Atheists: If God existed would God……

[KWED]

Oh, really.

Interesting that you ignored the other part of my post...
"However, if you present your single best example of this "evidence" I will happily explain why it is actually no such thing."

You seem to have "forgotten" to present this "evidence" of yours.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you never even consider you may be wrong about all this stuff, including the absolute primacy of logic and reason, in a world where absolutes are innately unreasonable anyway?

The empiricist is aware of only one path to knowledge, critical thought, the valid application of reason to evidence. By knowledge, I mean the collection of correct ideas one hold, and I define correct as the ability of an idea to accurately predict outcomes. If we apply valid reasoning to experience, we can generalize up to a rule (induction) that can then be used to predict future outcomes, which is also confirmed empirically when these outcomes come to pass. In this way, man went to the moon and back. Outcomes. The science and engineering involved were correct and can be added to the fund of knowledge because they are able to do what I just described. No other method can. Not casting star charts, not using Ouija boards, not using prayer(which doesn't seem to generate desired outcomes), not by using holy books making claims that can't be confirmed - not by any other method offered as a path to truth and knowledge, all of which I call faith. Any method that yield unjustified belief can be grouped with all others by that metric - generating correct (useful) ideas.

The critical thinker is always aware that he could be wrong in any given application of it, but he can be assured that he is not wrong to go to that method and no other for answers. It's empirically demonstrable that that is the case.

By this reckoning and using those criteria for correctness, we have reasoning on one side of the line and everything else on the other. So yes, the (relative) primacy of reason over unjustified belief is established.

Science can't tell you why you exist

Science tells us why we exist. A small, dense, hot substance began expanding, organized itself into galaxies of solar systems, where life and then mind arose according to various laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. In the case of the individual, he exists because of a reproductive act in the previous generation.

You probably mean that science can't answer deep philosophical problems such as why anything at all exists, and I would agree. You probably think that religion can and does, but I do not consider the faith-based speculation of religion correct answers, just guesses that really answer nothing.

science can't save mankind from themselves.

No, and we do not look to it for that. Once again, religion seems to have nothing to offer there. What do we get from the religions? If everybody would just love another as Jesus commands, this would be a better world. That's useless. Secular humanism does better. It has already done more for the world and to improve the human condition in a few centuries than the religions have done in millennia. Who are the ones despoiling the land using the fruits of science? Not scientists, and not secular humanists. The problem lies elsewhere, with people not sharing humanist values, which includes the faithful:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill

Secular humanists will tell you that Christians like these are a large part of the problem.

My investment has reduced to one or two sentences, as well.

An interesting way to phrase it - investment. I assume that you mean your investment into Trailblazer's education. I think of this activity as an investment in promoting certain values. I do it for myself to help clarify and organize my thoughts, but also for anybody that can track a reasoned argument. Not that they need convincing, but I find value in making explicit what other might agree with but have never thought about, such as the words on rebuttal versus other forms of dissent.

I benefit from your words as well as those from other critical thinkers. I believe that most such people agree with one another by virtue of using a prescribed, constrained manner of thought that directs one to those ideas, but we each choose different aspects of the claims and arguments presented and use different language. I like sharing my opinions in the hope that they will suggest new ways to make old arguments for those who see merit in them. And I benefit from others when they choose an approach I hadn't considered.

To be fair, the beliefs themselves are usually arrived at through conditioning from infancy. The "evidence" comes later in an attempt to justify those beliefs in the face of challenge/doubt.

Agree. I group all of these paths together. They all lead to unjustified belief.

 

[PureX]

"I, the person that believes that there can be no legitimate evidence for the existence of God because God doesn't exist, will now stand in judgement of what is and is not evidence. So go on silly theist, and present me with your evidence" ... **chuckling**

A proposition worthy of "Q".

 

[muhammad_isa]

"However, if you present your single best example of this "evidence" I will happily explain why it is actually no such thing."

Challenge?
You've got no religion, so you attack others.
Haven't you got better things to do?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The empiricist is aware of only one path to knowledge, critical thought, the valid application of reason to evidence. By knowledge, I mean the collection of correct ideas one hold, and I define correct as the ability of an idea to accurately predict outcomes. If we apply valid reasoning to experience, we can generalize up to a rule (induction) that can then be used to predict future outcomes, which is also confirmed empirically when these outcomes come to pass. In this way, man went to the moon and back. Outcomes. The science and engineering involved were correct and can be added to the fund of knowledge because they are able to do what I just described. No other method can. Not casting star charts, not using Ouija boards, not using prayer(which doesn't seem to generate desired outcomes), not by using holy books making claims that can't be confirmed - not by any other method offered as a path to truth and knowledge, all of which I call faith. Any method that yield unjustified belief can be grouped with all others by that metric - generating correct (useful) ideas.

The critical thinker is always aware that he could be wrong in any given application of it, but he can be assured that he is not wrong to go to that method and no other for answers. It's empirically demonstrable that that is the case.

By this reckoning and using those criteria for correctness, we have reasoning on one side of the line and everything else on the other. So yes, the (relative) primacy of reason over unjustified belief is established.



