I suppose it is easy to assume that I would only have gone to such a school if I was committed to ministry. The truth is that for me, education has always been more a matter following my interests and learning things for their own sake than about a career. It didn’t take very long at all for me realize ministry wasn’t for me, so I went back to physics for my masters degree and a couple of research projects. But then my interests led me elsewhere once again.
I think the best arguments against Atheism are basically Deism. But even Dawkings admitted that one may be able to make a case for Deism being true . although he won’t accept it (probably due to null hypothesis)
If most theists were Deists, I don’t think Hawkings or Dawkings or Hitchens, etc… would even bother to write against it too much.
Here is what I think about theism though. And I’ll give you this analogy. Lets say there is a jar with something in it and you have no way of verifying what’s in it. A theist would say that the jar contains coins, because that’s what majority of people throughout history believe and this opinion cannot be easily discounted without a solid evidence. My position (and Agnostic Atheist position) would be to suspend judgment until there are good reasons to believe the jar contains coins. Without such evidence, null hypothesis is the best hypothesis.
It seems to me the Theists don’t like the null hypothesis very much when it comes to the religious belief, but seem okay with it in other areas.
1 Like
Are you saying that faith (religious belief) is something that we can analyse and synthesise as scientists do for matter/energy?
2 Likes
Oops I just realized that might have sounded like you must have been overwhelmed with cognitive dissonance. I meant me.
I know you are motivated to make sense of things, as am I (except you’ve committed more time and effort getting degrees and expertise than I).
I have no problem with anyone who inputs intention at a point before the emergence of consciousness. But I’m going to go on thinking consciousness is an emergent property of brains which comes a good deal after the emergence of life. I guess that is the main reason I don’t think a creator at the beginning of everything works.
1 Like
That doesn´t make sense because we would have to assume that Atheism is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis claims that we stay with an old assumption if the new one doesn´t have enough quality arguments/evidence for it. First of all of course this is hardly practicable on religion since we don´t make a scientific, in the laboratory testable, assumption here and second wouldn´t in your case be Christianity your null hypothesis, since you grew up in a christian home?
Only if we assume that only natural theology has any value and ignore revelation theology at the same time completely.
Because it would still very much fit a nihilistic worldview. But it runs against central claims that God revealed himself to his beloved creation, which again is not a scientific claim, but rather a historical one.
No, I was referring to the fact that when we don’t know something, it’s best to suspend judgment until more information is revealed/obtained. Also, I’m saying that faith is the least reliable way to know whether something is true. By faith, one can accept anything as true.
Null hypothesis, in my understanding, has nothing to do with the original beliefs/convictions/up bringing. Null Hypothesis is the state in which we start our life.
It assumes that the natural world, laws of nature and God(s) are unrelated. If someone claims that they are, in fact related, the burden of proof is on them, just as if someone claims God’s do not exist, the burden of proof is on them.
I think Christians should understand this, because Christians too are atheists when it comes to hundreds of other God(s). Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, etc… Existence of all those Gods cannot be disproven, however, few Christians are bothered by this fact. They don’t believe in Zeus because to them (as to me) there is insufficient evidence to believe that Zeus exists and is a God.
I am not sure what you mean by revelation theology and how is it different from faith? And how do you know that you are revealed something by an external source and it’s not all in your head? Humans are very much pattern oriented, and that’s one reason we find images on Pizza’s and in the clouds.
But how do you determine that a claim is true? I am most concerned with the truth and only want to hold to and accept things that are true.
If it is a nonsense, it’s not a nonsense created by Atheists’. The issue is, Christians themselves disagree what “part of Christianity” is. Your argument is not with me, but every so called Christian throughout past 2,000+ years!
I think you love to nitpick. Of course, Matt 10:28 teaches people to fear the one who is able to destroy both body and soul in Hell. You say the verse has ‘nothing to do with conversion’, but it’s just your opinion on the verse. Who made you the Pope or the final authority on the Bible? Matt 10:28 does not rule out the conversion, and people like Jonathan Edwards used fear of Hell and punishment to convert people to Christianity. You may disagree with their approach, but yours is just an opinion and nothing more.
Talking about Jude’s passage, you say:
To me you making a distinction without evidence. You agree that there is a Hell that awaits all non-Christians, and Hell is a very terrifying place, is it not?
Where do you get the idea that fear tactics should not be used in conversion? Why not use whatever works? Where does the text forbids you from doing what Jonathan Edwards has done?
That sounds interestingly similar to the typical straw-man build up by Dawkins ad Coyne. And it is pretty much the opposite from what Christianity claims, since it provides evidence through the reality of the resurrection and its completely built up on it.
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead… . And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.”
