[_ Old Earth _] How God did it,... I'm all ears....

[Adam]

There isn't such a present paradigm shift.


Creationists are attempting in various ways to make the bible conform in one way or another to current sciences which is a silly approach, since the bible is not a hard science book. It is a culture book.

 

[Arch Angle]

Well, if there is no evidence for either of two positions, by default we go with "none."


Innocent until proven guilty.... why do we take that position?


Or how about that famous atheist qutation "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Or in probability, why do we consider the null hypothesis?



You can't just assert things are true because there isn't evidence against them.

You can say, because I have "THIS LIST" of evidence it suggest my stance is true tho. The other problem is how many times can one say that is not evidence before it obvious that they don't care about evidence?

for example, the statement, "all discussion on god are invalid". That stance has a "fundamentalist"feel to it. I mean even a basic look tosee if the universe is alive, would mean we are part of something bigger. Higher power if you will. Weather you call it god or not is not the issue. The issue is that a living universe is the possible thing that these guy are misrepresenting.

also, it comes down to claims. If your claim "god" you need a list of evidence. We then can look at that list and see if it is reasonable to ask how strong the argument is. Unfortunately, most atheist don't understand that concept, so when they claim "No-god", they don't understand that they have to provide a list also. Which is completely different than "I don't believe in your type of god".

 

[cupid dave]

You can say, because I have "THIS LIST" of evidence it suggest my stance is true tho. The other problem is how many times can one say that is not evidence before it obvious that they don't care about evidence?

for example, the statement, "all discussion on god are invalid". That stance has a "fundamentalist"feel to it. I mean even a basic look tosee if the universe is alive, would mean we are part of something bigger. Higher power if you will. Weather you call it god or not is not the issue. The issue is that a living universe is the possible thing that these guy are misrepresenting.

You put it as best as possibe IMHO.

Thomas had to put his finger in the holes in the hand of Jesus before he would believe in Life-After-death.
But what if Thomas had done that, then responded with "When did that happen?"
Meaning he still had doubts because he could not be certain someone other than Jesus, an accomplice perhaps, had nail driven thru his hands just so he could pull the stunt off.

You hit upon the DIFFERENCE between presenting evidence for a claim and PROVING a claim.
A PROOF comes from inside the mind of the other person you are presenting evidence to.
They have the control over saying, "That (evidence) proves it to me."

 

[Adam]

also, it comes down to claims. If your claim "god" you need a list of evidence. We then can look at that list and see if it is reasonable to ask how strong the argument is. Unfortunately, most atheist don't understand that concept, so when they claim "No-god", they don't understand that they have to provide a list also. Which is completely different than "I don't believe in your type of god".

Then we need to be careful, then, in understanding what the atheist means when he /she claims "no-god." The assumption when we talk about God is, of course, not Shiva, Mithras, Loki, or Allah. We are talking about the God of Christian literature. I think that atheists mostly understand this, so when they come from a point of view of "no god" they have the preface that we only consider One as God, so they are specifically addressing our "type of god" which they reject based on claims that are not demonstrable and that defy common experience and expectation.

They should at least be agnostic, rather than asserting that which they also cannot empirically prove. No one should be asserting things just because there is not evidence against a claim. The claim should not be asserted without substantiating evidence.

 

[Arch Angle]

I agree,

The athiest has to be more careful.

 

[Adam]

I think it is safe to assume that when both the atheist and the Christian are debating about the existence of God, they both mean the Christian God.

Then, there is no reason to get into dialogues regarding examining a deistic worldview. That is an assumption both sides can enter the discussion in agreement as possible. Then it is up to us, if the atheistic is willing to grant the possibility of some diety, or more vaguely, a guiding principle, to present the evidence of specific attributes which we claim such a guiding principle posseses. Or, in turn, the atheist must present an arguable case on why such a guiding principle cannot possess such attributes. The atheist only need be careful when making assertions. They do not need to be careful in their skepticism, except when what is claimed by the Christian is demonstrable. In which case they have an obligation to be intellectually honest if they expect to have credence in regard to the portions of our theology that they doubt.

