If you seen for yourself would you believe?

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

In your eyes I'm gullible...

Well I wouldn't say that. I don't know why you want to believe this stuff, and until I do I wouldn't make an assessment on why you do actually believe it.

My point was that just because someone shows up and does some tricks ("miracles") doesn't mean people automatically accept the explanation given. People, in general, aren't that gullible.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

Given the context of the discussion,I presume you mean, 'how can one prove that God or 'gods' don't exist?'

No, I meant what I said

It is often asked to prove that God doesn't exist, as if proving that something doesn't exist is actually something that is logically possible to do.

It's actually not. I can no more prove God doesn't exist than I can prove anything doesn't exist, given that the properties are supernatural by nature.

For example you could ask me to prove that there isn't an elephant in this room.

I could go "Well I don't see one".

And you could go "Well that doesn't mean he isn't here, what if he is invisible?"

I could go "Well, I can't feel him?"

And you could go "Well he could be so that matter passes through him"

I could go "Well, I can't hear him?"

And you could go "Well he could be an elephant that can make no detectable sound at the moment"

Do you see my point?

Theists talk about disproving God as if that is something that is actually possible to do. They go "I will stop believing in God when you prove to me that he doesn't exist" as if that is something that is actually possible to do.

But theists have been very clever to define "God" with such supernatural properties that any test one applies is ultimately inconclusive because God (being an imaginary concept) can have any properties you guys can imagine and assign to him.

This allows theists to continue with the illusion that their belief in God is some how rationally sound because if God didn't exist then someone should have proven he doesn't exist by now.

robindch

hivemind wrote:

Nah, we're quite reasonable when treated with respect and not subjected to "fire & brimstone" threats and rhetoric.

Personally, I think the religious are going soft. I haven't been threatened with burning in hell for quite a while now!

I put it down to political correctness gone mad.

condra

I voted yes. I cant believe all the "no"s!

You guys are so feckin stubborn

Semantics aside, if I found out that the God of The Bible existed, I would knuckle down and suck up, because there would be no point trying to be a hero against such a formiddable dictator.

So, Id suck up, and try get my ass into heaven, out of sheer fear.

I suppose thats not far from whats going on out in the world of Christianity right now. Poor sods.

Hivemind187

womoma wrote: »

I voted yes. I cant believe all the "no"s!

You guys are so feckin stubborn

Semantics aside, if I found out that the God of The Bible existed, I would knuckle down and suck up, because there would be no point trying to be a hero against such a formiddable dictator.

So, Id suck up, and try get my ass into heaven, out of sheer fear.

I suppose thats not far from whats going on out in the world of Christianity right now. Poor sods.

ooooh burn.

5uspect

I'll stick with Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If someone performed a supernatural event I wouldn't begin to start believing anything.
I would first seek a rational explaination before jumping to any conclusion.

djpbarry

5uspect wrote: »

If someone performed a supernatural event I wouldn't begin to start believing anything.
I would first seek a rational explaination before jumping to any conclusion.

Second that.

Tar.Aldarion

I would not worship, what point is there worshipping something so connived as to make us to worship it.

Hivemind187

Stubborness might have something to do with it but its mostly the "worshiping" aspect that would bother me.

If I am created by something for the purpose of worshiping it then whaat is the value of that worship? Zilch as far as I can see since it is wihtout any substance or choice.

You then have the "free will" issue which means that we can choose not to worship - under a penalty of eternal punishments etc. Again, the value of this worship is zilch since it is under threat.

Finally, with the damnation issue removed there is still the past history issue. God has shown himself to be at the very least willing to allow great evil (by our standards) to be done in his name. This willing ignorance or consent is, for me, unforgiveable and as such I could not bring myself to fuel the cosmic ego of a deity by offering my worship.

There are a plethora of other reasons but I feel those are the best suited in the context intended.

Dave!

You'd endure eternal damnation and torture rather than worship something which you don't deem to be worthy of worship?

You're a more principled man than me!

Tar.Aldarion

If you are worshipping it just becuse you are afraid, that is not real worship.

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If you are worshipping it just becuse you are afraid, that is not real worship.

Does the God of the Bible command that you love him or simply obey him? I know the modern iteration of Yaweh is a luvy wuvy God, but is that what is represented in the Bible?

