There is no acceptable proof of God for atheists

PDN

maskofsanity wrote: »

If you dont convince people your religion will die out. Do you expect people to pick up a bible one day read genesis go "omg! This explains everything" on there own? Without being indoctrinated?

Actually that happens every day. I have met hundreds, probably thousands, of people in Muslim countries and in China who have picked up the Bible for the first time and have indeed decided, on their own, that it explains everything for them.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you are the one who has been indoctrinated by your worldview? Growing up in a lukewarm and ritualistic so-called Christian culture could certainly give you a familiarity with biblical concepts that breeds contempt. That would mean, quite simply, that you are intellectually incapable of imagining how the Bible appears to someone reading it for the first time who has not been indoctrinated either positively or negatively concerning Christianity.

Kevo

I am an agnostic. I believe that it is possible that there is a God, however if such a God exists, it has had not influenced the world since its creation. The laws of physics were set in place at the beginning of the universe (by creation or by chance - I have no idea which) and everything since then has simply been a result of them.

I believe in all science (evolution etc.) but I think that it is indeed possible that the universe was created. I will not speculate on the probability of of this as it is an unknown.


The Bible has been wrong about many things and right about a few rather vague prophecies (you mentioned earlier that the Bible predicts the emergence of 4 great nations). Had it been 3 you would just say that it will be 3 some day (as it will inevitably be some day. This is just chance).

If there ever is any conclusive proof that God exists I will of course become a follower. This is the essence of being a scientist. Until then I will simply be in awe of the universe and wonder how it came to be. I will not look to a book written by man for my answers.

Kevo

PDN wrote: »

Actually that happens every day. I have met hundreds, probably thousands, of people in Muslim countries and in China who have picked up the Bible for the first time and have indeed decided, on their own, that it explains everything for them.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you are the one who has been indoctrinated by your worldview? Growing up in a lukewarm and ritualistic so-called Christian culture could certainly give you a familiarity with biblical concepts that breeds contempt. That would mean, quite simply, that you are intellectually incapable of imagining how the Bible appears to someone reading it for the first time who has not been indoctrinated either positively or negatively concerning Christianity.

I don't think a requirement of proof for belief is something which requires indoctrination. It is simply logical. Our world is logical and we are raised in this world which teaches us to be logical though unfortunately many people do not.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Atheism is not a faith based belief system. If we want to get all metaphysical, then it is certainly an assumption. But an assumption is not the same as a faith.

When it attempts to compete with other faith based belief systems to become the dominant world view then it becomes more than simple assumption.

Morbert wrote: »

Faith involves an active investment.

I would say that the most prominent atheists in the world today have invested heavily in their affirmations in relation to religion and theism. Give Anthony Flew credit, he spent his whole life advocating atheism and was the leading atheist thinker in the world prior to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens before he was convinced by what he regarded as irrefutable evidence for a designer of the universe.

Morbert wrote: »

To have faith in someone is to trust them and their promises.

Faith in the Christian context is acting on the already spoken Word of God. The promised object not yet becoming a reality. Faith in God's Word of promise is said to literally bend reality in order to make what is being hoped for and acted on by faith become a fact in reality. Once that happens the object of the faith has become a reality and another promise (not yet reality) must be sought - in order to maintain the connection to God - and acted on that with the same faith as before.

But faith by definition is simply acting on a belief that something is true and sustaining that action with the confidence that what is being acted is trustworthy. In an everyday example this would be like walking. You don't get out of bed and assume your feet will hit the ceiling. No you act on the belief that they will hit the floor. That is faith by definition. In the Christian context any promise of God being acted on in this way but not being obtained in life down here will be obtained in the life after, but the important thing is that the faith connection is made, because it is through this faith connection that God conduits His Holy Spirit to us, to empower us and deliver us from the power of sin in the flesh, the world and the devil. But as has already been pointed out the word is not restricted to religious overtones, it can be used in many everyday applications, i.e. simply acting on something that you believe to be true. Hence atheism is also faith based.