It is important that we are challenged in our belief, so that we may justify it. It is equally important, then, that if we are making assertions we have validity in our reasons. Otherwise we end up corrupting our tradition by speaking things into existence which originate in our imaginations. Spirit guides and guardian angels, while an interesting and appealling notion, otherwise invalidate our original system of belief and make our entire position doubtful to the outsider.

Preservation is on our part and that is why it is we that should be cautious.

 

[cupid dave]

I agree,

The athiest has to be more careful.

More careful...?
Or, is it we who question an atheist who needs with more care define that God the atheist denies?

In fact, do we need define with the atheists what is meant by a god in the first place?


For example, I ask the atheist who will talk to me objectively, do they deny that Gods an be concepts, like greed or maternal love, or Truth.
The are mothers who idlize their sons, children growing into manhood who can do not wrong.
Or people worshipping Mamon in greed behaviors to grasp more power and assets.

Or the Christian who see Christ as the personification of Truth,... like Rev Martin Luther King, for instance.


I agree with atheistic dismissal of all powerful magic working man in the sky Allah's who have dictated a book of rules that are the evidence of their existence and omnipotence.

 

[Adam]

God is not a conceptual personification of an abstract thing.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

Then we need to be careful, then, in understanding what the atheist means when he /she claims "no-god." The assumption when we talk about God is, of course, not Shiva, Mithras, Loki, or Allah. We are talking about the God of Christian literature. I think that atheists mostly understand this, so when they come from a point of view of "no god" they have the preface that we only consider One as God, so they are specifically addressing our "type of god" which they reject based on claims that are not demonstrable and that defy common experience and expectation.

They should at least be agnostic, rather than asserting that which they also cannot empirically prove. No one should be asserting things just because there is not evidence against a claim. The claim should not be asserted without substantiating evidence.

Regardless of to whom they are speaking (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc), an atheist makes no claim, but rather disagrees agrees with the claim asserted by the believer to which they are speaking. By being a believer, one is making a claim. When speaking to a Christian, an atheist does have the preface that the Christian only considers one God to be real, but this doesn't negate the fact that this is a claim, and this doesn't shift the atheists position from one of "no god", to one of "no Christian god", as their original position encompasses all religious Gods, including the Christian God. It's also a fallacy to say that an atheist has *rejected a God "based on claims that are not demonstrable and that defy common experience and expectation"; in fact an atheist "rejects god(s)" based on the claim of (a) God(s) being unsubstantiated.

*in actuality they reject the idea of God(s)

To assert that an atheist should be agnostic in lieu of the fact that it cannot be empirically proven that God doesn't exists means we all have to be agnostic in regards to Shiva, Mithras, Loki, Allah, Santa, the invisible-untouchable-immeasurable dragon in my garden, the teapot circling Saturn, etc; this kind of belief is unrealistic.

 

[Arch Angle]

being unsure is not realistic?

"reject the idea of god .... what idea?

The "regular" atheist I think dawk, like the "regular" Christian, when pushed with reason, say they aint sure I think. I think most people are more agnostic than anything else. Not everybody, that is true. But the vast majority of people I come in contact with don't know for sure. Either way really.

Many, and I mean many, atheist run around making claims. Actually what they reject is traits of "god". There is no way of rejecting "god" without evidence. They only back off of that claim when they are confronted with real questions with what they mean.

If they disagree with every claim ... what does that tellyou about the person? especially when the evidence is suggesting we are part of a larger system?

The invisible dragon example? That is not agnostic. That isa joke.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

being unsure is not realistic?

Being unsure is not unrealistic, but stating that one has to be unsure pertaining to ideas that cannot be disproved is. A Christian is atheistic towards the God of Krishnaism, Krishna. Just because he/she can't disprove the existence of Krishna, does not mean that he/she has to be agnostic about it. The Christian has not made the claim that Krishna exists, the believer has made that claim, and therefore it is up to the believer to prove that to the Christian. Until he/she does that, the Christian has every right to remain atheistic about it. The atheist is in the same position. He has not made the claim about the God(s), and without evidence, can reasonably discount it as a possibility, without having to succumb to agnosticism.

"reject the idea of god .... what idea?

