Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, I thought I could do a couple of quick responses before I went off to work, but I ran out of time. I'll be back to elaborate some more on the things I'm talking on. Though on the last post, Nozz, are you telling me atheists haven't ruled out the God of the Bible, or the god of any religion?
Answering for myself, not Nozz, it depends on what you mean by "ruled out". The vast majority of us have not ruled out god in the sense that our minds are closed on the subject because as Nozz said, nothing is ever settled in a scientific worldview. That is not the same thing as saying that we haven't thought about it (often, particularly for us deconverts, a LOT) or that we think it at all likely based on the evidence currently on offer.
Always keep knowledge claims, (un)belief, and confidence in one's conclusions separate. They influence each other but are all different things.
Nozz, are you telling me atheists haven't ruled out the God of the Bible, or the god of any religion?
It depends on what you mean by "ruled out".
Most atheists I know have ruled it out _based on current evidence_. Which is to say: None. The current conclusion people like me reach is that there is simply nothing at all on offer to base a belief in such an entity.
But if you mean "ruled out" the possibility. Of course not. Were some argument, evidence, data or reasoning finally presented to me today that lends credence to the idea a non human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of the universe.... then I would instantly update my conclusions about this without pause or reluctance.
As for specifically the god of the bible.... depending on what you actually mean it is possible to rule it out. As you know there is no such thing, by definition, as a "Married Bachelor". Such a thing simply can not exist by definition because the definition of "married" conflicts with "bachealor" and hence you have define something that by definition can not exist.
There are those, such as Dan Barker in his debate against the unfortunately named Christian Kyle Butt, who show that there are similar contradictions in the definition of the Biblical god that similarly define said god out of existence. That that SPECIFIC definition of god contradicts itself and does not exist therefore. The debate is worth a watch, give it a go.
But I have not even got THAT far. Until such time as the existence of a non human intelligent agency is lent some credibility.... I do not need to go so far as to wonder which, if any, religion describes the correct one. In much the same way as when there is no reason to think there is someone sitting in the chair beside me.... I find no reason to wonder what color their hair is.
In summary: No we have not rules out the possibility of ANY claim being true, but we also note when claims being made are entirely unsubstantiated and there is no reason to think them true or credible at all.
Most haven't. Although probably best to just say "god" instead of any one specific god. Personally I would say I am agnostic on the question of "does god exist". I don't think it can be proven one way or the other with what we know today. I'm atheist on the question "do I believe in god" since I see no evidence today I don't believe god exists.
Hmm, actually, I think most atheists HAVE ruled out the God of any particular religion. They just haven't ruled out the existence of a generic "god" or some "higher" or "more evolved" being.
Religious claims can be examined and accepted or rejected based on the evidence - including religion's claims about the nature of the God the followers of said religion worships. When it comes to religion, there is specific information that can be analyzed, information that is actually within reach of science and logic. When there is no more evidence for a religion than there is for a God, religion is ruled out completely.
In addition, not ruling out a religion puts atheists on rather dangerous ground. IF we were to not rule out Christianity, for instance, then wouldn't Pascal's Wager apply?
Hmm, actually, I think most atheists HAVE ruled out the God of any particular religion. They just haven't ruled out the existence of a generic "god" or some "higher" or "more evolved" being.
Religious claims can be examined and accepted or rejected based on the evidence - including religion's claims about the nature of the God the followers of said religion worships. When it comes to religion, there is specific information that can be analyzed, information that is actually within reach of science and logic. When there is no more evidence for a religion than there is for a God, religion is ruled out completely.
In addition, not ruling out a religion puts atheists on rather dangerous ground. IF we were to not rule out Christianity, for instance, then wouldn't Pascal's Wager apply?
I just don't put that much thought in to it. It is possible "a god" exists. I don't really care much to define which god that may be. If someone presents some evidence I will consider it.
Pascal's wager is of no concern to me since I still don't believe god exists. And even if one does which one is the right one since I'm not ruling out any religions?
Hmm, actually, I think most atheists HAVE ruled out the God of any particular religion. They just haven't ruled out the existence of a generic "god" or some "higher" or "more evolved" being.
Religious claims can be examined and accepted or rejected based on the evidence - including religion's claims about the nature of the God the followers of said religion worships. When it comes to religion, there is specific information that can be analyzed, information that is actually within reach of science and logic. When there is no more evidence for a religion than there is for a God, religion is ruled out completely.
In addition, not ruling out a religion puts atheists on rather dangerous ground. IF we were to not rule out Christianity, for instance, then wouldn't Pascal's Wager apply?
I believe the majority of us have indeed ruled out the God that is described in the Bible. Of course, many self-described Christians continue to disavow this God, blaming what they consider are the flawed descriptions by the ancient writers and the newly-found argument of the Bible being mostly metaphors and parables. This God could exist, but he/she/it would have much too much baggage to be taken seriously. We cannot disprove the existence of any God but we can disprove his/her/its claimed attributes.
