No evidence whatsoever, is it a reason to lose faith or a reason to keep faith? (Christians, verse)

[Haaziq]

*Sighs* This is the last post I will make on this issue because it's clear you'd rather play a language game than present this evidence you speak of.

Originally Posted by Jremy

Oh yes it is! Do you expect me to believe that it is impossible for a scientist to reject evidence when it conflicts with a pet theory? Do you actually believe that science is above that?

It's funny you say that since it applies to the fundamentalist religious crowd. Science is all well and good until it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Jremy

I'm not dancing around the issue at all, though I'm sure it looks that way to you. You have an ultimate authority, as do I. You come to discussions like this with the mistaken notion that you are free from biases that affect your acceptance or rejection of whatever is offered as evidence. It is a mistaken notion because you, like everyone else, have an unprovable foundation which you have made your starting point. Since it is unprovable, you must have chosen it because you wanted to. Here is part of a post I made in another thread that explains it well:

Pfffft. What "unprovable foundation" do I have? I'm dying to hear this.

Originally Posted by Jremy

Everyone has some kind of ultimate authority that they rely upon as a foundation upon which to build their belief system. As soon as you appeal to something else to establish authority C, for example, that thing you appealed to now becomes your higher authority--call it authority B. If you then appeal to yet something else to establish authority B, then that new thing to which you have appealed has now become your ultimate authority--authority A. If we continued like this, we would go on forever in infinite regress. Nobody does that, though, so everyone has some starting point, some point beyond which they do not go, some unprovable foundation. Otherwise they could never form any beliefs at all, scientific or otherwise.

So coming to conclusions based on evidence must begin with something unproven? Is that what you're trying to argue? Note that this claim destroys the "objective revelation" idea that you tout. Self-damning? I think so.

Originally Posted by Jremy

For example, if you claim to rely on just plain facts--no feelings, no personal interpretations, but just the facts--on what basis do you know that those facts are true--by reasoning? If so, then reason is your ultimate authority, by which you judge all the "facts." In that case you would be holding reason as unprovable, presupposing that it is beyond question, the ultimate authority.

On a slightly different note, are your reasoning capabilities beyond error? If not--and I'm sure you'll admit that we all can and do make errors in reasoning--why would you make it your ultimate authority, your starting point?

The irony of this is that your reasoning is flawed.

Originally Posted by Jremy

Perhaps your ultimate authority is empiricism. Perhaps you think that all knowledge comes through our senses. But the same question I asked about reasoning also applies to empiricism: Is it beyond error? Are our senses always reliable? A green shirt, for example, appears to have the color green, but in reality it doesn't have one bit of green in it: All it's doing is reflecting that color from the spectrum of the light that is falling upon it.

Yes, and we know this because there is empirical evidence to support it. Is it just me, or are you running around yourself in circles with the same things you're trying to dispute the validity of?

Originally Posted by Jremy

Our senses can deceive us in other ways, too. I've heard of people who, after having a limb amputated, actually sensed that the amputated limb was still there.

Empirical evidence is observable outside of the brain of a single individual. Otherwise, it isn't empirical. Bad argument.

Originally Posted by Jremy

And if you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, can you prove empiricism empirically? If it cannot be proven using its own principles or any others, then it must be assumed.

I'm not going to waste much time on this part. I'll just say at this point you're basically arguing against the point about colors you made above. Your post has so many self-destroying arguments, it's unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Jremy

I say all this to make this one point: You are not right to claim or imply that Christians are at some kind of disadvantage because they rely on faith while you allegedly examine the straight facts in an unbiased manner. The truth is that you are not neutral at all. You have an ultimate authority just as much as Christians do, and you have chosen that ultimate authority because of your own personal presuppositions. I say this with certainty because in order for an authority to be ultimate, it cannot be subjected to any higher authority to establish it. Otherwise it would no longer be the ultimate authority. Thus, that ultimate authority is unprovable and, therefore, must be presupposed by the one who holds to it.