When I say "reject the idea of a God", I'm describing that an atheist isn't exclusively a "Christian God atheist", or a "Muslim God atheist", or a "Greek God atheist", but an atheist pertaining all these notions of God and regarding all the different ideas people have of God. I can't "reject" something I don't believe exists, because that implies that it does exist, and I'm choosing to ignore it. I'm not rejecting "God", I don't think there is any God to reject. What I am rejecting is peoples idea of God, as I know that the idea exists, not that the God exists.

The "regular" atheist I think dawk, like the "regular" Christian, when pushed with reason, say they aint sure I think. I think most people are more agnostic than anything else. Not everybody, that is true. But the vast majority of people I come in contact with don't know for sure. Either way really.

I see what you're saying, but I think you're discounting the infinite possibilities of uncertainty. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang, and I get how one could look at that and say, "Well if you don't know, then you have to accept the possibility of God playing some part in that?". But that's only one idea. If we accept that we must take a position of agnosticism pertaining to things we don't have the answer to then it blows that agnosticism into infinite proportions. Looking at something that has no answer, one can put in any idea, no matter how outlandish, and say, "Well, if you can't disprove that the Universe was sneezed into existence out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure, then you have to accept that it is a possibility." And before you say that that's ridiculous, bear in mind that the Great Green Arkleseizure is described in the book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and if that agnosticism seems ridiculous to you, then why should God, as described in The Bible, not seem ridiculous to one who thinks of the Bible as only a book?

I think "I'm not sure" is perfectly acceptable position, and one that does not necessitate accepting anything as possible.

Many, and I mean many, atheist run around making claims. Actually what they reject is traits of "god". There is no way of rejecting "god" without evidence. They only back off of that claim when they are confronted with real questions with what they mean.

Anyone who makes a claim is accountable for providing the evidence for it, however not-believing something is not a claim. I agree that an atheist is rejecting traits of God, and not God, Himself, but that's because the atheist does not believe there is a God to reject in the first place. You say an atheist can't reject God without evidence; I say an atheist can't accept God without evidence. I haven't rejected God; it just doesn't make sense for me to do so. Does the Christian "reject" Krishna? Or do they reject the ideas of the believers of Krishna?

If they disagree with every claim ... what does that tellyou about the person? especially when the evidence is suggesting we are part of a larger system?

I don't think anybody is arguing that we aren't part of a larger system. I agree with that, and there is evidence to that effect. From my perspective I see that we are all part of evolution, that's much bigger than me; we're part of continents, which is part of a planet amongst many, which is part of a solar system amongst innumerable others, which is part of a single galaxy surrounded by hundreds of billions of others, which is part of the universe (the size of which we will never know due to its constant expansion being quicker than we could ever look out). It's an immense system in which we are infinitesimally small, and in which we have basically no effect whatsoever. Atheists don't disagree with every claim, they only disagree with ones they can't justify with their view of the world, same as anyone else from whatever religion.


I don't want to overstate my position. I do think it's perfectly reasonable for people not to overlook God as a possibility. I identify myself as an agnostic-atheist, being that I truly don't believe that any God exists, but am open to the possibility. However, as a Christian can be completely atheistic in regards to every God but their own, I feel an atheist can be the same to all Gods. Whilst it may not be my own position, I don't think it is an unreasonable one.

 

[Adam]

To assert that an atheist should be agnostic in lieu of the fact that it cannot be empirically proven that God doesn't exists means we all have to be agnostic in regards to Shiva, Mithras, Loki, Allah, Santa, the invisible-untouchable-immeasurable dragon in my garden, the teapot circling Saturn, etc; this kind of belief is unrealistic.

Are you agnostic in regard to these gods, or do you assert with certainty that none of these exist? Or something besides?


I have already said that we should not assume something exists simply because there is lack of evidence against it's existence. But if you are gnostic in your atheism, I expect that you have something of substance to justify your belief.

Throwing around silly notions of pink invisible unicorns, boogermen, and pasta demons doesn't actually do that. Inventing ridiculous characters to speak about alongside someone's personal god is offensive, but not compelling.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

To assert that an atheist should be agnostic in lieu of the fact that it cannot be empirically proven that God doesn't exists means we all have to be agnostic in regards to Shiva, Mithras, Loki, Allah, Santa, the invisible-untouchable-immeasurable dragon in my garden, the teapot circling Saturn, etc; this kind of belief is unrealistic.