This strawman has been pointed out to you many times here already and I feel like we´re beating a dead horse by now.
Their flirt with Jesus mythicism shows there is hardly anything rational about this site.
Another strawman. I don´t believe in Zeus and the natural Gods since they were put in inexplicable natural phenomenons by contemporary people. As soon as we understood how lightnings really came to be, Thor became unemployed. It´s the perfect example of the God of the gaps, in which noone here believe in. With that said i have no opinion to the other spirits e.g. in Hinduism, since I´d have to study the historical claims, when they interacted with humans. I certainly do not rule them out a priori.
Revelation theology is seen e.g. in the scriptures where God revealed himself to mankind. Natural theology leads to Deism at best since it only providespointers to a higher power but doesn´t make claims about it itself. Jesus´ teachingshad to come through revelation theology since there is no way to get them studying the cosmos.
Which is why claims by one sole person of that kind are harder to verify/believe. The resurrection has been witnessed by several people who, with all the differences through subjective perspectives, still describe with similarity. Hallucinations are subjective, mass hallucinations therefor nonexistent. Through the similarities historians are able to make a case for the truthfulness of the account.
In his book “Miracles” Craig Keener collected many miracle caims trough history until today in every part of the world, many of which are deeply investigated and still seen as plausible. That of courses makes the occurence of the event more probable. Of course that doesn´t prove the christian view of God but provides evidence for a higher power.
Here is what I would add to your analogy. The Christian wouldn’t come up with the idea of coins in the jar just out of thin air. They would have noted that there were testimonies from people who, while they had not been granted direct access to open up the jar and empty it out in front of everybody, would nevertheless have heard testimonies from people they consider [have found to be] trustworthy that there is good reason to believe there are coins in the jar. And while the proof provided by direct access to the jar is still denied, this cloud of witnesses and their testimonies about otherwise highly improbable (if not inexplicable) testimonies about what has happened to and for them is consistent with their belief about the contents of the jar. So going all the way back to Christ, I argue that this is evaluated and warranted belief, and no mere orbiting teapot, dragon in a garage, spaghetti monster, or any other random thing.
1 Like
I think we are getting away from the OP question, but you have no evidence of resurrection. I would say the best evidence against the resurrection, is the fact that according to the Synoptic Gospels, the people considered Jesus the risen John the Baptist, even as Jesus was still alive but John the Baptist dead. The origin of the belief, the belief among Orthodox Jews, etc… all of the same Christian Apologetic arguments apply to the belief in John’s resurrection. Christianity, of course, denies John rose from the dead, but the fact that Christian documents (competing to Johanite movement) records this belief is evidence stronger than anything Christianity offers. So, you may be convinced resurrection is true, but I am not.
What is the name of the fallacy, where just because one part of an argument may be false, the entire slew of arguments becomes null and void?
But Christians used to believe that Jesus/Yahweh was responsible for the natural phenomenon, including lighting. Why isn’t he unemployed? I think it has to do with double standards. Conversely, the same arguments that show a Christian God exists even while we have an explanation for lighting and other phenomena, also can work for Zeus and others.
I think Christians have an interesting strategy. They rule out all of the natural phenomenon to explain the resurrection, but then claim that only one supernatural explanation can work. However, how have you ruled out supernatural explanations contrary to Jesus’ resurrection? For example, perhaps there was a supernatural hallucinations? Or some spirit stole Jesus’ body and convinced the disciples Jesus is not there?
Besides, even if resurrection happened, there is no way for us to know that it truly did. Even Saul (who later became Paul) needed a supernatural vision to convince him of the resurrection. Why should I be required to believe on no evidence?
This has been answered several times in different threads so I´m not bothering answering it again.
Here is one:
Fair enough, the definition was also mostly right if I see it correctly. My reaction was rather because of my normal experience with that site.
The difference is that the God of the bible isn´t described as being restricted to one area. Thor was responsible for the thunder and the lightning but he didn´t have anything to do with anything else. The direct interaction between God and his people isn´t seen with the natural gods, apart from the one-road-interactions through oblations of course.
By logic, yes of course.
I can´t rule it out and like I said I don´t rule other spirits out a priori. But since the claim doesn´t have any supporting evidence, I don´t have any reason to consider it any further.
This is how history works. Barely proofs, mostly approaches. And when even atheistic scholars like Gerd Lüdemann (german, modern day Feuerbach I might add), say that the disciples experiences with Jesus after his crucifixion has to be seen as historical, then you know there is something to the accounts in the NT. And this is the evidence you for some reason see as nonexistent.
Yes because Paul wasn´t there to witness the resurrection like e.g. the Apostles did. He was on the way to Damaskus. I don´t know why this requires an “even”, Thomas also wanted proof, but he had the advantage that he was there. Obviously the vision was enough for Paul to abandon his original mission.