Zombrex

womoma wrote: »

Semantics aside, if I found out that the God of The Bible existed, I would knuckle down and suck up, because there would be no point trying to be a hero against such a formiddable dictator.

So, Id suck up, and try get my ass into heaven, out of sheer fear.

Why?

You will just end up in hell anyway and feel even worse about it for being a pussy.

See, God knows if you really "love" him. And if you don't, straight to hell with you (you deserve that by the way, being wicked and evil).

You can't pretend, even if you wanted to. I can't pretend I don't think God is a genocidal jealous monster, because God knows I feel this way, assuming he exists.

So ultimately it is a bit pointless.

Hivemind187

Zillah wrote: »

Does the God of the Bible command that you love him or simply obey him? I know the modern iteration of Yaweh is a luvy wuvy God, but is that what is represented in the Bible?

Does it matter?

We have had the taste of freedom. Sweet, sweet freedom. Life without oppression and persecution.

I dont know how many people would be really able to go under the yoke even for a deity - at least not 100%. In their minds they would probably still be hoping the big lug would just leave them alone. In that sense the total obedience and devotion demanded would be impossible to give.

As far as I know the old testament has that "obey me or be splatted" feel and the new testament has that "strokey strokey humans" feel.

I'll avoid bringing up the dichotomy between these two separate versions of Yahweh.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

You will just end up in hell anyway and feel even worse about it for being a pussy.

See, God knows if you really "love" him. And if you don't, straight to hell with you (you deserve that by the way, being wicked and evil).

You can't pretend, even if you wanted to. I can't pretend I don't think God is a genocidal jealous monster, because God knows I feel this way, assuming he exists.

So ultimately it is a bit pointless.

Lol.

Schuhart

Jimitime wrote:

You all hate God, as described in the bible, would that be accurate?

I think it’s more the description of God in the old testament just reads like a human invention. Hence, I find it’s a little bit like asking if we’d really like to be knights of Gondor, or if we think Aragorn should have founded a republic rather than reclaiming the throne.

But could the old testament depiction be appealing to anyone?

Scofflaw wrote:

Of course, since PDN's God has been good to PDN, it's presumably worth PDN's worshipping Him.

Which, from left field, is something that gives that evolutionary reason for the persistence of religion that seems to elude Dawkins. People function damn well within religions and, hence, regardless of whether its truth or fiction, there’s no reason to be stunned that religion thrives.

robindch

Schuhart wrote:

Which, from left field, is something that gives that evolutionary reason for the persistence of religion that seems to elude Dawkins.

It's been a while since I read Dawkins, but I don't recall him saying that this wasn't something that increased the religion's memetic fitness. Certainly, Blackmore does talk about this and she tends to be pretty much in Dawkin's camp for many things.

Schuhart wrote:

People function damn well within religions and, hence, regardless of whether its truth or fiction, there’s no reason to be stunned that religion thrives.

The issue isn't whether or not people of a single religion function well in an absolute sense, but rather whether groups with religious beliefs reproduce more successfully than other groups that don't in similar evolutionary niches.

Personally, I believe they do, because if religion can evolve to control the admin and military (which it frequently does, in return for legitimation), then it's easy for the religion to get the admin and military to reduce or destroy competing religions and non-religions, leaving the military-controlling religion in control of the evolutionary niche.

But there's a balancing force in that most religions contrive to survive by controlling the kind of free thought that not only threatens its own existence, but also brings about the kind of technological advance that can allow it to stay fitter than other societies. Nature doesn't allow you to have it both ways

pinksoir

Which sort of supposes the truth of group selection rather than individual gene selecion... Dawkins would argue (very persuasively) against this being the case.

Dave!

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

You will just end up in hell anyway and feel even worse about it for being a pussy.

See, God knows if you really "love" him. And if you don't, straight to hell with you (you deserve that by the way, being wicked and evil).

You can't pretend, even if you wanted to. I can't pretend I don't think God is a genocidal jealous monster, because God knows I feel this way, assuming he exists.

So ultimately it is a bit pointless.

Well it would depend on whether god wants you to be completely obedient and submissive and at least TRY to love him, or if he demands that you believe to your core that he is super-awesome and sweet. If it's the former then we phoney theists would be sorted as long as we suck and kiss as much as possible, whereas if it's the latter we're fooked. The Christian churches would probably take the former position, although I'm not sure if it's supported in the Bible or not.

robindch

pinksoir wrote:

Which sort of supposes the truth of group selection rather than individual gene selecion... Dawkins would argue (very persuasively) against this being the case.