Are you agnostic in regard to these gods, or do you assert with certainty that none of these exist? Or something besides?


I have already said that we should not assume something exists simply because there is lack of evidence against it's existence. But if you are gnostic in your atheism, I expect that you have something of substance to justify your belief.

Throwing around silly notions of pink invisible unicorns, boogermen, and pasta demons doesn't actually do that. Inventing ridiculous characters to speak about alongside someone's personal god is offensive, but not compelling.

Yes, I myself am agnostic towards these Gods (at least those that are attributed qualities that cannot be observed or properly defined), but in my opinion people can still be atheistic without having to accept these as possibilities.

My sincere apologies if I offended in any way, it was not my intention, and please understand I'm not trying to be compelling or trying to convince anyone that the atheist is right. I'm trying to paint a picture of the other side of the argument. Is it really so unreasonable for one to think of God as nothing more than a fiction? I know that you probably don't, and I'm really not trying to convince you He is, but to an atheist, God seems as real as those silly notions of pink invisible unicorns, boogermen, and pasta demons, so when told that really he/she should be agnostic, you have to understand that this, too, is not a convincing argument. Again, I must stress that I meant no offence.

 

[Arch Angle]

Ya know, sparrow brought up a good point. Something like"the strength of the debate is a look into what a person has to lose".

What do creationist have to lose? I don't understand that?
So what? a body didn't rise? It does not mean god exist or not. It doesn't mean the universe doesn't love you.

The fact that we are alive might mean the universe is alive.
What is the atheist afraid of losing by admitting that theuniverse may be alive?
so what? Why not admit that? that is what people thought was god, big deal.

ps:
I must say dawk, and others here, it is nice to talk to a reasonable people on both sides. I think if we, sparrow, dawk, Adam, cupid, in a room, it would be a nice discussion in the end. In real life, it is easy to push past a leghumper atheist. I am an atheist, but Ihave to tell the pushy ones to back off, they don't know enough to make certain assertions. But on forums, people thinkj ust because they post it, it is real.

 

[Adam]

Let me be clear: I was not personally offended, because I understand that for the atheist Jesus and Santa Claus are categorically the same. And I can remain objective regarding that perspective. But the suggestion really is offensive to many fellow believers and closes ears rather than opens minds to the point you are attempting to make.

Let me ask, however, if you are an agnostic atheist by what logic did you arrive at the conclusion? I sense that you also have the ability to be objective, even when talking about personal things. It is my belief that the agnostic atheist is more intellectually honest than the strong atheist. I may even suggest that my reasons for assuming this coincide with the very reason that you indeed ARE an agnostic atheist.


If you do think it is more logical to be an agnostic in your atheism (otherwise, why would you choose it?), then why is it not convincing when I say that the athiest should be agnostic?

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

Ya know, sparrow brought up a goodpoint. Something like

"the strength of the debate is a look into what aperson has to lose".

What docreationist have to lose? I don't understand that? So what? a body didn't rise? It doesnot mean god exist or not. It doesn't mean the universe doesn't love you.
The fact that we are alive might meanthe universe is alive.
What isthe atheist afraid of losing by admitting that the universe may be alive? That "life's" processes might have a say in how you can behave. Like you have a say in how your elbow behaves.
so what?Why not admit that?

these arethe questions I have.

Only the one making the claim has something to lose. The atheist has made no claim, and therefore has nothing to lose. If proven wrong, then surely he would gain, not lose? (Assuming he was proven wrong before I died).

There is nothing at all to lose by admitting the universe is alive. Very little would change about the way I could behave, to that end I'm governed by laws set up by people through what I see as evolution; cooperation winning out for survival of a race over selfishness leading to destruction. but regardless of what I would win or lose by admitting that, I couldn't force myself to believe it. I have no control over what I believe. My beliefs are a product of my own experience. I don't believe what I want to, but rather what makes sense to me. I would like to believe that if there was a God he would understand why people think the way they do, and if in fact he made them that way, I would really like to believe he wouldn't punish them for it.

 

[Arch Angle]

for me, agnostic meanslisting the observations one has. Draw aconclusion from that set of observations. "god" or "no-god"? That is not fair to push that offon people. It is fine to say today:

"with the present information, I am not sure". nothing wrong with that stance.

also, I think, and I could be wrong, but you guys seem to befairly nice guys. On forums we put meaning into the text that the typer did notmean. Forums are a cold place to try andbe nice and warm.