For me, my ultimate authority for the Christian life and spiritual matters is the Bible. For those who reject the Bible as infallible, their ultimate authority is something else, perhaps reason or empiricism.

See the very first sentence I typed in this post.

[agnostic soldier]

A lot of christians on this thread keep babbling about how there's so much evidence for god, although they conveniently never provide any evidence. Atheists are generally looking for evidence gained through empirical means. The problem is that christians generally think that personal experience and value judgements are valid evidence.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Jremy

Or maybe you had the entirely wrong expectation. If all you expected from God was that your every prayer would be answered, I could have told you in advance and saved you the trouble: You can't always get what you want.

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."
"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."
John 14:13-14.

Guess it was all lies eh?

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by Rafius

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."
"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."
John 14:13-14.

Guess it was all lies eh?

Not at all. Did you actually limit yourself to those two passages? If so, I'm not surprised you ended up disappointed. These also need to be considered:

"The LORD is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth." (Psalm 145:18)

"Delight yourself in the LORD; And He will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the LORD, Trust also in Him, and He will do it." (Psalm 37:4-5)

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." (John 15:7)

"and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight." (1 John 3:22)

I'm not trying to imply that you did not attempt to fulfill these conditions, but I'm merely pointing out that there are conditions attached to receiving answers from God and that it is not a simple matter of "I ask, and God automatically gives me what I ask for."

You also need to consider divine sovereignty. God is not compelled to grant man his every desire (thankfully). Moreover, along the lines of sovereignty, God is not compelled to grant man what he asks for within a certain time frame. So, just because the request was not granted does not mean that it is denied. It might be that it isn't happening when we want it to happen.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Jremy

You also need to consider divine sovereignty. God is not compelled to grant man his every desire (thankfully). Moreover, along the lines of sovereignty, God is not compelled to grant man what he asks for within a certain time frame. So, just because the request was not granted does not mean that it is denied. It might be that it isn't happening when we want it to happen.

Yeah....just like those 'Sometime in the future prophecies' eh? If you pray and you get what you ask for...'it's a miracle'. If you pray for something and you don't get it...'well it just isn't time yet.' Safe as houses and not the slightest possible chance that you will ever be proven wrong eh?

[HonuMan]

Originally Posted by Jremy

Oh yes it is! Do you expect me to believe that it is impossible for a scientist to reject evidence when it conflicts with a pet theory? Do you actually believe that science is above that?

Those are two separate questions. I'd answer them "no" and "yes" respectively. Of course individual scientists sometimes reject evidence when it conflicts with a pet theory -- but when they do so, they aren't practicing science. The great thing about science is that other scientists review the work of their peers and point out flaws in their methodology. Over time, humanity's knowledge of verifiable facts increases.

As an example, back in the 1990s, a couple of researchers at Georgia Tech claimed to have created a cold-fusion reaction. This was huge. It was going to vault Georgia Tech to the top ranks of research institutions, as well as possibly lead to alternative power sources for humanity. Someone tried to replicate their results but couldn't. Oops. It turned out that the original researchers had fudged some of the data in their favor, which was embarrassing for a while to Georgia Tech (which overall was and is a fine school). "Science" didn't fail. A couple of scientists failed when they didn't apply the principles of good science. Science succeeded when subsequent researchers did apply the principles of good science.

To put it in religious terms, when a Christian fails to adhere to a core value of Christianity (e.g., "Thou shalt not steal."), it isn't indicative that that particular Christian value is flawed. What it means is that, in this instance, the person wasn't behaving as a Christian should.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Jremy

Not at all. Did you actually limit yourself to those two passages? If so, I'm not surprised you ended up disappointed. These also need to be considered:

"The LORD is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth." (Psalm 145:18)

"Delight yourself in the LORD; And He will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the LORD, Trust also in Him, and He will do it." (Psalm 37:4-5)

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." (John 15:7)

"and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight." (1 John 3:22)

I'm not trying to imply that you did not attempt to fulfill these conditions, but I'm merely pointing out that there are conditions attached to receiving answers from God and that it is not a simple matter of "I ask, and God automatically gives me what I ask for."