Yes, he would. What Scofflaw was originally talking about was (pretty much) a Rational Choice Theory approach to religion and Schuhart suggested in reply that this wasn't something that Dawkins had much time for. I don't believe that Dawkins has ever actually said that it wasn't appropriate to think of the problem in this way, but I may well be wrong. Over other competing explanations, he does favour the unintended-consequence-of-intentionality idea, but that's only applicable at the individual level. In TGD, I don't really recall him spending much time beyond the individual level at all, which is where religion has the most noticeable effects and does, by far, the most harm.

Nonetheless, multi-level group-selection amongst religions, languages and other cultural entities does seem to operate in the way that I describe, Dawkin's views on the topic notwithstanding.

pinksoir

I suppose I would have to agree.

Schuhart

robinch wrote:

I don't believe that Dawkins has ever actually said that it wasn't appropriate to think of the problem in this way, but I may well be wrong.

It’s equally about a year since I’ve read Dawkins, but I do recall a chapter towards the end of the book where he tries to find a reason to explain why religion persists. I’m not saying he explicitly excludes the possibility of someone making a rational choice. But I do recall he spends an amount of the time beating around the bush trying to account for why something that is utterly useless might persist, rather than pursue the possibility that whether religion is true or not has nothing to do with whether people are more or less likely to thrive under its influence.

I’m not particularly commenting on whether the situation is that religion confers an advantage on groups that then thrive relative to other groups, or whether it confers an advantage on individuals who then thrive within groups. That said, I suppose we might wonder if the traditional picture of Mom, Pop and 14 children isn’t something we’d associate with sound, Godfearing folk, whereas the godless might be more willing to use devices to interfere with the divine gift of fertility.

still learning

Scofflaw wrote: »

If such powers were available through Christ, then the utter failure of Christ to do anything about the enormous misery found around the world and throughout history would argue that He was a deity at best negligent, at worst sadistic.


Scofflaw

pretty much what I was going to add

if you could do that type of stuff I'd probably try and sponsor you or be your manager

condra

The thread was titled:

If you seen for yourself would you believe?

I'm pretty sure what is being implied is a situation where overwhelming evidence points to the existence of God, in a similar way that overwhelming evidence indicates that the theory of evolution is fact.

With that in mind, I think those who voted "no" are shooting yourselves in the feet somewhat, considering we atheists tend to claim rational logical mentalities.

I think the results (so far) indicate that in general, we atheists are more than just stubborn, but perhaps a bit narrow minded and biggotted.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Just out of curiosity. If for arguements sake, I as a Christian, showed you a sign like say, I made a blind man see, or made a paraplegic walk through Holy spirit, I.E. I said see, and he saw, or i said walk and he walked. Assuming that it was genuine. I.E. It definately wasn't a tick etc. Would you then be baptised, and follow Christ?

womoma wrote: »

I'm pretty sure what is being implied is a situation where overwhelming evidence points to the existence of God, in a similar way that overwhelming evidence indicates that the theory of evolution is fact.

What was implied was that healing a blind man without any tricks or such like could be sufficient to believe an invisible omnipotent creator of the universe is speaking to you through a messenger on earth.

And what was suggested was that if you are going to make such an extraordinary claim then you'd better have something a bit more convincing than that.

womoma wrote:

With that in mind, I think those who voted "no" are shooting yourselves in the feet somewhat, considering we atheists tend to claim rational logical mentalities.

And those logical mentalities conclude that there must be a more logical reason a blind man was healed then the aforementioned claim to be acting through the creator of life the universe and everything.

womoma wrote:

I think the results (so far) indicate that in general, we atheists are more than just stubborn, but perhaps a bit narrow minded and biggotted.

And I think you haven't read this thread, are or at least attributing the same reasoning to everyone who voted "no" - which is not the case.

5uspect

womoma wrote: »

The thread was titled:



I'm pretty sure what is being implied is a situation where overwhelming evidence points to the existence of God, in a similar way that overwhelming evidence indicates that the theory of evolution is fact.

With that in mind, I think those who voted "no" are shooting yourselves in the feet somewhat, considering we atheists tend to claim rational logical mentalities.

I think the results (so far) indicate that in general, we atheists are more than just stubborn, but perhaps a bit narrow minded and biggotted.

