Evidence for God from Science

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You get these strange posters who constantly come through.

They think they're making us look foolish point by pretending to be Christian and asking useless questions.

I have been thinking of this for a few weeks now. I'm always hopeful when a new atheist or agnostic (or one of the new hybrid models, ''agnostic-atheists'') show up.

I've seen strange Christians acting like fools on atheist boards as well. That kind of behavior isn't limited to any one group.

Anyway, I'm an atheist and I came here to have an honest discussion. And for the sake of full disclosure, I'm not looking for guidance, answers, or lectures, just discussions. I also have a few ground rules that I will do my best to follow and which I hope the rest of you will follow as well:

1) Be civil.
2) Be honest.
3) Stay on topic.
4) Be concise. Seriously. You can post your version of the Great American Novel if you want, but I'm not going to read it.


And that's it. I'll be around.

SkepticalSkeeter wrote: 1) Be civil.
2) Be honest.
3) Stay on topic.
4) Be concise.

SkepticalSkeeter gets my vote for moderator.

*Looks @ Furstentum Liechtenstein post of*

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: I have been thinking of this for a few weeks now. I'm always hopeful when a new atheist or agnostic (or one of the new hybrid models, ''agnostic-atheists'') show up

And wonders if they are one of the 'Hybrid' models...

Also, hello to SkepticalSkeeter.

Much cheers to all.

Thadeyus,

you are always cheering us with you cheering.

Much cheers to you.

A main issue is that it's easier to criticise than respond. I personally much prefer substance than skimming over or ignoring matters.

Atheists tend to prefer criticising and then ink themselves like a squid to flee or distract when challenged to place any of their own beliefs on the table.

That's just me though, and my general experience. Maybe you're different.

My own experience with myself is that I by defult thought Christians are ... well ... weird, not wise, strange, simplistic, not thinking.

1over137 wrote:My own experience with myself is that I by defult thought Christians are ... well ... weird, not wise, strange, simplistic, not thinking.

Well, in a way you were right.

It's because we believe something so absurd, that is some bloke who lived 2000 years ago was actually God and born as a baby via a virgin birth in Mary, walked the earth healing people, died "for our sins" (whatever that means to a non-Christian and why) via crucifixion, and rose again on the third day... it's like really... I mean, "REALLY. Come ON!??"

But there are many odd things in life that are true. The question is, is it true? And what it means for us if it is.

I really love the Corinthians passage I quoted earlier as it puts this all in context (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). The wisdom of the World vs foolishness of God. And God's foolishness is better than the World's wisdom. It's very purposeful of God I think to do such things. Also, when I think about it... it reduces this always serious and overbearing vision of God in my mind, to see a funny side to God's character.

Consider that as much as Rick would like to claim the title, God would be the author of "Clownery" just as much as Righteousness and Love.

But, here I am blabbering again! I need to get ready with kids to visit new bubs.

Kurieuo wrote:A main issue is that it's easier to criticise than respond. I personally much prefer substance than skimming over or ignoring matters.

Atheists tend to prefer criticising and then ink themselves like a squid to flee or distract when challenged to place any of their own beliefs on the table.

That's just me though, and my general experience. Maybe you're different.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Ray Comfort is on your side in the great debate, and that when he says things like this he's speaking as a representative of your faith. It's also worth noting that Kirk Cameron, another of your self-declared representatives, is responsible for the Crocoduck. Oh, and do you recall when Pat Robertson said this about the earthquake in Haiti? Remember when Terry Jones did this? I bet that made things a lot easier for the troops in Afghanistan, huh? And speaking of things that completely baffle and disgust most of us, how about these highly visible Christians? Or this response to an atheist lawsuit? Is that how Jesus says to handle disagreements?

And as long as we're here, why to so many of the Christians posting on atheist message boards think that the Theory of Evolution has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of the universe? And why do they think that typing "the second law of thermodynamics" all in caps crushingly refutes any argument in favor of evolution? Oh, and who told them that Pascal's Wager was a compelling argument in favor of religion? Seriously, pulling that one out is just childish.

Anyway, yeah, I agree that there are plenty of rude, dumb, uninformed atheists out there. I've seen 'em too. Still, if you're going to judge all skeptics and free thinkers based on the behavior of a few then it's worth noting that turnabout is fair play.

SS, I don't even know who Ray Comfort is. Further, it is a logical fallacy to reject a position based on others who hold to it. Such is the genetic fallacy.

Should I reject your position because societies governed by those with secular ideologies have resulted in the greatest massacres?

Take 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung (with possible estimates up to 63.7 million). Or Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev with 66.7 million. Such deaths pale by comparison to anything committed in the name of Christ.

But if we look at the basis of say a secular ideology versus Christian; where there is ultimately no real good or bad in a secular worldview beyond subjective tastes, Christianity provides foundations for saying that such atrocities -- whether committed in the name of Christ or some other ideology -- that such acts really are bad regardless of what anyone here on Earth thinks.

Kurieuo wrote:SS, I don't even know who Ray Comfort is. Further, it is a logical fallacy to reject a position based on others who hold to it. Such is the genetic fallacy.

Should I reject your position because societies governed by those with secular ideologies have resulted in the greatest massacres?

Take 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung (with possible estimates up to 63.7 million). Or Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev with 66.7 million. Such deaths pale by comparison to anything committed in the name of Christ.

I feel like you missed my point. It was this:

My point was when I wrote:Anyway, yeah, I agree that there are plenty of rude, dumb, uninformed atheists out there. I've seen 'em too. Still, if you're going to judge all skeptics and free thinkers based on the behavior of a few then it's worth noting that turnabout is fair play.

In other words, I'll see your atheist forum trolls and raise you Ray Comfort's banana, Kirk Cameron's Crocoduck, and a non sequitur about the second law of thermodynamics. Or we could just agree that making generalizations about any group based on a handful of its members is bad practice and move on to more interesting topics.

Also, I'm up for discussing atrocities and the like, but it's already happening in a different thread and I'd prefer to keep it there.

Kurieuo wrote:But if we look at the basis of say a secular ideology versus Christian; where there is ultimately no real good or bad in a secular worldview beyond subjective tastes Christianity provides foundations for saying that such atrocities -- whether committed in the name of Christ or some other ideology -- that such acts really are bad regardless of what anyone here on Earth thinks.

Yeah, I suppose that's how a believer would see things. If the God exists and Christianity is the correct interpretation of his expectations then you're right.

From my way of thinking there is no point relying on God to legitimize your system of beliefs because God doesn't exist. That means that we have to figure things out for ourselves. I think that secular humanism provides a great framework for thinking about ethics and morality.

SkepticalSkeeter wrote:I feel like you missed my point. It was this:

My point was when I wrote:Anyway, yeah, I agree that there are plenty of rude, dumb, uninformed atheists out there. I've seen 'em too. Still, if you're going to judge all skeptics and free thinkers based on the behavior of a few then it's worth noting that turnabout is fair play.

In other words, I'll see your atheist forum trolls and raise you Ray Comfort's banana, Kirk Cameron's Crocoduck, and a non sequitur about the second law of thermodynamics. Or we could just agree that making generalizations about any group based on a handful of its members is bad practice and move on to more interesting topics.

I'm really not surprised that you made the same mistake that B2W and Bryan made before you -- jumping to make assertions based on a headline rather than reading my opening post. Can you please point out where I generalise in my opening post, or even elsewhere in this thread?

If you can't, then perhaps an apology is in order where you say: "if you're [Kurieuo] going to judge all skeptics and free thinkers based on the behavior of a few then it's worth noting that turnabout is fair play."

SS wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:But if we look at the basis of say a secular ideology versus Christian; where there is ultimately no real good or bad in a secular worldview beyond subjective tastes Christianity provides foundations for saying that such atrocities -- whether committed in the name of Christ or some other ideology -- that such acts really are bad regardless of what anyone here on Earth thinks.