You also need to consider divine sovereignty. God is not compelled to grant man his every desire (thankfully). Moreover, along the lines of sovereignty, God is not compelled to grant man what he asks for within a certain time frame. So, just because the request was not granted does not mean that it is denied. It might be that it isn't happening when we want it to happen.

How do you tell the difference between God answering prayers, (but saying no), and God not answering prayers at all?

Lets assume at least some Christians will meet all the conditions you describe above. Do you think Christians are less likely to die of, say, kidney cancer than a members of other religions or atheist? How much less likely?

If we compare cancer mortality rates between Christians and non-Christians, how much better do you think the mortality rate of Christians is? 50%? 30%? 15%?

Because I'm willing to bet there's not much difference at all.

[justme58]

Originally Posted by Jremy

Here is the text you refer to (Hebrews 11:1-3):

1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the men of old gained approval.
3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

TY but I do know the scrips very well, I was just too lazy to look up the exact babble.

That which is seen does factor in. Faith looks beyond that to the cause of those visible things.

That is why it is called faith, make stuff (polite alternative) up as you go along

It is not an empirical knowledge but a faith-knowledge.

This is bogus as you theists cannot even agree what this "faith knowledge" is

Those who have this faith believe because they see nature's testimony to God's existence and do not want to reject it. Those who do reject it are without excuse:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom. 1:18-21)

So you are a pantheist then?

I love it how you theists use the same scrip to condemn gays and atheists as it suits you. I am straight btw and married 24 years. Take a step back and read that scrip objectively if you can, it carries no weight whatsoever and just because Paul penned it does not make it so, it is of course a standard disclaimer found in many of his ramblings, it of course ONLY carries any weight to a gullible theist, it does not carry any weight to an ex-theist like myself. Genuflecting to a threat of hell does not work with atheists as we do not believe in the theist hell in the first place.

All of this anyway is a deflection in semantics as no one yet has proved atheists require faith to NOT believe in the myriad of gods out there. Just like you probably do not believe in the many pagan gods, we atheists just disbelieve in one more to the list - yours.

Theist: My god is the one true god

Atheist: There are no gods

IF your god was real and "his wurd" was reliable, then I would never have "left the faith" Of course your babble has another disclaimer that folk like me are deluded by another made up fictitious character you call satan.

Your entire worldview and revered holy book has all the answers to address why folk like me exist, it is in itself one huge apologetic, any rational being will see through this BS if they can only study it and examine the origins.

You believe because you choose to.

I disbelieve as outside of the babble, there is absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of a god. Furthermore, why should what some ME goat herders penned down two to three thousand years ago have any influence on me in this day and age? One would expect your god to keep up with technology advancements of its creations (tongue in cheek) sadly, it seems to have failed miserably in this regard.

We all communicate these days (outside of personal and oral narratives) via emails and the www. Now if your gawd were real we may find;

thisismegod.org

or something similar, in fact your god could register a profile here (maybe even get its own sub forum) and remove all doubt from skeptics like me.

Why is it soooo hard for your god to actually prove its existence? We have soooo much media other than the written word on traditional paper these days, it really is no brainer - surely for an omni-everything god to do, in fact the way it is described in your babble, it could achieve this between its eternal breaths.

Hence we come back to the issue at hand, the lack of evidence viz the unseen, the hope you folk have is ALL based on what your babble defines as faith.

Does your holy book not also state that gawd tests no one? Why then is it so aloof to making an appearance in media that would be tangible and irrefutable?

Because your god does not exist except in your own mind.

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by justme58

This is bogus as you theists cannot even agree what this "faith knowledge" is

That same charge can be made against scientists as well. Not all scientists agree at all times about how to interpret evidence. Do you deny this? If so, you are laboring under a delusion, believing the myth that those in the scientific community are somehow neutral while those in the theist camp are suffering from bias.

