Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[leibowde84]

Yes, it is a refusal of current scientific perceptions which you choose to call facts. Even some scientist acknowledge the idea of parallel universes. I am merely stating that the unseen universe (I call it the Celestial Kingdom) is a place where according to scripture, entropy does not exist.

Can you support this claim?

 

[Thanda]

Aren't you judging atheists in general by the vocal atheists in this forum, though? Don't you think that is a dangerous road to go down. Often, generalizations like this lead to incorrect assumptions about people.

I don't think I'm being unfair. There is no reason to assume that the vocal atheists in this forum are not more or less representative of the whole group. Can you think of a reason?

 

[Thanda]

Yes one group follows facts and real evidence. This group is open to changes based on credible evidence.
The other follows mythology and is faith based, and ignores the facts and credible evidence in support of ONLY man writing mythology. This group is more often closed minded and often refuses new evidence no matter how credible.

Requiring more evidence to be convinced of something is not necessarily a virtue.

 

[Thanda]

That's not true at all.
We pretty much unanimously agreed that we would accept the absolute evidence, as per your thought experiment, and then the conversation digressed into what we would ask of god or how would judge the god that finally made himself apparent.

I think you should read that whole thread again with this in mind.

No it did not digress into the questions people would ask generally speaking. It more generally digressed into how evil the Christian God is and what a murderer he is. In one of the last posts on the forum someone even mentioned how God can kiss their behind. Others pondered whether they wouldn't prefer living with the devil. Yet others thought they would rather suffer hell than obey the Christian God.

That, for the most part is how I remember the thread going.

 

[viole]

Requiring more evidence to be convinced of something is not necessarily a virtue.

Well, if "more" means "more than zero", I think it is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

Well, if "more" means "more than zero", I think it is.

Ciao

- viole

A very big if.

 

[Thanda]

Can you support this claim?

I'm not sure what claim you wish to be supported but in case it is the multiverse claim: here is a Wikipedia quote -

The physics community continues to fiercely debate the multiverse hypothesis. Prominent physicists disagree about whether the multiverse may exist, and whether it is even a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry.[2] Serious concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification may erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the nature of fundamental physics. [3] Some have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific because it lacks falsifiability; the ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. [4] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if it provides for all possible outcomes.[5]

Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[6] Brian Greene,[7][8] Max Tegmark,[9] Alan Guth,[10] Andrei Linde,[11] Michio Kaku,[12] David Deutsch,[13] Leonard Susskind,[14] Raj Pathria,[15] Alexander Vilenkin,[16] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[17][18] Neil deGrasse Tyson[19] and Sean Carroll.[20]​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what you might consider a fatal flaw given the fact that I already stated that theists and atheists consider evidence in different ways.

Logical fallacies, mainly. If your conclusion relies on any logical fallacy, I would consider it fatally flawed.

Also, I concede up front that God cannot be proven scientifically because His existence is not a matter of empirical evidence...

Doesn't this strike you as strange?

If God has real physical effects on the universe, then there should be empirical evidence out there to be found. If you think that God has no real physical effects on the universe, what reason do you have to believe in him?

His existence is a matter of the witness of prophets and whether or not one believes their report.

Witness of what? You just said that there's no empirical evidence for God. Exactly what non-empirical things are these prophets witnessing that would point to God?

The use of the word "supernatural" was in response to what leibowde84 said in claiming I was being "being cynical"about atheists ability to actually consider anything supernatural". Personally, I don't believe in anything above that which is natural. I do believe that God has abilities with regard to acting upon matter which appears miraculous to us but is nonetheless natural.

That sounds pretty much in line with my position: there's just "that which exists", some of which we don't understand. Even if God were to exist, "supernatural" would be a useless label.

 

[outhouse]

Requiring more evidence to be convinced of something is not necessarily a virtue.

You may be missing a factual point here.


Its not about the volume of evidence. Its about the quality and factualness of the evidence that is important.


Sad thing is theist are often practicing fanaticism and fundamentalism much more so then any scientist or atheist.

 

[outhouse]

No, because upon my investigation, they do not provide what I consider an accurate description of the origin and destiny of souls in terms of eternity.

Then you cannot expect anyone to follow your personal opinion.

I would also think your investigation to be rather shallow and biased.


You have never taken a college or university course on any aspect of biblical history or how the books were written, have you ?

 

[Thanda]

You may be missing a factual point here.


Its not about the volume of evidence. Its about the quality and factualness of the evidence that is important.


Sad thing is theist are often practicing fanaticism and fundamentalism much more so then any scientist or atheist.

It doesn't matter how you spin it. The point remains, each person has their own standard of proof. And for most people it varies depending on the subject.

 

[Thanda]

Then you cannot expect anyone to follow your personal opinion.

I would also think your investigation to be rather shallow and biased.


You have never taken a college or university course on any aspect of biblical history or how the books were written, have you ?

I'm sure he doesn't expect people to follow his personal opinion. But like it or not humans are drawn by other people's happiness and confidence / faith. They become curious and they ask questions about where his happiness and confidence come from. When explains they begin to search and pray until they come to know the truth for themselves and the joy in their own hearts.

