An Atheist Speaks

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

See, one thing we've all got to understand is that people on all sides of the debate feel very certain that their evidence has merit and is credible.

This is a great example of imprecise usage of the term evidence.

Quote

I find your reasons for believing only in the natural unreasonable and illogical.

Here is an example of imprecise usage of reason and logic.

Quote

After all, if you believe in Absolute Truth, then someone in the argument/discussion has to be wrong, because of the law of non-contradiction!

Incorrect. Belief, in and of itself, does not make something true. Just because someone believes in an absolute truth, that does not mean someone who doesn't hold a similar belief is wrong. Before that conclusion could be logically and reasonably reached, it must first be demonstrated that there actually is an absolute truth.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Atheists have shown that they don't like their religion misrepresented, and they will speak up if you do.

Atheism is not a religion. Why is that so difficult for so many people to comprehend?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lindsey 0]

ANOTHER side of this issue is the question of whether it even matters anyway. Is there some god out there? Is there nothing besides what's here? We can try to convince each other all day long, but our conclusions really don't matter very much, imho. If there is, then great. If not, then that's okay too. We aren't gonna change it by arguing a point until we're blue in the face. The one with the most convincing argument doesn't necessarily have the answer. I say live and let live.

:)
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[shropshire 0]

Yes it matters, like every other question matters. It's in our nature to seek out answers to all sorts of questions. It helps us to learn and move forward.
We don't always like the answers though.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Atheists have shown that they don't like their religion misrepresented, and they will speak up if you do.

Atheism is not a religion. Why is that so difficult for so many people to comprehend?

I think it was a deliberate ploy to provoke just such a response. Either that or Mockingbird loves irony.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

ANOTHER side of this issue is the question of whether it even matters anyway. Is there some god out there? Is there nothing besides what's here? We can try to convince each other all day long, but our conclusions really don't matter very much, imho. If there is, then great. If not, then that's okay too. We aren't gonna change it by arguing a point until we're blue in the face. The one with the most convincing argument doesn't necessarily have the answer. I say live and let live.

:)
linz

Oh, c'mon, Doc. If we can't argue about religion on the internet does life even have a purpose any longer?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

In Reply To
After all, if you believe in Absolute Truth, then someone in the argument/discussion has to be wrong, because of the law of non-contradiction!
••••••••••••••••
Incorrect. Belief, in and of itself, does not make something true. Just because someone believes in an absolute truth, that does not mean someone who doesn't hold a similar belief is wrong. Before that conclusion could be logically and reasonably reached, it must first be demonstrated that there actually is an absolute truth.

I'm sorry, I should've worded that better; I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was, if you (jcd11235) believe in absolute truth (that it exists and that not all things are relative), then you will most likely agree that the law of non-contradiction would dictate that of two contradictory theories (such as atheism and theism), only one can be true.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

See, one thing we've all got to understand is that people on all sides of the debate feel very certain that their evidence has merit and is credible.

This is a great example of imprecise usage of the term evidence.

Quote

I find your reasons for believing only in the natural unreasonable and illogical.

Here is an example of imprecise usage of reason and logic.

OK, I'll bite. Tell me how to use the terms "evidence", "reason" and "logic" correctly. I will be receptive to anything taught to me having to do with using the English language correctly so that I'm able to communicate effectively. Seriously. I've only been speaking the language 53 years; you'd think I would know how to use it properly, but I will certainly not take that for granted!!

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

ANOTHER side of this issue is the question of whether it even matters anyway. Is there some god out there? Is there nothing besides what's here? We can try to convince each other all day long, but our conclusions really don't matter very much, imho. If there is, then great. If not, then that's okay too. We aren't gonna change it by arguing a point until we're blue in the face. The one with the most convincing argument doesn't necessarily have the answer. I say live and let live.



:)
linz

"We didn't start the fire"

[Lindsey 0]

If you are able to forgive someone who did some great injustice against you, that would make you more in the heart of Jesus than you think (not hinting that you already arent)

Letting go of the bad things that other people do to you makes it possible to live a happy life rather than a life full of hatred. Depending on your philosophies and beliefs, forgiving others may "make you more in the heart of Jesus." But it may just let you live free of that turmoil and have nothing to do with Jesus at all.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

If you are able to forgive someone who did some great injustice against you, that would make you more in the heart of Jesus than you think (not hinting that you already arent)

Letting go of the bad things that other people do to you makes it possible to live a happy life rather than a life full of hatred. Depending on your philosophies and beliefs, forgiving others may "make you more in the heart of Jesus." But it may just let you live free of that turmoil and have nothing to do with Jesus at all.