So you are a pantheist then?

I have no idea how you got THAT out of what I quoted.

I love it how you theists use the same scrip to condemn gays and atheists as it suits you. I am straight btw and married 24 years. Take a step back and read that scrip objectively if you can, it carries no weight whatsoever and just because Paul penned it does not make it so, it is of course a standard disclaimer found in many of his ramblings, it of course ONLY carries any weight to a gullible theist, it does not carry any weight to an ex-theist like myself. Genuflecting to a threat of hell does not work with atheists as we do not believe in the theist hell in the first place.

All the same you need to be warned of its reality. Everything else you said in this paragraph is utter assertion and bias. The invective I'm seeing frequently from atheists on this board is so personal that it shows all too clearly that they are anything but neutral.

IF your god was real and "his wurd" was reliable, then I would never have "left the faith"

You "left the faith" because you chose to because you are not impartial. You are kidding yourself if you think you left the faith because you impartially examined the "facts."

You believe because you choose to.

As do you. Note both the arrogance and naivete that are required to make a statement like this one. I'm not trying to insult you here, but seriously, you are naive to think that you are somehow above bias while theists are not, and it is this error that leads you and your ilk to look down on theists.

I disbelieve as outside of the babble, there is absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of a god.

Balloon juice. You disbelieve because you want to. You're kidding yourself. If you really went about this in a scientific manner, you would realize that the lack of evidence for something, or the lack of perception of such evidence, does not mean it does not exist. Thus, the honest scientist can at most say, "God might exist, but I don't see any evidence for him." From a scientific standpoint, that is what you should say. But instead you make the illogical argument: I don't see any evidence for God's existence; therefore, he necessarily does not exist. That doesn't follow. You are jumping to this conclusion because you want to.

Why is it soooo hard for your god to actually prove its existence?

Why is it sooooo hard for you to acknowledge natural revelation? Simple: You don't want to.

Your invective has revealed more about your presuppositions than you probably realize.

[justme58]

Originally Posted by Jremy

That same charge can be made against scientists as well. Not all scientists agree at all times about how to interpret evidence. Do you deny this? If so, you are laboring under a delusion, believing the myth that those in the scientific community are somehow neutral while those in the theist camp are suffering from bias.

Deflection...

I have no idea how you got THAT out of what I quoted.

Look up pantheist

All the same you need to be warned of its reality. Everything else you said in this paragraph is utter assertion and bias. The invective I'm seeing frequently from atheists on this board is so personal that it shows all too clearly that they are anything but neutral.

Who said I was neutral

Originally Posted by justme58

Because your god does not exist except in your own mind.

You "left the faith" because you chose to because you are not impartial. You are kidding yourself if you think you left the faith because you impartially examined the "facts."

Really? Did gawd tell you that?

As do you. Note both the arrogance and naivete that are required to make a statement like this one. I'm not trying to insult you here, but seriously, you are naive to think that you are somehow above bias while theists are not, and it is this error that leads you and your ilk to look down on theists.

Originally Posted by justme58

Because your god does not exist except in your own mind.

Balloon juice. You disbelieve because you want to. You're kidding yourself. If you really went about this in a scientific manner, you would realize that the lack of evidence for something, or the lack of perception of such evidence, does not mean it does not exist. Thus, the honest scientist can at most say, "God might exist, but I don't see any evidence for him." From a scientific standpoint, that is what you should say. But instead you make the illogical argument: I don't see any evidence for God's existence; therefore, he necessarily does not exist. That doesn't follow. You are jumping to this conclusion because you want to.

Originally Posted by justme58

Because your god does not exist except in your own mind.

Why is it sooooo hard for you to acknowledge natural revelation? Simple: You don't want to.

There is a medical term for folk who hear voices in their heads...

Your invective has revealed more about your presuppositions than you probably realize.

For the last time...

Originally Posted by justme58

Because your god does not exist except in your own mind.