Morbert wrote: »

We have no such investment in atheism. If it's wrong then it's wrong *shrug*.

You maybe don't have much invested in your atheistic pronouncements but there are many that do, and they will defend what they have said no matter what evidence there might be to the contrary. That's why I respect Mr. Flew. He became convinced that theism was true based on what he regarded to be very strong evidence and he now acts accordingly in his life, which at first was atheistic due to lack of evidence for theism whereas now it is theism for the opposite reason.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

When you understand that faith is simply trusting then it is easy to see that that is exactly what atheism is.

You trust your beliefs.

I don't trust atheism anymore then I trust in fairies. I am 'atheist' because of a label which denotes my non-belief.

Some people are natural born honest atheists who simply don't believe that there is a God without feeling the need to appeal to anything other than an intuitive instinct for that conclusion.

uh huh

Others appeal to scientific analysis and experiment and once enough of what they call lack of evidence becomes apparent they then act in life as though the conclusion which they draw i.e. there is no God, is actually true. That is faith.

Your first definition sounds much more like "faith" then your second one. But rest assured I don't deny the possibility of god or fairies or Thor because I cannot be sure because its unproveable either way.

How is that faith ? I don't have faith in the none existence of god/fairies/etc I just don't see any evidence to support or deny it.

I don't 'believe' god doesn't exist, I just don't see any reason to believe he does exist.

We can't be both atheist and theist by definition. We are either one or the other. You don't believe that any Gods exist and I don't believe that all Gods except the Judeo-Christian God exist. Notice one thing we have in common. Our end resulting object is arrived at through belief. It is not enough for you to say that you simply don't believe that there is a God; you actively believe that there is no God. What makes you an atheist is not your knowledge but rather your belief.

I actively believe that there is no evidence ergo I don't believe in him. That is not belief. I don't deny the possibility of god anymore then I deny the possibility of time travel or aliens.

At least the Christian has many positives for believing that Christianity is true. I can go through these with you if you like. Whereas atheism offers absolutely no positives for believing that atheism is true, it only offers negatives on other beliefs system but no positives for itself.

And theres your flaw. Atheism is not my belief system, I have no belief system. I am an atheist the same as if I was born somewhere where I had no contact with religion. It is not belief.

I think you will find that my argument logically follows once we understand what faith actually is.

I'm curious why your trying to label atheists as 'believers' ?

Is it akin to grouping them with theists ?

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

When it attempts to compete with other faith based belief systems to become the dominant world view then it becomes more than simple assumption.



I would say that the most prominent atheists in the world today have invested heavily in their affirmations in relation to religion and theism. Give Anthony Flew credit, he spent his whole life advocating atheism and was the leading atheist thinker in the world prior to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens before he was convinced by what he regarded as irrefutable evidence for a designer of the universe.



Faith in the Christian context is acting on the already spoken Word of God. The promised object not yet becoming a reality. Faith in God's Word of promise is said to literally bend reality in order to make what is being hoped for and acted on by faith become a fact in reality. Once that happens the object of the faith has become a reality and another promise (not yet reality) must be sought - in order to maintain the connection to God - and acted on that with the same faith as before.

But faith by definition is simply acting on a belief that something is true and sustaining that action with the confidence that what is being acted is trustworthy. In an everyday example this would be like walking. You don't get out of bed an assume your feet will hit the ceiling. No you act on the belief that they will hit the floor. That is faith by definition. In the Christian context any promise of God being acted on in this way but not being obtained in life down here will be obtained in the life after, but the important thing is that the faith connection is made, because it is through this faith connection that God conduits His Holy Spirit to us, to empower us and deliver us from the power of sin in the flesh, the world and the devil. But as has already been point out the word is not restricted to religious overtones, it can be applied in many everyday applications, i.e. simply acting on something that you believe to be true. Hence atheism is also faith based.