Yeah, I suppose that's how a believer would see things. If the God exists and Christianity is the correct interpretation of his expectations then you're right.

From my way of thinking there is no point relying on God to legitimize your system of beliefs because God doesn't exist. That means that we have to figure things out for ourselves. I think that secular humanism provides a great framework for thinking about ethics and morality.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by "I suppose that's how a believer would see things. If the God exists and Christianity is the correct interpretation of his expectations then you're right." How is a believer seeing things? I'm actually not alone philosophically on this. Many Atheists believe morality is simply something to be shaken off by those who know better.

If you don't mind answering, I'd be interested in your response to the following questions which are similar in form:

Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off the weak and helpless? Emotions aside, why or why not?

Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" for man to rape women? Emotions aside, why or why not?

Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off infants? Emotions aside, why or why not?

Finally, do you believe we are free to make choices and act them out, or is "who we are" purely determined by our physiological make-up?

Kurieuo wrote:Many Atheists believe morality is simply something to be shaken off by those who know better.

Um...no...many atheists don't believe such.

Kurieuo wrote:If you don't mind answering, I'd be interested in your response to the following questions which are similar in form:

If you don't mind, I';ll also have a go.

Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off the weak and helpless? Emotions aside, why or why not?

It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical and other reasons.

Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" for man to rape women? Emotions aside, why or why not?

It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical, psychological, physiological and other reasons.

Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off infants? Emotions aside, why or why not?

A very loaded question. Th 'basic' reply is "It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical, psychological, physiological and other reasons."

Now...I am going to be very intrigued by the response to my response about this second last question.

Kurieuo wrote:Finally, do you believe we are free to make choices and act them out, or is "who we are" purely determined by our physiological make-up?

Um...what? We are who we are mentally and hence psychologically. Our past memories , experiences, education (In all its shapes and forms) The cultural norms around us. The years we live and experience etc.

I'm actually a little puzzled by this last question... Sorry.

Much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:

It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical and other reasons.

So are you saying that if we can show social and ethical benefits, then it will be right and good thing? If you are going to follow your worldview to its logical ends then you have to admit that this is the case.

Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" for man to rape women? Emotions aside, why or why not?

It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical, psychological, physiological and other reasons.

Again, who cares? You are assuming that those social and ethical things matter? Where are you getting this from. Oh, and saying 'because they do,' is not an answer.

Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off infants? Emotions aside, why or why not?

A very loaded question. Th 'basic' reply is "It is wrong and a bad thing. For lots of social, ethical, psychological, physiological and other reasons."

Again, if we can show you benefits (subjective) that are positive, then does it make it right and a good thing? If not, then please offer some detailed reasoning here. And also, again, who cares? Why should we care about social and ethical reasons? And where are you getting your ethics? Every entire answer you provided simply smuggled in objective morality without ever accounting for it. You are standing on our worldview to defend your own. Otherwise account for your ethics. Saying something is 'wrong' or 'bad' is to imply a standard by which we can measure. What's the standard? Hitler had a lot of social and ethical reasons for exterminating the Jews.

Um...what? We are who we are mentally and hence psychologically. Our past memories , experiences, education (In all its shapes and forms) The cultural norms around us. The years we live and experience etc.

Same goes for Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. If they are just products of their material world, then you can't say that they were 'wrong.'

jlay wrote:Same goes for Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. If they are just products of their material world, then you can't say that they were 'wrong.'

Sorry, no real time to get back to a reply to this...other than,

GODWIN !

End of posting.

Thadeyus wrote:

jlay wrote:Same goes for Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. If they are just products of their material world, then you can't say that they were 'wrong.'

Sorry, no real time to get back to a reply to this...other than,

GODWIN !

End of posting.

Right, that's the ticket. State the most obvious prediction anyone's ever made without bothering an attempt to engage the subject matter.

But then again, JOHNNY. (that's my prediction that any time an atheist is cornered with a Nazi reference wrt objective morality will hide behind Godwin's prediction). End of subject.