Science tells us why we exist. A small, dense, hot substance began expanding, organized itself into galaxies of solar systems, where life and then mind arose according to various laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. In the case of the individual, he exists because of a reproductive act in the previous generation.

You probably mean that science can't answer deep philosophical problems such as why anything at all exists, and I would agree. You probably think that religion can and does, but I do not consider the faith-based speculation of religion correct answers, just guesses that really answer nothing.



No, and we do not look to it for that. Once again, religion seems to have nothing to offer there. What do we get from the religions? If everybody would just love another as Jesus commands, this would be a better world. That's useless. Secular humanism does better. It has already done more for the world and to improve the human condition in a few centuries than the religions have done in millennia. Who are the ones despoiling the land using the fruits of science? Not scientists, and not secular humanists. The problem lies elsewhere, with people not sharing humanist values, which includes the faithful:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill

Secular humanists will tell you that Christians like these are a large part of the problem.



An interesting way to phrase it - investment. I assume that you mean your investment into Trailblazer's education. I think of this activity as an investment in promoting certain values. I do it for myself to help clarify and organize my thoughts, but also for anybody that can track a reasoned argument. Not that they need convincing, but I find value in making explicit what other might agree with but have never thought about, such as the words on rebuttal versus other forms of dissent.

I benefit from your words as well as those from other critical thinkers. I believe that most such people agree with one another by virtue of using a prescribed, constrained manner of thought that directs one to those ideas, but we each choose different aspects of the claims and arguments presented and use different language. I like sharing my opinions in the hope that they will suggest new ways to make old arguments for those who see merit in them. And I benefit from others when they choose an approach I hadn't considered.



Agree. I group all of these paths together. They all lead to unjustified belief.

In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

 

[KWED]

"I, the person that believes that there can be no legitimate evidence for the existence of God because God doesn't exist, will now stand in judgement of what is and is not evidence. So go on silly theist, and present me with your evidence" ... **chuckling**

A proposition worthy of "Q".

Hope you don't suffer from hay fever, because that is quite a straw man you have built there.

 

[KWED]

Challenge?
You've got no religion, so you attack others.
Haven't you got better things to do?

So let's just be clear here.
1. You claim you have proper evidence for the magical claims made about Jesus and Muhammad.
2. You refuse to present that evidence.
3. You criticise me for asking to see that evidence, which you claim you have.

Is that about right?

 

[KWED]

In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Indeed.
It is better to have some knowledge through evidence and reason, and be aware that your knowledge is limited, than to falsely claim absolute certainty through faith and assertion.

 

[ppp]

@It Aint Necessarily So Thank you for your words. And I whole-heartedly agree with you on the value of these discussions. But when my interlocutor digs in to a point where they will say anything just to be adversarial it gets tiresome. And when they are part of community that practices shunning or other social coersions it is often an indicator of lock up from terror and panic. Discussion of that point is useless. And maybe a little bit like beating on a panicked bunny.

 

[ppp]

"I, the person that believes that there can be no legitimate evidence for the existence of God because God doesn't exist, will now stand in judgement of what is and is not evidence. So go on silly theist, and present me with your evidence" ... **chuckling**

A proposition worthy of "Q".

You know that people are routinely convinced by evidence of things that they believe cannot be true, right? Of things that they could not imagine there be evidence for, right? Right?

 

[ppp]

In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

I have never bought that. In the country of the blind the one eyed man would only have an advantage while standing outside during the day. Or under a bright moon.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Indeed.
It is better to have some knowledge through evidence and reason, and be aware that your knowledge is limited, than to falsely claim absolute certainty through faith and assertion.

It distrust anyone claiming absolute certainty. At best, on any subject, we can only ever claim overwhelming probability.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You claim you have proper evidence for the magical claims made about Jesus and Muhammad.

What's "proper"?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have never bought that. In the country of the blind the one eyed man would only have an advantage while standing outside during the day. Or under a bright moon.

Unless he can light a candle

 

[Sheldon]

I agree. My investment has reduced to one or two sentences, as well.

The abortion debate is heading the same way tbh, before I start self harming. years ago I used to think I'd make a passable primary school teacher, considered it as a career, but several posters here have made me rethink that conclusion.

 

[ppp]

Unless he can light a candle

Why would there be candle makers in the land of the blind?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why would there be candle makers in the land of the blind?

As a tribute to optimism and faith.

 

[ppp]

As a tribute to optimism and faith.

You wouldn't need to light a candle. You could just tell everyone the candle was there.

 

[ppp]

The abortion debate is heading the same way tbh, before I start self harming. years ago I used to think I'd make a passable primary school teacher, considered it as a career, but several posters here have made me rethink that conclusion.

I took a group of Cub scouts camping once. It rained one day , and snow the next. And we had to wait way too long for the campground to deliver firewood. Those kids were paragons of reason in comparison to some of the people on that discussion.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what was the reasoning for people to say that it wasn't proper evidence?

I don't know. You would have to ask those people.