You maybe don't have much invested in your atheistic pronouncements but there are many that do, and they will defend what they have said no matter what evidence there might be to the contrary. That's why I respect Mr. Flew. He became convinced that theism was true based on what he regarded to be very strong evidence and he now acts accordingly in his life, which at first was based on atheistic due to lack of evidence to the contrary whereas now it is theism for the complete opposite reason..

Anthony Flew is a deist, which is very very different from theism. Also he still rejects the idea of your God:P

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Actually that happens every day. I have met hundreds, probably thousands, of people in Muslim countries and in China who have picked up the Bible for the first time and have indeed decided, on their own, that it explains everything for them.

Come on now PDN, you make it sound like these people go out of their way to buy a copy of the bible without any influence. At least 90% of the time someone or something has pointed them to it and in Asia from my experiences its usually very agressive 'pointing/shoving'

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Anthony Flew is a deist, which is very very different from theism. Also he still rejects the idea of your God:P

Here's what he said in relation to Christianity:

“In point of fact, I think the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind, and could both speak and write in all the relevant languages. If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat”.

maskofsanity

PDN wrote: »

Actually that happens every day. I have met hundreds, probably thousands, of people in Muslim countries and in China who have picked up the Bible for the first time and have indeed decided, on their own, that it explains everything for them.

Im suspect these people would have had some help in coming to that conclusion.

PDN wrote: »

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you are the one who has been indoctrinated by your worldview? Growing up in a lukewarm and ritualistic so-called Christian culture could certainly give you a familiarity with biblical concepts that breeds contempt. That would mean, quite simply, that you are intellectually incapable of imagining how the Bible appears to someone reading it for the first time who has not been indoctrinated either positively or negatively concerning Christianity.

There was nothing lukewarm about my christian upbringing.
Not intellectually capable?
I understand that if someone is poorly educated. Never heard of evolution or has a vague concept of what it is might find the genesis account compelling.
Iv read the bible theirs very little intellectual content contained in its pages. Not surprising considering who wrote it and when it was written.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Actually that happens every day. I have met hundreds, probably thousands, of people in Muslim countries and in China who have picked up the Bible for the first time and have indeed decided, on their own, that it explains everything for them.
.

Actually this one is easy to explain. Adults tend to look for a meaning to life, and as predominantly creatures of habit we tend to just follow accepted norms. A child on the other hand is innocent, and doesn't really have any habits developed as of yet.
It is easier to fool/scare/startle an adult than it is a child. For reasons necessary to survival, however, the Child needs to trust the adult as telling the absolute truth.
Read the bible with no presuppositions or biases and see what conclusion one comes to.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Here's what he said in relation to Christianity:

“In point of fact, I think the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind, and could both speak and write in all the relevant languages. If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat”.

The same could be said for Christian Atheism.:P

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Come on now PDN, you make it sound like these people go out of their way to buy a copy of the bible without any influence. At least 90% of the time someone or something has pointed them to it and in Asia from my experiences its usually very agressive 'pointing/shoving'

Good documentary here by the award wining journalist Rod Liddle which deals with how we got our present English Bible, how, before its translation into English was actively kept from the masses by the ruling clerics, and how the invention of the printing press played a pivotal role in helping to distribute thousands of illegal copies of the Bible - which was by then translated into English - in order to satisfy the growing hunger of the common man and woman for the Sacred Writ in rank rebellion of what the ruling class desired.

philologos

I would second Soul Winners recommendation in that. It also clears up the origins of the English Reformation quite well. It recognises the Reformers role in the English Reformation and recognises that it was far more of a grassroots movement than one that was top down.

Soul Winner

maskofsanity wrote: »

Iv read the bible theirs very little intellectual content contained in its pages. Not surprising considering who wrote it and when it was written.

Do you think that book of Isaiah and Paul's letters not to mention the sayings of Jesus which have had and still have a profoundly positive effect on the world for over two thousand years were the spawn of the ignorant and illiterate? If you do then I would question your ability to judge anything as intellectual or not. Pfftt...

maskofsanity

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do you think that book of Isaiah and Paul's letters not to mention the sayings of Jesus which have had and still have a profoundly positive effect on the world for over two thousand years were the spawn of the ignorant and illiterate? If you do then I would question your ability to judge anything as intellectual or not. Pfftt...

