluded.

It's not that simple. Before I was touched by the Goddess, I believed, in the sense that it sounded right to me, but I didn't know. Now I know from direct experience... but I also know that my experience was subjective and personal, so I can't present it as proof to anyone else, and I can't claim that other people who know differently are wrong. If I were a more persuasive person, I'd be tempted to preach and persuade and try to bring other people to see the wonderful vision: and I'd be completely wrong, because it might not be there at all for anyone else.

I often compare it to the '60s rock opera "Tommy." For people who aren't old enough to remember this, for complicated reasons Tommy becomes deaf and blind, then is cured and enlightened while playing pinball. His response is to persuade all his followers to play pinball in earpugs and blindfolds in the hope that they will find the same nirvana; and of course they don't, and they reject him furiously.

somewhere out there is a being that is eternal, omniscient and omnipresent, who is goodness in its purest form, and who wants to be worshipped (why? isn't that rather vain? vanity is a sin)

For a long time that was my problem with gods. As a gut anarchist, I automatically reject any being on any plane of existence who not only expects to be obeyed without question, but who also expects me to grovel and "praise him to the highest". (I could enjoy doing that for a Domme, but that's the difference between role-play and real life.) I couldn't even start to explore the possibility till I found that there were people who believed in gods who didn't want or expect worship or sacrifice, who just wanted to make contact because they care about us.

I love the Lady, and I am awed at a Being who exists on a level so much wider than mine. But worship her... she'd just laugh.

And for the avoidance of doubt (as the lawyers say), I'm not trying to convince anyone that my invisible friend is real. I'm just explaining how it is for me.

[Skyybird]

“ Existence is illusory and it is eternal. ”
Fyodor Dostoevsky

I put to this discussion that before we can even try to dicipher what does exist....one must first of all clarify and identify what is meant by the word exist. Perhaps that way we can make a better decision regarding what actually exists and those things which we would sincerely love to see but that can never be proved due to the lack of physical evidence.

Does this idea exist in our minds or in our reality?

Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word 'existere', meaning to appear or emerge or stand out. Exist can also be shortened to "is". A grammatical predicate you might say. May I give an example? 'A Four-leaved clover exists.' can be rephrased as 'There is a clover with four leaves.'. Funny...I found the same sentence analogy almost word for word on wikipedia! But I think we all agree it is a right and proper example of the use of the word exist.

Having said that Philosphers of the world have tried to put forward the arguement that "existence" is not only a grammatical predicate but that it implies a notion of logic. I could go on for hours about mathamatical formula's to illustrate the circumstances of existence. I shall not, because I feel it would lead us away too far from the actual topic of this post, not to mention that I am not a mathematician and would likely not convey their theories accurately.

I prefer to look at the question from this position; 'Existentialism is a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created for them by deities or authorities or defined for them by philosophical or theological doctrines'.

Basically we all believe what we believe, some of us need proof, others need no more than a suggestion to see the benefit of faith in the existence of "god", or some such other entity. Even religious men of the past have debated the truth behind the gospels, the Old and New Testament are often quoted in support of the existence of God...but in themselves are admittedly a collection of stories from individuals, who claimed to be there during the life of Christ, yet the gospels were written down in some form of order many years after their passing. Are we basing a society around the incredible talents of a story teller who took a legend or a handed down story from his fathers mothers cousin who worked for the boss of Matthew, Mark Luke or John?

Great stories of mystery and wonderment...based on actual events? Who can say.

I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.

In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God, although I have witnessed a community coming together in his name to support and care for each other without the need for thanks or remuneration. But honestly, that was just nice people being kind right?

Anyway....I'll go back to my fence and see where the discussion goes next.

[DemianHawthorne]

Not anyone, just the ignorant ones that assume that faith makes people stupid. Your very statement that I cannot think for myself and question who I am and why I am here disregards the fact that religion is an attempt to answer those very questions. The answers may not be right, but they cannot be dismissed simply because you don't think religious people can think.

