Do you believe in God?

[firedragon]

Things that naturally occur without the intervention of an outside force or cause. Things that happen due to the laws of nature etc.

Do you think genesis took place from within natural laws? Any evidence using your own epistemology of scientism?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

One atheist said that he doesn't agree that science has methodological naturalism as an axiom. Just "I don't agree". That's it.

This is a lie, Why are you lying about me? I explained my position and you excluded my position from your post.

This is the problem with many. Not understanding what atheism is. Hard atheism is slowly vanishing because it has become a hard position to hold since you get into either a burden of proof fallacy in argumentation all over the place or provide "evidence" to the stance when proclaimed. And then the tables get turned onto the hard atheist where his own epistemology will clash with science or empiricism which is an internal conflict. So there is no choice really.

Saying a god does not exist has no good evidence to support that claim. Most atheists I know say there is not enough good evidence to believe a god exists. That is an honest position and the right position to take in my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

This is a lie, Why are you lying about me?

Who are you?

Saying a god does not exist has no good evidence to support that claim. Most atheists I know say there is not enough good evidence to believe a god exists. That is an honest position and the right position to take in my opinion.

Read what I said again. You have not understood.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have no idea why there is something rather than nothing..

Like I said, you prefer "don't know" ..

An explanation is not the same thing as good evidence..

As far as I'm concerned, I do have 'good evidence' .
..but I presume you think it untrustworthy.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Who are you?

Clizby Wampuscat, it says right there in your quote.

Read what I said again. You have not understood.

What did I not understand? Just say what I don't understand. I understood it a certain way that you say I misunderstood. So just tell me where I am wrong.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Like I said, you prefer "don't know" ..

No, I don't prefer it. I would rather know either way. It is reality and and acceptable answer.

As far as I'm concerned, I do have 'good evidence' .
..but I presume you think it untrustworthy.

I have no idea, what is your evidence?

 

[sayak83]

Correct. That is the usual position of the atheists as I have observed it, and they are absolutely right. Money and countries are human social constructs. God and gods are anything or anyone attributed might and so venerated. There are supernatural gods, mortal men, inanimate objects made of wood, stone and metal. Gods representing male and female sex organs like the Christian Roman cross first used by the Sumerian king Dumuzi (Tammuz, aka Nimrod; Ezekiel 8). Eric Clapton is a god, the fictional character Frodo from Lord of the Rings, the invented Shinto goddess Amaterasu - in North Korea God is Kim Jong-un. So, a god doesn't have to exist, but it can. The Biblical God Almighty, Jehovah, wasn't a god until he had created creatures, spiritual and physical to venerate him. If all humans stopped worshipping Jehovah and there wasn't one left that did worship him, he would no longer be God. A god is in the eye of the beholder. Jehovah said that he would become the God of Israel. He said to have no other gods before (greater in their eyes) than him. Many of them failed in that capacity. You see, now, what gods mean? More gods literally exist than can be counted. Other gods exist only exist in myth, legend, history. Many of their names are found in the days and months of various calendars, everyday products we use from candy bars to cars, in science, the names of planets, holidays.

To say that gods don't exist is nonsensical. To say whether or not they exist in any society that is predicated by mythological presupposition is kind of myopic, to say a god has to exist is factually wrong and to say that others - supernatural - don't exist is unscientific. To say they don't affect nearly every aspect of your life defies logic and begs the question why would we be here discussing them. Militant atheism is a sociopolitical frustration with quasi-theocracy.



I think it relevant, or at least interesting, as an indication of the ignorance of atheism which is only a mirror of the ignorance of theism.

The atheists believe that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that there is or was any being or entity who created the world or its creatures etc. or which intervenes in the affairs of the world in any way. Once again, this seems to be perfectly consistent position which may be right or wrong of course.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The atheists believe that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that there is or was any being or entity who created the world or its creatures etc. or which intervenes in the affairs of the world in any way. Once again, this seems to be perfectly consistent position which may be right or wrong of course.

The thing is, in order to sustain such a position requires a very limited perception of the "evidence." By definition it is completely false. God or gods. Belief. I don't believe in the President; I do believe he exists. If, as I believe you had said, there is no evidence of gods, that is factually wrong. So, is it simply an empty ideology or is it a case of specifics not being applied? The definition of atheism is never "believing no evidence that specific gods (or the supernatural) doesn't exist."

Would you agree that atheism isn't terribly concerned about gods or the supernatural, Gods or the Bible, that there would be no objection to any of that unless it had some sociopolitical ramifications?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It makes sense to me that if a god interacts with our universe it would be possible to develop a scientific test to detect that god.

Agreed.

One would need to detect some action or change with no apparent cause that behaved as if a conscious agent were the source. You're probably aware of the STEP study that tested the efficacy of prayer in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and found no difference in outcomes between those prayed for and those not getting prayer unless they were told that they were being prayed for, in which case they did worse.

Suppose it had turned out that those who were prayed for and didn't know it did much better than those who got no prayers. How can one account for that? We'd have demonstrated a salutary effect that resulted from prayer that occurred differentially in those getting the prayer as if somebody were responding to our prayers. That would support the claim that some mind hears us and has power over the world.

Of course, we're only going to be able to detect a god that intervenes in our world. We wouldn't expect to detect the god of the deists, a noninterventionist deity, but then again, being aware of its existence would be interesting but not useful knowledge.

Science's axiom is methodological naturalism. So you are making a category error.

I think it's you that's made the error. See above.

If a god can affect nature, it is part of nature. Nature is the collection of things that can affect one another, also called reality. The critical thinker won't give the theist the pass he expects for his gods simply by declaring them immune to empiricism and reason. Those are things one says about a false belief to explain the absence of evidence for it.