The thing is that I wouldn't begin to trust my personal opinion or observations alone. I would look for unbiased evidence that what I had witnesses was what I thought I had witnessed. Also it would have to be observed by multiple people multiple times. Unfortunately Christians etc tell us that God doesn't respond well to demands for tricks so I must rely on faith alone.

Don't forget that evidence alone is not enough. God may be one interpretation of the evidence. Similarly creationism is another interpretation of biodiversity. It however ignores the majority of the data and is wholly untestable.

I suppose we're left with a paradox of sorts. What possible infallible evidence could there be of Gods existence?

condra

Yeah whatever. I still think theres an obvious reek of "atheist pride" going on with the results. Say what you like. Use as many eight and nine letter words as you care to.

My interpretation of the question is pretty straight forward, as is my answer...

If I witnessed enough evidence to prove the existence of a supernatural being, namely God,..yes, I would believe in her.

I stand by the opinion that the initial question assumed infalible evidence, and I stand by the opinion that people are nit-picking, and generally being stubborn where there is absolutely no need to be.

In my opinion, the pride atheists show in their conviction that evolution is fact should extend to the hypothetical situation where evidence proves the existence of God.

In my opinion, the results so far are completely hypocrytical of those (the majority I assume) who claim to be logical, rational and open minded, and play right into the hands of those theists who accuse so called atheists of holding "beliefs" rather than opinions.

Dades - I have read the thread. Please do not patronise me. Thanks.

I suppose we're left with a paradox of sorts. What possible infallible evidence could there be of Gods existence?

No paradox. If a god wished to prove her existence, she could/would.

--

Its pretty obvious what is implied in the initial question, and such a shame that people insist on picking holes in it by trying to redefine it.

If I asked the question, "is the sky blue", I'm sure these same people would have a million ways of debating the meaning of the question. Let it go guys. Seriously.

Go easy on me, Im drunk and in the minority here. But for goodness sake, quit with the stubborness and nit picking.

Its not a concession to admit that if you witnessed a miracle you would believe in the supernatural.

I seriously doubt that if any of the people who voted "no" saw a preacher heal a blind mans sight, or make an amputee grow back a limb, they would not fall to their knees with fright, shock and superstitious awe.

Jesus lads, its a hypothetical scenario. Quit with the atheist pride bull.

drunkenly,
womoma

womoma

womoma wrote:

I seriously doubt that if any of the people who voted "no" saw a preacher heal a blind mans sight, or make an amputee grow back a limb, they would not fall to their knees with fright, shock and superstitious awe.

Jesus lads, its a hypothetical scenario. Quit with the atheist pride bull.

You might - doesn't mean the rest of us will, since thankfully we're all different
There's no pride about it - if it can be explained otherwise, and in the example given probably would be, then that's it

Dades

womoma wrote: »

I seriously doubt that if any of the people who voted "no" saw a preacher heal a blind mans sight, or make an amputee grow back a limb, they would not fall to their knees with fright, shock and superstitious awe.

Perhaps you are the close-minded one here. You seem to think there are only two possibilities after witnessing this event - either 'science' did it - or the omnipotent creator of the universe did.

The problem with the OP's question is that he used an example which was exactly the type of trick that has billions of people believing in a god that 'we' think is non-existent. Perhaps atheists are a bit sceptical of being sold that line again.

5uspect

How's the hangover?:p

Its not pride its just consistency.
The argument against miraculous healings is that they are things that could have gotten better anyway. No one has ever regenerated a limb.

Evolution is just one scientific theory. It gets thrown about a lot by religious types because it doesn't fit with their design orientated view of life. But it is a standard scientific theory like all the rest of them. People "believe in it" because as a theory it makes accurate predictions about the physical world. I don't believe in it the same way I believe you exist for example. Science is just a model that best explains as many of the facts with as few assumptions as possible.

To try to compare this kind of belief to belief in a god is inconsistent. God is not a theory that we can use to make predictions. There is no God Number that determines the level of salvation in the same way a Reynolds Number tells me the probability of turbulence in a fluid flow. God by his nature is unpredictable as he is omnipresent/omnipotent and we are not.

So if you could provide any evidence of how the existence of God could be shown irrefutably then I would acknowledge his (or her!) existence. I would imagine however that any example could be explained rationally without the need for the supernatural.

Just for laughs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA