The Emptiness of Atheism

[Orion]

I will answer that, too, mondar.

For me, it would take god coming to me, personally, . . . in a way that I could not deny (and being in my right state of mind), and stating the case, . . . which would include him . . . or her. . . . stating that he/she wasn't behind the issues I have with several biblical accounts, . . . or at least have a VERY good and compelling reason for them.

 

[AAA]

All I'm saying is that I don't see any good reasons or evidence to believe in a creator. It's that simple.

What would you accept as evidence?

Here's a start:http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html

 

[mondar]

All I'm saying is that I don't see any good reasons or evidence to believe in a creator. It's that simple.

What would you accept as evidence?

Here's a start:http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html

I can nail it down specifically and exactly what would cause me to either question or give up my faith. I know what evidence I would accept.

Lets take something your article says....

"If the prophecy is self-fulfilling; i.e., if the mere fact of the prophecy's existence could cause people to make it come true. The Jewish people returned to their homeland in Israel just as the Bible said they would, but this isn't a genuine prediction - they did it because the Bible said they would. The predicted event can't be one that people could stage. "

If the Jewish people did not exist, then the prophecy would obviously not be true. I dont think this prophecy has come to pass, but as long as Israel exists either as a nation, or in dispersion, then the prophesy can come to pass. When Israel no longer exists, then the God of Israel does not exist.

In any case, how many groups of people were scattered so far and wide among so many different nations for 2000 years, maintained their identity in so many different countries, and then still even had hopes of returning to the land of their forefathers and restarting an Ancient nation? Why is it that Hitler sent them to the gas chambers, the Russians sent the to pogroms and Siberia, the crusades sacked any Jewish villages they came across. Yet they preserve a separate identity.

The very odd thing about the prophecy of the return of Israel, is that when Moses made this prophecy, they were not in dispersion. In Deuteronomy Moses assumes that they will capture the land, and then be scattered, before they even entered the land.

Your writer fails completely to accurately understand the nature of prophesy. In fact, when he equates it to the rantings of Nostradamus, he merely shows his ignorance of Biblical prophecy. This is a typical example of what I was getting at when I asked what evidence you would accept. I think the true answer is "none." I on the other hand, can answer the question. If Israel is destroyed, my faith would not hold water.

 

[Hugo]

... You will no doubt tell me that I am guilty of the genetic fallacy: that showing where or how an idea originated does not prove the idea false, for the idea must be assessed on its own merit.

It's a common misunderstanding of the genetic fallacy to think that it applies to all claims. For some claims, the origin of the claim does affect the merit of the claim. In those cases, it is valid to use the origin as evidence for or against that claim.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

 

[mondar]

I will answer that, too, mondar.

For me, it would take god coming to me, personally, . . . in a way that I could not deny (and being in my right state of mind), and stating the case, . . . which would include him . . . or her. . . . stating that he/she wasn't behind the issues I have with several biblical accounts, . . . or at least have a VERY good and compelling reason for them.

LOL. If God actually came to you, you would pee your pants and fall on the ground. Check the biblical revelation and see what it was really like for men to be even near deity. Amazing that you picture yourself demanding that God answer a few questions. You speak of God like he lives next door. Does a sovereign God answer to man? Or do men answer to him for their rebellion?

Just as you are skeptical of a sovereign god, and cannot believe in such a god as you speak of. Even if your god came to me to explain his behavior, I would not believe.

Gotta go, later

 

[Orion]

LOL. If God actually came to you, you would pee your pants and fall on the ground. Check the biblical revelation and see what it was really like for men to be even near deity. Amazing that you picture yourself demanding that God answer a few questions. You speak of God like he lives next door. Does a sovereign God answer to man? Or do men answer to him for their rebellion?

Just as you are skeptical of a sovereign god, and cannot believe in such a god as you speak of. Even if your god came to me to explain his behavior, I would not believe.

Gotta go, later

You are talking about men who had a fear of the unknown [those who wrote the religious texts that were canonized]. . . . and I am convinced that none of them ever met any deity to even KNOW if one would "pee their pants". It is an unknown at best. . . . at worst, why would you want to be around a being so scary, in the first place?

As for "answering demands", . . . I never stated them as "demands", . . . but if an all knowing deity knows my thoughts, I would hope that he/she would answer in a way that would change my mind on what I found to be immoral. That's all I'm saying. If I see them as immoral, then how COULD I morally embrace it [the deity in question]?

 

[Aero_Hudson]

How can history prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist today, or that the person who first wrote about them wasn't intimately aware of their existence?

Do you think that by providing a plausible explanation for the invention of the Tooth Fairy, that she has been disproven? Well I can provide you with a perfectly plausible explanation for the invention of Christianity, and I am sure you will want to argue the opposite position. You will no doubt tell me that I am guilty of the genetic fallacy: that showing where or how an idea originated does not prove the idea false, for the idea must be assessed on its own merit. If the idea is "the Tooth Fairy exists", then that idea must be assessed by the means that the existence of entities are assessed.