 

[Sparkey]

Ya know, sparrow brought up a goodpoint. Something like

"the strength of the debate is a look into what aperson has to lose".

What docreationist have to lose? I don't understand that? So what? a body didn't rise? It doesnot mean god exist or not. It doesn't mean the universe doesn't love you.
The fact that we are alive might meanthe universe is alive.
What isthe atheist afraid of losing by admitting that the universe may be alive? That "life's" processes might have a say in how you can behave. Like you have a say in how your elbow behaves.
so what?Why not admit that?

these arethe questions I have.

Only the one making the claim has something to lose. The atheist has made no claim, and therefore has nothing to lose. If proven wrong, then surely he would gain, not lose? (Assuming he was proven wrong before I died).

There is nothing at all to lose by admitting the universe is alive. Very little would change about the way I could behave, to that end I'm governed by laws set up by people through what I see as evolution; cooperation winning out for survival of a race over selfishness leading to destruction. but regardless of what I would win or lose by admitting that, I couldn't force myself to believe it. I have no control over what I believe. My beliefs are a product of my own experience. I don't believe what I want to, but rather what makes sense to me. I would like to believe that if there was a God he would understand why people think the way they do, and if in fact he made them that way, I would really like to believe he wouldn't punish them for it.

It's not strange to me when I agree 100% with what an atheist says. I agree with you here. I do appreciate the fact that you are not making a case for the "there is no God" argument. I also agree with your statement of beliefs, or rather your statement about our ability to control our beliefs. Well, almost. Seems to me that God has offered a "taste and see" invitation, but that aside, I also agree with your understanding of God, should it turn out that He exists. Here's the point I wanted to make. The Bible (which I hold true) states that every tongue will confess that God, He is Just. That's not a reaction to His power, not a fear reaction, but a bona-fied, sincere and honest expression of what every tongue shall confess.

He can't make such claims without the true Justness of God behind them. In other words, if there is an afterlife and if, when all is said and done, you would want to come to me and say differently? I would be forced to recant. That's some pretty big assurance right there, well, if my faith has anything to do with it, that is. Right?

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

Let me be clear: I was not personally offended, because I understand that for the atheist Jesus and Santa Claus are categorically the same. And I can remain objective regarding that perspective. But the suggestion really is offensive to many fellow believers and closes ears rather than opens minds to the point you are attempting to make.

Let me ask, however, if you are an agnostic atheist by what logic did you arrive at the conclusion? I sense that you also have the ability to be objective, even when talking about personal things. It is my belief that the agnostic atheist is more intellectually honest than the strong atheist. I may even suggest that my reasons for assuming this coincide with the very reason that you indeed ARE an agnostic atheist.


If you do think it is more logical to be an agnostic in your atheism (otherwise, why would you choose it?), then why is it not convincing when I say that the athiest should be agnostic?

I believe my position, as well as everybody else's position, is not one born out of choice, but rather one born out of the information they have been given, the context in which this information was given, and through ones own personal and unique life experiences. Sure, I like to think that my opinions are more logical than others, but why wouldn't I? They're my opinions. I couldn't disagree with myself if I tried. That being said, I do my very best to remind myself that as sure as I am of my opinions, so to is the person to which I am speaking sure of theirs. I want to be right, and I can't help but believe that I'm right, but that doesn't mean that I am. From where you are, it's more logical for an atheist to be agnostic, as that compliments your own beliefs, and allows you to give your position some credulity. This is comforting I'm sure. From the atheist perspective, agnosticism towards a God is contradictory to how he/she has made sense of the world. Who are you or I to assert that we must be right, and they must be wrong? You can believe that, but that doesn't mean they will, and in my opinion, it doesn't mean they have to.

Despite struggling with it, I have to accept that perhaps I am wrong, that is where I get my agnosticism.

 

[Arch Angle]

that's right dawk. But I am talking about the strenght of the debate.

I make a claim, knowing I am not sure? I make a claim, and if you show me I am wrong, that is ok with me. maybe I learnt something.

That is what I think we are talking about. how do I word that bettet