-sighs- Ok. Let me try this again. If something created the universe, it knows everything that is in this realm it has made. The same way if I programmed a computer game, I would know all the rules, objects and reasons within this world I have created. Everything in my world would have a reason whether for aesthetic or support or whatever. If there is a god, as you say that has created everything than just like the computer programmer, he too would know the inner workings of our existence, why we do what we do, why there are so many stars in the sky. Everything! Unless your believe in God is some form of a Spinoza God or a cosmic child playing with blocks for my argument let's just focus on a somewhat intelligent creator. Now this being true NO you cannot think for too long without hitting the barrier of a God because our existence cannot be random. It can't be chance when some divine creator is the reason for everything. Sure you can delve into science and why evolution happens or why atoms react the way they do but in the end their reason for doing the things, you can enjoy philosophy and ponder why things are but you will always know they do is because "God made them that way".

And I have a question for you, why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient? Who is the one jumping to conclusions without proof? You need to stop assuming you know my position and ask me before you try to attack it, that is the major fault of all atheists, you already think you know me so you don't listen.

No.. it's just that there are more brands and flavors of God and Gods than there are brands of Rice-a-Roni. It's too tedious to try and argue every one of them. However a large majority of believers in a deity believe it to be omniscient so it's a safe place to start.

Prove it. Otherwise I won't even attelpt to respond to so specious an argument.

"Hey! These things called stem cells are great and could really help us one day!" "NO! That is an afront to the lord! Banned!"

And how does that change the fact that you don't like your uncle?

I like my uncle fine, I just used him as an example.

That's because you said it, but turn around what you said and try me saying the exact opposite. You would decry it as ignorant and intolerant, so the label applies just as well to you. If you don't like it I would suggest your working on your opinions. Me, I expect people to be bigoted and narrow minded.

What exactly are you saying here? That atheists are just as capable of evil things? Of course they are, we are all humans. However there is a myth that the rules of religions such as Christianity or Islam are unique and their follows believe their morals to be divinely inspired and good. When they are not. All I was doing was showing that no religion is not where we get our morals from.

[leo9]

Does this idea exist in our minds or in our reality?

Or as JK Rowling put it, "Yes, this is all happening in your head. But does that mean it isn't real?"

The computer you are sitting at started as an idea in someone's head. The point at which you could say that the idea had "real" "existence" (quotes used to indicate that these terms cry out for definition) is as fuzzy and arguable as the point where a zygote (fertilised ovum) becomes a human being. And as that simile shows, it's not a neutral question: people have ideological reasons for arguing one definition against another.

Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?
<snip>
I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.

Dangerous example for a scientist. A headache is subjective: it may have detectable physical causes, but the pain itself cannot be measured with any instrument except the sufferer's mind. (A "dolorometer" that could measure pain as objectively as a theromometer measures fever is something medical research would be devoted to, if only they had the slightest clue where to start.) Therefore, your belief that paracetamol cures your headache is subjectively based, and the "scientific proof" is only that a lot of other people have been found to share your subjective experience. Yes, more people have their headaches cured by paracetamol than by placebos, but only statistically: placebos still have a pretty good success rate. There are million-dollar patent medicines based entirely on that fact.

In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God

I've touched and been taught by mine, but I don't call that proof. It changed my life, but so does falling in love, and you can't get more subjective than that.

I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

[Thorne]

I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

I prefer the lies that would make me sickeningly rich. I guess I'm just not a good enough liar.

[leo9]

I prefer the lies that would make me sickeningly rich. I guess I'm just not a good enough liar.

A lot of people have been trying that lately, which is why we're in this mess.

[TheShadow.]

The lack of proof that something does exist does not prove its non-existence, but it does indicate that it probably does not exist.
[/COLOR][/B]

Wrong again. For centuries there was no prooof that atoms existed, yet they exist.

For centuries there was no proof that other planets existed, yet they exist.

As I stated, all a lack of proof amounts to is proof you do not have proof. Trying to extrapolate from a lack of proof is called jumping to conclusions.

[TheShadow.]

I didn't mean to imply that you did try to prove it. Obviously you must believe there is enough evidence to justify your faith in God, but that does not mean you have to try to prove his existence.

Actually, I think from what I'm seeing here that you and I are approaching the same point of view from different sides. We believe what we believe and don't feel the need to prove our positions to anyone. The real difference between us is that you believe in God, and if you're wrong you lose nothing. I don't believe in God, and if I'm wrong, I'm screwed!