Here's the point (again): belief in the Tooth Fairy is only reasonable if there is reasonable evidence of her existence. Same goes for god.

Yes. A plausible explanation based on historical evidence can dispute the existence of something including Christianity. What I would say however is that the general concept of God is not as simple. If you can find historical proof, similar to that of the Tooth Fairy, that the concept of a Creator or God is a made up fairy tale then go for it.

 

[AAA]

... You will no doubt tell me that I am guilty of the genetic fallacy: that showing where or how an idea originated does not prove the idea false, for the idea must be assessed on its own merit.

It's a common misunderstanding of the genetic fallacy to think that it applies to all claims. For some claims, the origin of the claim does affect the merit of the claim. In those cases, it is valid to use the origin as evidence for or against that claim.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

Yes. A plausible explanation based on historical evidence can dispute the existence of something including Christianity.

I suggest you guys have a read about the genetic fallacy here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3456

 

[AAA]

How can history prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist today, or that the person who first wrote about them wasn't intimately aware of their existence?

Do you think that by providing a plausible explanation for the invention of the Tooth Fairy, that she has been disproven? Well I can provide you with a perfectly plausible explanation for the invention of Christianity, and I am sure you will want to argue the opposite position. You will no doubt tell me that I am guilty of the genetic fallacy: that showing where or how an idea originated does not prove the idea false, for the idea must be assessed on its own merit. If the idea is "the Tooth Fairy exists", then that idea must be assessed by the means that the existence of entities are assessed.

Here's the point (again): belief in the Tooth Fairy is only reasonable if there is reasonable evidence of her existence. Same goes for god.

Yes. A plausible explanation based on historical evidence can dispute the existence of something including Christianity. What I would say however is that the general concept of God is not as simple. If you can find historical proof, similar to that of the Tooth Fairy, that the concept of a Creator or God is a made up fairy tale then go for it.

As a Christian, do you believe that the Judeo-Christian concept of creation as outlined in the Bible (Genesis) is not a fairy tale? This is the historical foundation of your faith...

 

[Aero_Hudson]

How can history prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist today, or that the person who first wrote about them wasn't intimately aware of their existence?

Do you think that by providing a plausible explanation for the invention of the Tooth Fairy, that she has been disproven? Well I can provide you with a perfectly plausible explanation for the invention of Christianity, and I am sure you will want to argue the opposite position. You will no doubt tell me that I am guilty of the genetic fallacy: that showing where or how an idea originated does not prove the idea false, for the idea must be assessed on its own merit. If the idea is "the Tooth Fairy exists", then that idea must be assessed by the means that the existence of entities are assessed.

Here's the point (again): belief in the Tooth Fairy is only reasonable if there is reasonable evidence of her existence. Same goes for god.

Yes. A plausible explanation based on historical evidence can dispute the existence of something including Christianity. What I would say however is that the general concept of God is not as simple. If you can find historical proof, similar to that of the Tooth Fairy, that the concept of a Creator or God is a made up fairy tale then go for it.

As a Christian, do you believe that the Judeo-Christian concept of creation as outlined in the Bible (Genesis) is not a fairy tale? This is the historical foundation of your faith...

There is a mix of opinions across Christian followers on this very topic. Personally, I believe it to be symbolic and not a literal story. I also would not call it a historical "foundation" of the Christian faith. The foundation of the Christian faith is Jesus and what he did to save mankind.

 

[Hugo]

I suggest you guys have a read about the genetic fallacy here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3456

In a time where logical fallacies are hip, it seems to be such a common occurrence on forums nowadays to confuse evidence with conclusions.

The genetic fallacy applies in two scenarios:

1) you are concluding that a claim is false based on its origin (even if the origin is relevant to its truth value)

2) you are using the origin as evidence for or against the claim when the origin is irrelevant.

However, if the origin is relevant, then it is valid to use its origin as evidence for or against the claim.

You must first determine the relevance of the claim's origin. That can be difficult and can be another argument in and of itself.

edit: I don't want to derail this thread, so that's all I'll say about that. ;)

 

[AAA]

- Please provide some examples and references of where it is proven that our of chaos order can arise in nature.

I suggest starting with the BBC documentary, "The Secret Life of Chaos", which is available in 6 x 10 minute parts on Youtube. If you have a hard time finding it, PM me and I will provide you with a link.

 

[Orion]

Doesn't a snowflake count as "order out of chaos"? I'm not sure, thus why I'm asking.

 

[AAA]

I think a snowflake counts, as does the formation of other crystals, fractals (mind blowing), the property of emergence (which is incredibly fascinating), etc.

 

[Orion]

I thought so but didn't want to answer such questions "with authority". Thanks, AAA.