A few questions for fellow atheists

[Japher]

At any rate, I do not believe because no one as proven to me any God exists, and I currently don't view it as something that fits in my worldview. However, I cannot believe God does not exist, because there is no evidence for such, either.

That is all I am trying to get at... I also add, though, that because it cannot be shown either way, conclusivly, then believing either way could be (and in my opinion is) assinine for inclusion into any practicle, or more so physical, interpretation, proof, or line of reason. Because of which, the mere debate is mute until which time some sort of definite evidence can be delivered to prove one or the other... My question then, is what kind of interpretation should this evidence be addressed in so that it cannot be misconstrude?

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

At any rate, I do not believe because no one as proven to me any God exists, and I currently don't view it as something that fits in my worldview. However, I cannot believe God does not exist, because there is no evidence for such, either.

I also can't prove to you that while you were out yesterday, someone broke into your house, stole everything and then replaced it all with exact duplicates.

The only issue of importance is whether it affects your life or not. If the lack of evidence for God's existence causes you to act in no way different than if you didn't believe, then for all intents and purposes, you don't believe.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by gunkulator
The only issue of importance is whether it affects your life or not. If the lack of evidence for God's existence causes you to act in no way different than if you didn't believe, then for all intents and purposes, you don't believe.

I explicitley stated "I don't believe." I don't think I can be any clearer.

But again, that is different from "I believe there is no God," at least on a philosophical level. On a practical level, no, there is no tangible difference between my soft athiesm and your hard athiesm. But there is a philosophical difference.

[yavoon]

ur using a distinction w/o a difference boris. since it is supposed that we have to take a neutral stance when someone proposes something(ie they present proof for their claim). but we do not.

I do not have to be neutral about the existance of invisible undetectable green men simply because u bring it up. I can perfectly well disbelieve, and am in no way dishonest. while ur claim that because someone brings up an unprovable proposition I must immediately move to neutrality about its existance just cuz he brought it up.

[Rogan Josh]

yavoon, it is not the same thing at all. The belief in something beyond the physical is held by 99% of the world's population. It is hardly akin to believing in 'invisible undetectable green men'.

Even science requires an assumption of something unprovable before you can start, but most atheists are happy to believe this assumption to be true.

[yavoon]

there is a difference between postulating that the speed of light is constant from ne reference point. and god.

for one the first has consequences that can be indirectly drawn. and those can be proved. it is postulated cuz it is not proved directly, but that is not to say that it is random and irrational.

what does 99% of the worlds population have to do w/ the reliability o fnething? why dont we go back and history and name the things that 99% of the worlds population believed and count how many of them turned out to to be true.

truth is not democratic.

[Japher]

truth is not democratic.

but the perception of truth is, and that is worth something

[yavoon]

the only possible thing I can imagine to help u out is that "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"

which could be interpreted as an appeal to accepted doctrine. otherwise ur kinda flat.

and either way ur deliberately not understanding my pt which is frustrating.

[Japher]

I understand your point

and, I agree

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by yavoon
for one the first has consequences that can be indirectly drawn. and those can be proved. it is postulated cuz it is not proved directly, but that is not to say that it is random and irrational.

That is not true. Nothing can ever be proven 100%. It can only be proven to a specified degree of certainty (eg. 95% confidence) and that is further dependent on assumptions which themselves are not proven (and cannot be).

what does 99% of the worlds population have to do w/ the reliability o fnething? why dont we go back and history and name the things that 99% of the worlds population believed and count how many of them turned out to to be true.

truth is not democratic.

Something that 99% of the population believes in deserves consideration before dismissal. To not consider such a thing is arrogance in the extreme.

Or do you believe you understand the world better than the 99% (or the 99.9999%)? That is I hypothesis in which I would not place much faith....

[yavoon]

1)the vast majority of the world doesn't bother being rigorously scientific in their beliefs. so simply understanding the concepts puts u ahead of the vast majority. I dont know why ur trying to argue that the truth is democratic. since its so obviously false through the vast majority of human history. but no now ur bringing it up as "as long as a lot of ppl believe something stupid it must be kinda true."

2)the pt of "nothing is absolutely certain" is completely inane and I can't believ eu'd even bring it up. I dont know wut to say, go read up on what science is and get back to me.

[monkspider]

If anyone is curious as to whether a God exists or not, I would suggest the following link as a good starting point.

http://www.near-death.com/storm.html

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The word "bullsh*t" seems remarkably appropriate.

Your comment shows that you either don't understand Christianity or you don't understand science, or both.

Your inability to demonstrate what is "wrong" with my quoted statement clearly illustrates that it in fact points to the crux of the problem.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm going to watch the game, I'll be back, say 10ish?

Working from when I left:

yavoon:

yes obiwan it is true that just because science can not explain something doesn't mean it doesn't occur. BUT ITS ALSO TRUE. that just because something isnt explained by science u get to makeup something and lay claim to it.

Good. Now we get into some really interesting points, such as the reliability of the Gospels. Are the Christians making something up, or are they telling the truth?

Kontiki:

I see your point. I'm not trying to discard these sections, but I am trying to redirect the debate to a more useful direction.

Look at the sections I'm leaving out at this point, the Psalms, Proverbs, things that are not meant to be used as historical evidence. Now one could make the argument for the first nine chapters of Genesis as a historical account. To do so, I need to harmonise the individual Christian interpretations so that I argue from a common perspective.

Therefore, I argue from the least position, that there was some kind of flood, at least a local flood, and that creation occured over an indeterminate period of time, whether 6 days or eons.

Neither detail is critical to accept the existence of God. What difference does it make if God creates the universe in 6 days or over the course of billions of years?

The same is for the flood. Did a flood occur wiping out a substantial portion of the world's population? Yes. If God brought the flood, what difference does it make if it only kills one portion for the existence of God?

That's why I'm trying to put the debate on the sections critical to the existence of God, rather than the side debates which can come later.

That clear, Kontiki?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
UR: Science has yet to rule out God's existence, since without knowing anything about the nature of God, it is impossible to scientifically prove or disprove his existence. Science has shown that the actions ascribed to Yaweh are either fictional or have scientific explanations, but they haven't disproved "God" in the absolute sense.

But that just goes back to the futility of trying to comprehend a being that is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

My main contention is a person cannot hold both the sciences and Christianity to be true. Unless you hold that this god is transcendantal instead of interventionist, a clockmaker who just watches on after setting the world in motion. This, however, flies in the face of orthodox Christian doctrines.