I agree with that, mosy of my response to you was based on your replies to what I said anyway, and was not about disagreeing so much as clarifying my position.

And as far as you being screwed, not necessarily. As I often tell pepole when they try to pin me down about who will go to heaven, that is a management decision. I can actually point to Bible verses that indicate that everyone will be given a second chance to make a informed decision about following God, which really drives a lot of people nutty. They really go apeshit when I tell them that I really don't think anyone will actually go to heaven.

Well I, for one, don't necessarily take scientist at face value. I always try to make certain that one scientists claims have been checked, double checked and triple checked by those considered responsible, and then I do my best to understand what has been stated. That's not always easy so yes, I do sometimes have to make the assumption that those dozens of scientists who have corroborated the data are right. Still, I always reserve the right to change my opinion pending receipt of new data.

I remember when cold fusion was being touted in the newspapers as the greatest breakthrough in scientific history many years ago. Scientists, those with the resources and the training, immediately set about trying to duplicate the results, working quietly and diligently. For my part, while I would have liked to see something like that work, I do know enough science to have had serious doubts.

It's true that we all have to take some things on faith at some point. We have to pick and choose our battles. I prefer to place more faith in a system that at least tries to correct itself through repeated experimentation and peer review than in a system whose only source of "data" is a book which has undergone numerous rewrites and translations after being written down from an oral history handed down through generations of "believers".

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

[TheShadow.]

-sighs- Ok. Let me try this again. If something created the universe, it knows everything that is in this realm it has made. The same way if I programmed a computer game, I would know all the rules, objects and reasons within this world I have created. Everything in my world would have a reason whether for aesthetic or support or whatever. If there is a god, as you say that has created everything than just like the computer programmer, he too would know the inner workings of our existence, why we do what we do, why there are so many stars in the sky. Everything! Unless your believe in God is some form of a Spinoza God or a cosmic child playing with blocks for my argument let's just focus on a somewhat intelligent creator. Now this being true NO you cannot think for too long without hitting the barrier of a God because our existence cannot be random. It can't be chance when some divine creator is the reason for everything. Sure you can delve into science and why evolution happens or why atoms react the way they do but in the end their reason for doing the things, you can enjoy philosophy and ponder why things are but you will always know they do is because "God made them that way".

Why would I believe that? The only way God would have total control over the universe is if he did write it on some sort of super computer, and then did not make any provision for randomness in it.

If I wrote a game that made certain decisions based on how many particles a detector had counted in the previous fraction of time I would not know exactly what was going to happen, and the more randomness I built into it the less I would actually know about all those details you want to insist I believe God knows.

Just because I believe in God does not mean that "God made them that way is the perfect answer to any question. What if God wants us to understand not just that he did something, but why he did it? Simply knowing he did it would then be only the first step on our path to knowledge, and would force us to ask questions that science blithely ignores.

No.. it's just that there are more brands and flavors of God and Gods than there are brands of Rice-a-Roni. It's too tedious to try and argue every one of them. However a large majority of believers in a deity believe it to be omniscient so it's a safe place to start.

It isn't safe, it is just easy, and that simply makes you lazy. And the fact that you cannot even admit that shows that oyu are essentially no better than a theist who simply says "God made it that way."

"Hey! These things called stem cells are great and could really help us one day!" "NO! That is an afront to the lord! Banned!"

Wow, yet the proudly atheistic government of Sweden is insisting that scientists consider the feelings and dignity of plants before conducting research into ways to improve their health and food value. So again you are wrong, it is not a belief in God that holds us back, it is stupidity.

What exactly are you saying here? That atheists are just as capable of evil things? Of course they are, we are all humans. However there is a myth that the rules of religions such as Christianity or Islam are unique and their follows believe their morals to be divinely inspired and good. When they are not. All I was doing was showing that no religion is not where we get our morals from.

Those so called myths are not based on the religion or teachings of the prophets, but upon man's basic desire to do evil. That is the simple fact you are ignoring. Or, perhaps because you do not believe in God, you reject the idea of evil also, which just makes you a fool.