Most humans are not interested in science deep down in their hearts. They are interested in happiness.

 

[outhouse]

It doesn't matter how you spin it

Actually it does.

Your pitting academic knowledge against faith.

The point remains, each person has their own standard of proof.

Non sequitur.

There is no comparison to what is actually known as fact and what is faith based.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. And theist do not get to dictate reality, or nature when they factually apply faith based bias.

What you also may be forgetting, is that theist make up the scientist who come up with findings some theist argue about.

And for most people it varies depending on the subject.

Most people are uneducated, so your statements of personal opinion are all non sequitur.


When we look at 22 + 22 = 44. The answer is clearly 44 and its not subjective. Its called truth and knowledge and fact. Now just because different RELIGIOUS books change the answer from 44 does not give them any credibility. The same thing is done daily as religious fanaticism and fundamentalism does not get to dictate reality to anyone other then those who follow faith based conclusions.

 

[outhouse]

I'm sure he doesn't expect people to follow his personal opinion. But like it or not humans are drawn by other people's happiness and confidence / faith. They become curious and they ask questions about where his happiness and confidence come from. When explains they begin to search and pray until they come to know the truth for themselves and the joy in their own hearts.

Most humans are not interested in science deep down in their hearts. They are interested in happiness.

It looks like your making excuses for fanaticism and fundamentalism.

 

[outhouse]

Most humans are not interested in science deep down in their hearts

sounds hypocritical.

You type on a computer created by science.

Your survival is dependent on science.

Every doctor or dentist visit to keep you healthy is scientific in nature.



Its typical for many theist to hate the term "science" because their religious beliefs fail under our scientific factual knowledge.

 

[ether-ore]

I'm as inclined to believe that the authors are sincere as I would be for any account. I recognize that people sometimes lie, but they're usually sincere.

The conclusions drawn from experiences, though... they're a different story. Any time someone says something like "I saw X, therefore Y is true", anyone can step through the reasoning and ask themselves "if I saw X, would it necessarily imply Y?"

So... in the case of someone who says that they heard the voice of God, I'd generally believe that they heard something, but I wouldn't automatically assume that it really was God... or really was outside his own head.

Well, there you go. You are admitting up front that any suggestion I might make concerning the veracity of scriptural accounts would be suspect for the reasons you just gave. It would be pointless for me to go any further.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, there you go. You are admitting up front that any suggestion I might make concerning the veracity of scriptural accounts would be suspect for the reasons you just gave. It would be pointless for me to go any further.

If it's pointless for you to make your arguments to someone who won't automatically accept what you say uncritically, then this says volumes about the quality of your argument.

I'm not going to assume that your prophets MUST be not only sincere but never mistaken. Why do you think this is a reasonable demand?

 

[outhouse]

I might make concerning the veracity of scriptural accounts

But have you studied these text in a college or university to actually know what your dealing with here?

You are admitting

I know him, and I know he possesses this knowledge.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not sure what claim you wish to be supported but in case it is the multiverse claim: here is a Wikipedia quote -

The physics community continues to fiercely debate the multiverse hypothesis. Prominent physicists disagree about whether the multiverse may exist, and whether it is even a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry.[2] Serious concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification may erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the nature of fundamental physics. [3] Some have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific because it lacks falsifiability; the ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. [4] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if it provides for all possible outcomes.[5]

Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[6] Brian Greene,[7][8] Max Tegmark,[9] Alan Guth,[10] Andrei Linde,[11] Michio Kaku,[12] David Deutsch,[13] Leonard Susskind,[14] Raj Pathria,[15] Alexander Vilenkin,[16] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[17][18] Neil deGrasse Tyson[19] and Sean Carroll.[20]​

No, I am familiar with the multiverse hypothesis, but thanks for the info anyways. I was referring to this:

"I am merely stating that the unseen universe (I call it the Celestial Kingdom) is a place where according to scripture, entropy does not exist."

- Do you believe this merely based on claims from scripture, or do you have outside support for it?

 

[ether-ore]

But facts are not up for debate. Your refusal while noted, is just that. Refusal. It does not change what is taught worldwide as credible knowledge.

So? that is an open mind.

The universe was created from a singularity, its not up for debate the universe factually had a beggining point when space and time was created.

And guess what, singularities are common in nature and exist scattered or even littered across the universe.

They are a factual part of nature.

What your doing is placing faith before fact, out of theistic personal belief.

If you apply to the same skepticism to your own faith as you science, it would fall flat on its face.

As I said, I recognize that the "temporal and finite universe" we perceive had a beginning, The mechanism that began it isn't what I'm questioning. It is the cause of the event in the first place that is in question. What I am doing is attempting to find commonality between scientific observation and what the scriptures say. What I come up with is that the universe that we see is a subset of an infinite and eternal universe where entropy does not exist. If you find these points of reason not acceptable... I'm ok with that. It really doesn't matter.