You seem to like dragons. Do you know about Sagan's invisible dragon in his garage? It's also undetectable, so it's as off limits to empirical testing as gods, likely for the same reason: The Dragon in My Garage

Exactly .. I didn't say 'eenie, meanie, minie, mo'

But you did dodge the issue: "Whatever your reason for believing a god exists, you've chosen to believe in the god of Abraham over the alternatives for a reason. For most people, it would be a combination of being acculturated into such beliefs as well as a desire to avoid extinction with death and be protected and get wishes granted while still alive"

You claim to be telepathic now?

Do you know what telepathy is? It seems not.

No, I'm not telepathic. I'm educated, observant, and a former Christian myself. I guess you don't know what Abrahamics want if you think it requires telepathy to know.

Something is comforting to you about the god you chose to believe in, and it doesn't matter to me which of those apply to you.

You say you are happy to be persuaded by reason, yet you have clearly decided no argument for God can ever clear the convoluted hurdles you have so carefully constructed against all possible runners and riders.

What hurdles? That he expects convincing evidence before accepting god claims. I present the same "convoluted hurdles" - critical thought and empiricism. It's how one minimizes accumulating incorrect and useless beliefs.

False god beliefs consume valuable resources if they lead to a religion, and if they don't, what difference does it make to believe in gods?

Do you need to know what real phenomenon is denoted by the word 'Time', before looking at your watch?

Yes. Don't you? Why would one even wear a watch with no concept of time?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..what is your evidence?

That, I believe, is not within the scope of the OP

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, I'm not telepathic. I'm educated, observant, and a former Christian myself..

Ah .. so they were your reasons for "believing" .. or maybe you didn't believe, so
your thoughts are misguided into thinking you know it all.

Something is comforting to you about the god you chose to believe in..

A mixture .. fear, but also hope.

..but of course .. you are a know-all, and think you're invincible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

your thoughts are misguided into thinking you know it all.

No, I don't think that, but I do know something about people and motivation.

A mixture .. fear, but also hope.

Earlier, you wrote, "I would be more than happy to be 'obliterated' forever."

Now you say that you chose this god because of a mixture of hope and fear, which is consistent with what I wrote as reasons for choosing Abrahamism: "being acculturated into such beliefs as well as a desire to avoid extinction with death and be protected and get wishes granted while still alive."

You chose the god that will protect you, answer your prayers, and give you heaven after death. The pagans' gods don't offer those things, and you didn't choose them. The Dharmic gods don't offer those things, and you didn't choose them. You chose the one you call G-d.

Most people aren't that hard to understand. That you call this mindreading implies that that's not true for you.

 

[firedragon]

Clizby Wampuscat, it says right there in your quote.

OH THE USERNAME. Thanks for the brand new information.

Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

If a god can affect nature, it is part of nature.

The affect is part of nature right? Not God.

So an affect like biogenesis?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That, I believe, is not within the scope of the OP

Ok, then please don't tell me I think your evidence is untrustworthy if you will not present it to me.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

OH THE USERNAME. Thanks for the brand new information.

Ciao.

So why not just tell me what I don't understand?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The effect is part of nature right? Not God.

I wrote,

"If a god can affect nature, it is part of nature. Nature is the collection of things that can affect one another, also called reality. The critical thinker won't give the theist the pass he expects for his gods simply by declaring them immune to empiricism and reason. Those are things one says about a false belief to explain the absence of evidence for it."

Cause and effect are both part of nature. What's the justification for saying otherwise? I know the claim, and I think I understand why it's made. People are trying to justify an unevidenced belief in what is possibly a nonexistent deity and are trying to explain why nobody can find their god even if it exists using words and phrases like supernatural and outside of time. But without ideas such beliefs, there is no reason to rope off the place where some say this entity resides and call it supernatural. If it exists and can affect nature, that makes it another aspect of nature.

Once, people thought that disease like the plague was supernatural in origin, because people just got sick and died for no apparent reason, so it must be unseen malevolent actors. And it was unseen actors, albeit not malevolent, and they too were a part of nature. We know that because they could affect other aspects of nature, such as causing people to die of plague.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Now you say that you chose this god because of a mixture of hope and fear..

No .. that was a reply to your: "Something is comforting to you about the god you chose to believe in"..

It does not follow that that is the reason I chose it.
In many ways, it chose me .. but:

"Take one step towards G-d, and He will take many steps towards you" .

You chose the god that will protect you, answer your prayers, and give you heaven after death.

Nonsense .. I have always believed in G-d from the age of knee-high.
I never thought about death .. one doesn't when they are young, usually.

The pagans' gods don't offer those things, and you didn't choose them.

Pagan gods are a completely different concept .. with a completely different origin.
That is, apart from a few that have evolved away from the original concept of revelation.

Most people aren't that hard to understand..

You are doing nothing more than guessing .. whether educated or otherwise.
You do NOT categorically know .. at least, not according to MY belief.
You have already admitted you are not telepathic.

..or maybe you have the results of a reliable survey, that has questioned millions of people
worldwide?
..and even then, you only have their word for it .. it's not a brain-scan.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ok, then please don't tell me I think your evidence is untrustworthy..

Huh? Well you must do .. you do not believe in the Bible and Qur'an.
..and I don't intend to go into the intricacies in this thread.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Huh? Well you must do .. you do not believe in the Bible and Qur'an.
..and I don't intend to go into the intricacies in this thread.

I agree. But, You told me you think that I think your reasons for your belief are untrustworthy without telling me what your reasons are. This is all I am saying.