[Thorne]

if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

I have heard many different opinions about that, and I'm fairly well convinced that there is not all that much of the Bible which has remained unchanged. In the first place, the Old Testament is a conglomeration of morality tales, primarily, based on old oral histories and then the Torah. But there have been numerous revisions and translations and revisions of translations. The basic stories are the same, but many of the phrases, which may have meant one thing in Aramaic, meant something slightly different in Hebrew, and more different in Greek, then in Latin and then in English. It's like playing that old children's game of telephone, where each person has to pass on a message to the next person, with each person translating from what he was told by the previous person.
Even the New Testament has been revised since the first writings, with the leaders of the Catholic Church picking and choosing among the various gospels in existence at the time, then tossing the one's they didn't like. That doesn't mean that the one's they selected were accurate, just that they sold the message the Church leaders wanted to sell.
And, while there may be some archeological evidence to corroborate some portions of the Bible, there is an awful lot of blank space, things which one would suspect should have left traces, but for which no tangible evidence has been found.
So we cannot say that the Bible is unchanged; we cannot show that many, if not most, of the happenings in the Bible, including most of the New Testament, ever took place; we cannot even prove that some of the most important characters in the Bible actually existed. How, then can we say it has remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years?
And all that aside, when so many people who profess to believe in the Bible can interpret it in so many different ways, how are we expected, rationally, to accept it as gospel? No, I think I'll have to pass on the Bible as an historical artifact and interpret it more as a morality play, a teaching tool for the rules of society.

[Belgarold]

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

To add to Thorne's great post, many of the parables and stories were added to the Bible by monks as late as the dark ages.

The powers that were also left out many books (The Gnostic Chronicles) which actually had Jesus saying, (and I am paraphrasing, sorry), "I am god, but you are too."

It was decided to leave out the book that described Jesus as a child was voted out of the bible.

And, to me, when you consider that the books of the New Testament were written 60 years after the events, you have to wonder.

I am sorry but the statement that the Bible has been unchanged for thousands of years just doesn't hold water.

And for the record I am not an Atheist, I have a strong, personal belief in God. But I do not think the Bible is the end-all be-all of religious thought. TO me God speaks to us through many means and many people.

The Bible has many good things in it, but as THorne alluded too, it is way too easy to interpretation. And it seems to me, most organized religions, are based on a few verses and they easily ignore the rest.

[leo9]

And as far as you being screwed, not necessarily. As I often tell pepole when they try to pin me down about who will go to heaven, that is a management decision. I can actually point to Bible verses that indicate that everyone will be given a second chance to make a informed decision about following God, which really drives a lot of people nutty.

Which verses are those? I would have thought the First Commandment pretty much settled it.

However, a great many religions don't actually hold that you won't go to Heaven unless you "believe" right; their position is that what matters is that you lived a virtuous life, who you prayed to is a secondary or even lower matter.

Following the "right" religion might give you useful pointers as to the approved kind of virtue (whether to rub blue mud into your navel on the Solstices or the Equinoxes), but if you get it right by pure inspiration, you qualify just like a True Believer.

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

As a matter of interest, which excluded books of the Apocrypha do you consider part of this unchanged and accurate book, and which of the ones that were removed from it within recorded history were never part of it?

Are you aware that some of the "things that can be checked" are the Roman records of the history of Judea, and they show no record of, among other things, the census that supposedly took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, or the Massacre of Innocents? (To name only the events large enough, from the point of view of the Imperial government, to have certainly been worth recording.)

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Thorne]

However, a great many religions don't actually hold that you won't go to Heaven unless you "believe" right; their position is that what matters is that you lived a virtuous life, who you prayed to is a secondary or even lower matter.

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the American Southern Baptists. As near as I can tell, you are either a born again Christian who may make it to heaven, or you are the spawn of Satan trying to lure others to hell. There seems to be very little middle ground.

Are you aware that some of the "things that can be checked" are the Roman records of the history of Judea, and they show no record of, among other things, the census that supposedly took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, or the Massacre of Innocents? (To name only the events large enough, from the point of view of the Imperial government, to have certainly been worth recording.)

I've heard similar reports, many dealing with events which should have been recorded. There are, supposedly, records from the Roman government in Judea from the time of the crucifixion, many dealing with criminals and executions, but to my (admittedly uncertain) knowledge there is absolutely no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ outside of the New Testament.
Add to this the fact that even among the four Gospels which the Church deemed worthy of inclusion in the Bible, there is a plethora of contradiction and disagreement dealing with something so important to the Church as the life of Christ. Much of the early life of Christ, as related by the Gospels, seems to have been edited to conform to the Hebrew prophecies dealing with the coming of the Messiah.

[MMI]

According to a programme I saw on the UK History channel, it was statistically probable that there were about four Jesus ben Josephs in Judea at the time of Christ's lifetime, and there is tentative evidence of at least one of them.

To the person who triumphantly demonstrated I was "wrong again" (I don't admit to EVER being wrong!) - I'm afraid he is overstating his case in this regard. While it is true that the existence of some things has been posited and eventually proved right, such as atoms, that does not mean every proposition will always be right. When atoms were discovered and studied, it was found that they were not at all what had originally been suggested, for example: an indivisible particle that was the same as every other other atom.

Nevertheless, let's accept that I'm splitting hairs over that. I still maintain that what I said was true: if there is absolutely no evidence that a thing exists, then, on the balance of probabilities, it doesn't. That's not to say it definitely doesn't, but if you need a working model, the one that assumes it doesn't exist will probably be right. The evidence of your eyes/ears/reason will be right more often than not.

[Thorne]

According to a programme I saw on the UK History channel, it was statistically probable that there were about four Jesus ben Josephs in Judea at the time of Christ's lifetime, and there is tentative evidence of at least one of them.

I've heard that as well, though I thought the probability was higher. They were both fairly common names during that time. But there is no record of a Jesus ben Joseph being tried, convicted and executed for treason by the Roman courts. And the Romans were pretty fanatical about their records. Of course, that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Just that there's no evidence for it.

I don't admit to EVER being wrong!

Good for you!

If there is absolutely no evidence that a thing exists, then, on the balance of probabilities, it doesn't. That's not to say it definitely doesn't, but if you need a working model, the one that assumes it doesn't exist will probably be right. The evidence of your eyes/ears/reason will be right more often than not.

Ye gods, we're agreeing again! Is the world coming to an end?
Or maybe not. You can't always believe your eyes. That's the basis for illusionists doing what they do. To the eye, the world seems flat and the sky seems to be an inverted bowl hanging over our heads. And you can't always believe everything you hear, either. All of our senses are filtered through our minds which tends to block out, to some extent, those things we don't want to see and hear.
And what may seem reasonable to one may seem cockeyed to another. Reason is far too subjective.

[leo9]

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the American Southern Baptists. As near as I can tell, you are either a born again Christian who may make it to heaven, or you are the spawn of Satan trying to lure others to hell. There seems to be very little middle ground.

That particular faction isn't found in this country, but we have our own versions. I'll never forget an interfaith forum I once attended which was all friendly and ecumenical until the two Christian ministers fell out over the question of whether unbelievers could be saved. I can still hear the Protestant minister getting more Irish by the moment as he shouted "I don't care what the Pope says, the Bible says..."

[leo9]

It was decided to leave out the book that described Jesus as a child was voted out of the bible.

If you've read it, you'll see why. It has him acting like one of the more capricious Hindu gods - he make mud animals and brings them to life, then when another child damages them, he strikes the child dead. And so on. It must have been an embarrassment even back in ancient Rome.

The deleted gospel that I find more intriguing is the Life of Mary, which credits her with a portentous birth and miracle-working life to equal her son's. One can certainly see how the Roman church, which had already taken on board all the Roman attitudes to women, couldn't be having with that.

[Belgarold]

Yes, that is amazing but my point was that the book has not remained unchanged for thousands of years. And it shows that mortal men, fallible men, made decisions about the format of the Bible.

And I agree that deleting the book of Mary was a travesty. But a lot of the early members of the Church seemed to be patently misogynist. LOL.

[wmrs2]

I admit that I have not read the many good replies listed here on this thread;therefore I am not aware of whose toes are being stepped on. I hope no one's toes.

There are no real atheist. If you say you are an atheist, it is only by a narrow definition that you made up. That ? thing is bull shit. In order to question or do any type of thinking, you must have a premise on which you base reality. Without this you would just be an animal or no being at all. It comes down to this, everybody believes in something absolute or there would be no premises upon which to base thinking. Everybody who thinks by definition also believes whether you want to admit it or not. Get over it, the Master Lives.