Yeah I thought you meant me at first and was writing a different response until I figured out the other possibility.
Likewise, I have no problem with that point of view, any more than I do with naturalism and atheism. It is reasonable and defensible. I have simply chosen a different path of thought which I also think is reasonable and defensible.
2 Likes
As do I. And the justification people find sufficient is their own business. It helps if everyone bears in mind that when it comes to a theory of everything (or origins) we must all at some point rely on something which is not demonstrable and so challenging one another for such a demonstration is not helpful and is often disingenuous. You never do that and I try not to as well.
If it is a nonsense, it’s not a nonsense created by Atheists’. The issue is, Christians themselves disagree what “part of Christianity” is. Your argument is not with me, but every so called Christian throughout past 2,000+ years!
Whoever created this nonsense is utterly irrelevant. All Christians in human history obviously agree with me, since there’s never been a Christian claiming anything that any Christian says goes as doctrine. What you’re referring to are doctrinal disputes of various sorts that don’t support this absurd claim in the least.
You say the verse has ‘nothing to do with conversion’
No, it’s not. I never gave my ‘opinion’ on the interpretation of Matthew. What I said is an empirical fact. Nowhere does the text have anything to say about conversion. At all. Ever. Squeeze lemon juice on it, won’t be there. There’s a hell of a difference between Christians being told to fear God and telling non-Christians to convert lest God punish them forever.
and people like Jonathan Edwards
Have I mentioned yet that this is cherry picking at its finest?
To me you making a distinction without evidence.
“Without evidence”? Huh? The verse says that Christians, in their love for non-believers and wanting them to be saved from condemnation, should go out and try to save them. What you’re saying is that Christianity teaches actually using hell as a threat when preaching to non-Christians. There are similar words here and all, SuperDooperBigV, but come on, this is nothing like what you’re talking about. I can’t even believe you haven’t yet admitted to making an honest mistake.
Where do you get the idea that fear tactics should not be used in conversion? Why not use whatever works?
Totally irrelevant. For the moment, let’s conceed that it isn’t outright disallowed in the Bible. Your claim is that the Bible actually teaches to use fear as a tactic. Which is the precis point under dispute. If you admit this is wrong, we can finally agree.
2 Likes
I have to smile at this - a person of faith knows that, he/she has faith and Christianity teaches us to value what is true at all times. If you do not have faith, you are not in a position to make judgements on faith in any intelligent way.
This is the reason I try to understand atheists as either professing an absence of faith, or as aggressive anti-faith proponents.
So if you do not ‘know’ matters pertaining to faith, you cannot say anything relevant - that is just plain sense.
If you are arguing for a particular theological view, or are concerned with behaviour of others, than I suggest you make specific points that may be addressed.
Vast generalisations simply get us no-where.
2 Likes
@GJDS, can you clarify this? Thanks. I’m not sure I understand. Would it also be valid to say that if I am not an atheist (which I’m not; I’m a Christian) I can’t judge what an atheist believes? Or, does it go to other types of faith? Eg, certain Brahmins think only their caste can read and understand the Bhagavad gitas; and some of us start with the presupposition that our holy books are right, and then argue from that stronghold (Qur’an, Bible, etc).
I would have thought we have to discuss with the common knowledge of reason.
Probably what @SuperBigV is getting at is that if we can’t prove it, we can’t be judged for it–or something in that nature?
Thanks.
1 Like
We tend to be caught up in generalisations in these type of exchanges - my initial point dealt with ‘knowing’. If I am not an atheist, I cannot articulate what an atheist ‘knows’, with the exception that he says it is lack of belief in God. And the reasoning goes for those of us who profess faith, an atheist can simply observe that he does not have faith, so he cannot ‘know’ faith.
On specifics, I view these as theological discussions, and these can show matters which may be similar amongst us, and also differences. Judgement takes us to another level, and provided we value what is true, we may agree to disagree.
1 Like
Oh, I see; there are certainly generalizations that can cause miscommunication. Is that what you’re saying?
I can see that. Also, though, I can empathize with the atheist’s (or other nonbeliever’s) potential concern that that which is not provable by reason is also not necessarily something for which we can be judged. Only God really knows our hearts; but it sounds like that is not what you were discussing. Thanks for the clarification. I’m learning something here.
The big questions of belief, purpose, meaning and so on, can be subjected to reasoned discussions, but cannot be proved by experimental analysis and scientific tests. I am often unimpressed when scientists make statements about proving God, the purpose of life, and so on as if these are within the domain of the natural sciences. Science cannot do that. As scientist we may offer an opinion and our point of view, but not as something science has proved or disproved.
1 Like