I agree wholeheartedly. Anyone who has felt the power of forgiveness should testify for it. Many people could learn this valuable valuable lesson, agreed? I was only saying that forgiveness through grace is exactly what Jesus died for. It is very powerful, and life freeing.

When I ask someone for forgiveness, it gives me a great feeling to know it is accepted. Jesus accepts it with a heart full of Joy, compassion, mercy, and love, as we all should (should being the key word).

"We didn't start the fire"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Tell me how to use the terms "evidence", "reason" and "logic" correctly.

Have you tried the dictionary to find definitions appropriate for the context of making a logically valid argument?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

Tell me how to use the terms "evidence", "reason" and "logic" correctly.

Have you tried the dictionary to find definitions appropriate for the context of making a logically valid argument?

I'm aware of the definitions of those words. You didn't like my usage of the words; tell me either how I misused them, or tell me how to use them properly.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm aware of the definitions of those words. You didn't like my usage of the words; tell me either how I misused them, or tell me how to use them properly.

Sigh.

Quote

He wouldn't be the first to imply (to put it mildly!) "that those who disagreed with him were wrong, yet with no credible evidence" offered. See, one thing we've all got to understand is that people on all sides of the debate feel very certain that their evidence has merit and is credible.

When asking for evidence of the existence of god, atheists typically are referring to scientific evidence. I have yet to ever see or hear about any scientific evidence of any deity. The Bible does not constitute such evidence. The wondrous appearance of the world around us is not such evidence. The complexity of a cell is not such evidence. The fact that cosmologists understand the universe at precisely time zero is not such evidence. The feeling one experiences from their worship of a deity is not evidence.

Quote

I find your reasons for believing only in the natural unreasonable and illogical.

How is it illogical or unreasonable to believe only in the natural? What premise(s), known (i.e. not merely believed) to be true (i.e. verifiably factual), can we start with, and logically deduce from that premise (e.g. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) that one should believe in the supernatural?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Quote

However, it would be interesting to hear the rest of your beliefs.

That's not something I'm inclined to share on an internet forum. I'm not seeking approval, validation, or to recruit other people to believe as I do. My beliefs are between me and, for lack of a better word, God.

Completely understood. I also dont seek approval or validation, and contrary to the popular, Im not looking to recruit either! Christians are together because they are with Jesus. There are MANY people in the church still seeking Gods "approval" through each other. This is one of the reasons I have stayed away from the church. Not everyone who is in church knows Jesus, surely you know that? Jesus spoke against hypocrisy more than anything.

The Gospel tells us to speak the truth from your heart, there are not enough people in the church doing that. If they follow Jesus, they will know the truth, that we are all guilty of sin, not one of us is any better. Thats why I dont really like the "heiarchy of the Pope". The pope is a man, therefore, whether it is seen on the outside or not, he is guilty just like all men. Just because one does not believe in God, does not mean he isnt guilty of sin, it just means he doesnt believe in God.

"We didn't start the fire"

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm aware of the definitions of those words. You didn't like my usage of the words; tell me either how I misused them, or tell me how to use them properly.

Sigh.

Quote

He wouldn't be the first to imply (to put it mildly!) "that those who disagreed with him were wrong, yet with no credible evidence" offered. See, one thing we've all got to understand is that people on all sides of the debate feel very certain that their evidence has merit and is credible.

When asking for evidence of the existence of god, atheists typically are referring to scientific evidence. I have yet to ever see or hear about any scientific evidence of any deity. The Bible does not constitute such evidence. The wondrous appearance of the world around us is not such evidence. The complexity of a cell is not such evidence. The fact that cosmologists understand the universe at precisely time zero is not such evidence. The feeling one experiences from their worship of a deity is not evidence.

Quote

I find your reasons for believing only in the natural unreasonable and illogical.