At this point, there are at least 10 very confused people.
10 people don't believe in god because they don't want the thing they don't believe in judging them
Curious how that works.
I suspect that may be 10 theists saying why they think atheists don't want to believe in God..because we want to live a Sinful life, and are afraid to believe there is a scowling ayatollah - God ready to inflict terrible torment on them because of where they put their plonkers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Ah, I thought I could do a couple of quick responses before I went off to work, but I ran out of time. I'll be back to elaborate some more on the things I'm talking on. Though on the last post, Nozz, are you telling me atheists haven't ruled out the God of the Bible, or the god of any religion?
I have, pretty much, though that depends on what one means by the God of the Bible. The God decribed in the Bible, I would rule out as much as I would rule out Santa, leprechauns or the tooth - fairy. The God referred to in the Bible might still exist, but not having much to do with the stories therein and really more the 'god of any religion' or indeed of none.
A non - specific sortagod definitely can't be ruled out. I think the weight of evidence is actually against it, and even if there was no evidence one way or the other, logically one would have to disbelieve until there was some convincing evidence.
There is a rather more quote and small caps god that is more the god of Einstein -a sort of cosmic order or working that goes beyond the mere natural laws of physics and is getting on towards a cosmic mind or the computer that runs the universe. That is a concept that rather attracts me. I definitely haven't ruled that out, and a recent book on cosmic consciousness might give me something to ponder.
Nevertheless, such a god neither knows nor cares about the Bible or what we think about Jesus. Nor indeed about our mating rituals.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-13-2014 at 01:37 PM..
I suspect that may be 10 theists saying why they think atheists don't want to believe in God..because we want to live a Sinful life, and are afraid to believe there is a scowling ayatollah - God ready to inflict terrible torment on them because of where they put their plonkers.
A god fearing christian would lie to further their cause I'm shocked
You do realize that quoting anything from the Bible as evidence that God exists will be worthless to every atheist reading it, don't you? You will accomplish absolutely nothing that way.
BTW, what has modern science discovered to narrow down your quest to prove God's existence?
Besides the Bible, what methods are you exploring to prove God's existence?
What I meant by the Bible comments is that I'm different from those who, I guess, sought to prove the Biblical God. As for using the Bible alone as evidence and quoting from it, I already know that won't be accepted. That's not to say I won't compare what I find with what the Bible says. How else will I show the god that exists, if there's evidence, is the one of the Bible?
What has modern science discovered to narrow down my quest? I mentioned a couple times throughout this topic concerning my interest in string theory. Some of the things it posits, if the theory is eventually supported, could possibly help in forming some hypothesis for God. From what I know of the theory, it's said the entire universe is made up of these very tiny vibrating strings of energy. How they vibrate determines how everything operates. Now my thinking in relation to string theory and God, sound is vibrations that travel through the air. The Bible tells us concerning God that He spoke the universe into existence. So that is something for me to play around with. I also have some observations I'd like to test out when they finally launch the James Webb Space Telescope. So this is interesting stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yes, but none of that is the slightest support for God -belief. It is at best on the edge of known and unknown, a sort of physics darkest Africa where anything could be possible. Including some other explanation than God.
Do you not see that opting to find God in what we really know nothing about is not science nor sound reasoning?
I don't begrudge you your beliefs of course. I am glad that they make you happy, but I cannot allow claims of 'scientific evidence' to pass when it turns out to be as flimsy as this.
Concerning the gaps in our knowledge, let's just assume for the moment that we never find a natural law that for instance started life off. Not now nor at any point in the future, that it just can't be known. My question to you is, would it be reasonable to speculate then that perhaps a god was involved? In danger of speaking for athiests, perhaps many would suggest this kind of thinking stops knowledge and learning. The God of the gaps idea. Yet my thinking is the opposite would be true. It wouldn't be a stretch to say science might not be able to answer every single question, the most difficult being origin. Yet a god would help flesh out science in answering that question. It becomes a "how did God do it?" instead of "how does this work". It's much easier having someone explain how something works then having to figure it out yourself. You may be able to figure out the workings of something by yourself, but it's a certainty when an expert shows you.
So I guess that is the complete picture of where I'm coming from with this. Again, I may not provide any evidence to God's existence, but I believe I'll make some pretty good discoveries with this thinking. I'm confident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Scientists spend all their time collating data and then making conclusions and claims based off it.
YOU appear to be making the conclusion first then trying to find / fit the evidence in retrospect.
So I do not feel making an analogy to science here is at all useful and actually obfuscates what you are more apparently engaged in...... sustaining and supporting a confirmation bias. You have no evidence and you admit this. All you have is an apparent and admitted "confidence" that there simply must be some there.
Probably best not to pretend to speak on behalf of atheists. It just leaves you looking wrong and presumptuous. The vast majority, if not all, of the atheists I know or have contacted with are of a scientific world view. That is to say that NOTHING is ever "settled". Anything is subject to change at any time if new data comes in.
So perhaps ask atheists what they believe rather than strawmanning your own claims about what their believe.
There's no question about where I'm coming from. However, evidence is evidence. Of course if I wanted to know if a god exist, I could do that scientifically. I could make an observation about life for instance, one with an unknown explanation, and form a hypothesis that would involve a specific creative law. Then I would test it out. Of course this sounds like to prove this god's existence experimentally, the results of my test would reflect more of what we call "miracles". (Though concerning Christianity in theory, miracles are the primary evidence for God's existence) That's why in order to prove a god, it must be a specific god from a religion. It would be pretty much impossible to prove a god's existence who has no contact with the world. Scientifically, I could test out God's involvement with the people, in this case the history of Israel. Was their an exodus, etc, etc? If there's evidence for these things, then it would give more credence to God's existence.
Now I ultimately agree if evidence is presented, most if not all people would believe in God's existence, or a god's existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
Most haven't. Although probably best to just say "god" instead of any one specific god. Personally I would say I am agnostic on the question of "does god exist". I don't think it can be proven one way or the other with what we know today. I'm atheist on the question "do I believe in god" since I see no evidence today I don't believe god exists.
Yeah my thinking was about there concerning atheists and the idea of a god's existence. That when it came to the gods of specific religions, they may have ruled them out. I believe God as describe in the Bible does exist. I don't think it's a stretch to say perhaps most atheists have ruled that out, in the same way most people (atheist and christian) have ruled out the world being 6,000-7,000 years old. Of course I don't take that to mean if evidence is provided, that they would ignore it.
My quotes are getting long. I'll respond to one more for the time being...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
It depends on what you mean by "ruled out".
Most atheists I know have ruled it out _based on current evidence_. Which is to say: None. The current conclusion people like me reach is that there is simply nothing at all on offer to base a belief in such an entity.
But if you mean "ruled out" the possibility. Of course not. Were some argument, evidence, data or reasoning finally presented to me today that lends credence to the idea a non human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of the universe.... then I would instantly update my conclusions about this without pause or reluctance.
As for specifically the god of the bible.... depending on what you actually mean it is possible to rule it out. As you know there is no such thing, by definition, as a "Married Bachelor". Such a thing simply can not exist by definition because the definition of "married" conflicts with "bachealor" and hence you have define something that by definition can not exist.
There are those, such as Dan Barker in his debate against the unfortunately named Christian Kyle Butt, who show that there are similar contradictions in the definition of the Biblical god that similarly define said god out of existence. That that SPECIFIC definition of god contradicts itself and does not exist therefore. The debate is worth a watch, give it a go.
But I have not even got THAT far. Until such time as the existence of a non human intelligent agency is lent some credibility.... I do not need to go so far as to wonder which, if any, religion describes the correct one. In much the same way as when there is no reason to think there is someone sitting in the chair beside me.... I find no reason to wonder what color their hair is.
In summary: No we have not rules out the possibility of ANY claim being true, but we also note when claims being made are entirely unsubstantiated and there is no reason to think them true or credible at all.
Thanks, I'll take a look at that debate. Yeah, what I meant by ruling out is the specific gods of the many religions of the world, not necessarily the existence of a god. Yet one can change their mind if presented with evidence.
Concerning the gaps in our knowledge, let's just assume for the moment that we never find a natural law that for instance started life off. Not now nor at any point in the future, that it just can't be known. My question to you is, would it be reasonable to speculate then that perhaps a god was involved?
Speculation is great. Thinking up ideas and theories. That is great. But at the same time just because an answer can not be found to a question.... any question..... this is not grounds to make up and insert any unsubstantiated notion that personally pleases you. If it were, then the "answers" we come up with are simply limited by the limits of your own fantasy.
Speculation is reasonable, even unsubstantiated speculation, but never lose sight of the fact that unsubstantiated speculation is all it actually is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Yet a god would help flesh out science in answering that question. It becomes a "how did God do it?" instead of "how does this work". It's much easier having someone explain how something works then having to figure it out yourself.
Thankfully however the methodology of science is finding out the answers that we have reason to actually think true. Not finding answers that make life "easier". How easy or difficult it is has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
There's no question about where I'm coming from. However, evidence is evidence.
It would be if you presented any. But note: you have been asked to several times, and have consistently failed to do so each and every time. I am not the first user on the thread to note this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect that may be 10 theists saying why they think atheists don't want to believe in God..because we want to live a Sinful life, and are afraid to believe there is a scowling ayatollah - God ready to inflict terrible torment on them because of where they put their plonkers. 
I'm shocked 