How is it illogical or unreasonable to believe only in the natural? What premise(s), known (i.e. not merely believed) to be true (i.e. verifiably factual), can we start with, and logically deduce from that premise (e.g. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) that one should believe in the supernatural?

Forgive me, but isnt scientific evidence only proving something that is already proven? That seems to be the logic behind your A=C thing right?

"We didn't start the fire"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Forgive me, but isnt scientific evidence only proving something that is already proven? That seems to be the logic behind your A=C thing right?

Not quite.

If A=B
and B=C,
then we can logically deduce that A=C.

On the other hand,
If some A are B
and some B are C,
we cannot logically deduce that some A are C.

And that falls under logic, not evidence.

An example of evidence might be:

If the universe is expanding, then the celestial bodies outside of our galaxy should be moving away from us. That most celestial bodies outside our galaxy display a red shift, regardless of the direction that we look, demonstrating that they are moving away from us, would be considered evidence that the universe is expanding.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[maadmax 0]

However, it would be interesting to hear the rest of your beliefs .

That's not something I'm inclined to share on an internet forum. I'm not seeking approval, validation, or to recruit other people to believe as I do. My beliefs are between me and, for lack of a better word, God***,

Finally, this has to one of your better posts. As a lover and seeker of Truth & God, I am deeply interested in any insights in that area. One who has a lamp does not hide it under a basket. If you have any wisdom on that subject please share it.

________________________________________

[billvon 2,406]

>If something has all kinds of references like zeus, athena, and all of the
> other meaningless names you like to throw around but has no power to
>change my life . . .

People's lives have been changed by God throughout the ages, even when they don't use the same names for him that you do. The fact that you prefer Jesus is as meaningful (or meaningless) as the fact that someone else uses Yahweh, or Zeus, or Vishnu, or Allah.

I have no doubt your faith is important to you and has changed your life. The same has happened with other people and other religions.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

When asking for evidence of the existence of god, atheists typically are referring to scientific evidence. I have yet to ever see or hear about any scientific evidence of any deity.

Then why would an atheist ask for such evidence?

a. The nature of a deity is supernatural.
b. Scientific evidence concerns itself strictly with the natural.
c. The supernatural doesn't subject itself to science because it is "SUPER" (=above or beyond)-"NATURAL" (=nature)

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, supernatural means:
"supernatural (adjective): caused by forces that cannot be explained by science

the supernatural (noun): things that cannot be explained by science"

Science certainly has limitations. It can't explain that which is beyond the natural, even when that which is beyond the natural has interacted with the natural and left "it's" fingerprints on the natural.

In Jesus, the natural and supernatural coalesced. Do you want evidence for Jesus? Fine. He came into the natural world to be felt, seen, heard... all scientific observations, and he was. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed on this earth 2000 years ago is not difficult. Eyewitnesses have left their testimony about Jesus for posterity, tho' some, who by nature object to the whole idea of Jesus (especially his claims and his miracles which validated his claims), will only refer to that testimony as "hearsay evidence," even tho' one of the greatest legal minds ever known, Simon Greenleaf, considered that testimony to be valid, and "would have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightest hesitation." (p. 9, 10 in his 1874 book, The Testimony of the Evangelists-- referring, that is, to the authors of the gospels, NOT televangelists!! A Treatise on the Law of Evidence and is considered a classic of American jurisprudence.

Quote

Quote

The Bible does not constitute such evidence. The wondrous appearance of the world around us is not such evidence. The complexity of a cell is not such evidence.

Yes, these things are not scientific evidence of a Supernatural deity. In the broader sense of the term, "evidence," the observation of design in the "wondrous appearance of the world around us" is "evident" and constitutes "evidence." Remember that "evidence" is not confined to science. Science is one field of many. As your Wikipedia article says, "The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as policy, scientific research, criminal investigations, and legal discourse." However, you are concerned with that one field of science.

Quote

Quote

The feeling one experiences from their worship of a deity is not evidence.

True.

Quote

Quote

***I find your reasons for believing only in the natural unreasonable and illogical.

How is it illogical or unreasonable to believe only in the natural? What premise(s), known (i.e. not merely believed) to be true (i.e. verifiably factual), can we start with, and logically deduce from that premise (e.g. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) that one should believe in the supernatural?

The Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. (This is the Law of
Causality.)
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's self-evident that the cause of the universe had to be greater than the universe, greater than the natural world... and therefore beyond the natural world. That cause would have to be supernatural ("beyond" the "natural").

If this explanation is not good enough for you, I'm sorry, but I'm even more limited than science in what I can understand and explain. I'm sure you've heard this explanation before (it's not original with me after all). You've already rejected it. I'm not here to convince you otherwise, but only to give you a reason for my position. Unless you can show that the premises above are not true, I'll stick with the logical conclusion that the cause of the universe was a Supernatural one.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. (This is the Law of
Causality.)
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's self-evident that the cause of the universe had to be greater than the universe, greater than the natural world... and therefore beyond the natural world. That cause would have to be supernatural ("beyond" the "natural").

Interesting argument, but, unfortunately, it is faulty logic. It makes the assumption that the universe had a beginning. The universe as we know it emerged from a singularity. The beginning of time occurred at the Big Bang. That doesn't mean that the universe came into existence at that point, only that any information of how the singularity came to be is lost and unknowable by man, at least with our current level of understanding. There are more plausible ideas than a supernatural being creating the universe at that point. One possibility is that the universe is cyclical, and the Big Bang, modeled mathematically, is an instant represented numerically with division by zero.

Note that the Greek word logos (sorry, the greek letters didn't render) is translates to both word and, perhaps more importantly, ratio.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JackC 0]

Quote

Eyewitnesses have left their testimony about Jesus for posterity, tho' some, who by nature object to the whole idea of Jesus (especially his claims and his miracles which validated his claims), will only refer to that testimony as "hearsay evidence," even tho' one of the greatest legal minds ever known, Simon Greenleaf, considered that testimony to be valid, and "would have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightest hesitation." (p. 9, 10 in his 1874 book, The Testimony of the Evangelists-- referring, that is, to the authors of the gospels, NOT televangelists!! A Treatise on the Law of Evidence and is considered a classic of American jurisprudence.

Greanleaf is not without his critics. One such criticism states:

And all of the New Testament reports of Jesus' resurrection (except for Paul's own account of his vision) are legally objectionable as hearsay. The gospels are entirely hearsay. Acts is all hearsay. It does not matter who Mark's source was (Peter?), we are not getting it from the source. At best, it is second-hand hearsay.

The legal definition of hearsay is quite clear in that it is objectionable since it is not based on the witnesses own knowledge but based on someone elses testimony. The simple fact that no original copies of the Bible exist is sufficient to define the Bible in it's entirety as hearsay before you get onto any other criticisms. You may not like that and will be willing to accept the Bible as evidence anyway, but that does not change the fact that it is hearsay and is therefore not evidence.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, supernatural means:
"supernatural (adjective): caused by forces that cannot be explained by science

the supernatural (noun): things that cannot be explained by science"

I don't believe in the supernatural. That is what atheism is, disbelief in the supernatural. As man's knowledge has increased over the years more and more of what people attributed to supernatural causes has been explained to not be of supernatural cause. Deitys make no logical sense. There is no evidence of anything supernatural and by definition there never will be any. You believe because you want to believe. That is fine, but don't make false claims of evidence when there isn't any and never will be. No one questions whether or not the biblical Jesus existed. He most likely did exist. What I and all atheists disbelieve is the so called miracles the he is said to have performed and the resurection. There just isn't any evidence to support that.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

In Jesus, the natural and supernatural coalesced. Do you want evidence for Jesus? Fine. He came into the natural world to be felt, seen, heard... all scientific observations, and he was. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed on this earth 2000 years ago is not difficult. Eyewitnesses have left their testimony about Jesus for posterity. SNIP

Baloney!

There is no doubt at all that Alexander the Great existed on this Earth, and contemporary eyewitnesses wrote that he was the son of Zeus. In Alexander, the natural and supernatural coalesced.

It's all baloney, of course.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Non-Christian sources mentioning Jesus:
Josephus; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Thallus, a first-century historian; Seutonius, a Roman historian; Lucin, a Greek satirist; Celsus, A Roman philosopher; Mara Bar-Serapion, a private citizen who wrote to his son; and the Jewish Talmud. To read a complete listing of mentions of Christ from these sources, see Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus, chap. 9.

It's Lucian, BTW.

And I asked for both lists.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?