Yep theirs also stoning disobidiant children, raping your wife, homophobia and other nasty stuff. Making people out of other peoples ribs, 600 year old drunk makes boat for millions of animals. People coming back from the dead and my personal favourite a talking burning bush.... Very intellectual.

philologos

maskofsanity wrote: »

Yep theirs also stoning disobidiant children, raping your wife, homophobia and other nasty stuff. Making people out of other peoples ribs, 600 year old drunk makes boat for millions of animals. People coming back from the dead and my personal favourite a talking burning bush.... Very intellectual.

Considering the cultural influence the Bible has had on English literature, history has shown otherwise. How can an illiterate person write anyway?

Morbert

Stephentlig wrote: »

as indelicate as the following may sound, it is said with the utmost respect.

but your post is the most unsatisfactory and ridiculous post I've ever seen. you cannot prove that God does not exist, your belief therefore is one based on faith. the end.

You cannot prove "1+1=2" is necessarily true, your belief therefore is one based on faith. Do you see anything wrong with the above sentence?

Stephentlig, what, in your opinion, is the difference between an assumption and faith?

Soul Winner

maskofsanity wrote: »

Yep theirs also stoning disobidiant children, raping your wife, homophobia and other nasty stuff. Making people out of other peoples ribs, 600 year old drunk makes boat for millions of animals. People coming back from the dead and my personal favourite a talking burning bush.... Very intellectual.

So now you are saying that we can only be intellectual if we abandon what you regard as the unbelievable? Oh and you spelt disobedient wrong there Mr. Intellectual.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering the cultural influence the Bible has had on English literature, history has shown otherwise.

I'm sorry, If I missed this in another thread, but what cultural influence did the bible have on English Literature?

@Soul : Fast editing

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

But faith by definition is simply acting on a belief that something is true and sustaining that action with the confidence that what is being acted is trustworthy. In an everyday example this would be like walking. You don't get out of bed and assume your feet will hit the ceiling. No you act on the belief that they will hit the floor. That is faith by definition. In the Christian context any promise of God being acted on in this way but not being obtained in life down here will be obtained in the life after, but the important thing is that the faith connection is made, because it is through this faith connection that God conduits His Holy Spirit to us, to empower us and deliver us from the power of sin in the flesh, the world and the devil. But as has already been pointed out the word is not restricted to religious overtones, it can be used in many everyday applications, i.e. simply acting on something that you believe to be true. Hence atheism is also faith based.

This is a very broad definition of faith, and it is certainly not the definition used by atheists when they say they have no faith.

I do not normally post definitions online, as I do not take dictionaries as authoritative, but it will at least help illustrate that the broad definition of faith you are using is not used by atheists.

The first set of results from typing "define:faith" into google.

•religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
•complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
•religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
•loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"


From Encarta

"Faith, an attitude of the entire self, including both will and intellect, directed toward a person, an idea, or—as in the case of religious faith—a divine being. Modern theologians agree in emphasizing this total existential character of faith, thus distinguishing it from the popular conception of faith that identifies it with belief as opposed to knowledge. Faith indeed includes belief but goes far beyond it, and in the history of theology the distinction has more often been drawn between faith and works than between faith and knowledge."

You maybe don't have much invested in your atheistic pronouncements but there are many that do, and they will defend what they have said no matter what evidence there might be to the contrary. That's why I respect Mr. Flew. He became convinced that theism was true based on what he regarded to be very strong evidence and he now acts accordingly in his life, which at first was atheistic due to lack of evidence for theism whereas now it is theism for the opposite reason.

Well I have to say that this doesn't apply to agnostic atheists like Richard Dawkins or Dan Dennett.

maskofsanity

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering the cultural influence the Bible has had on English literature, history has shown otherwise. How can an illiterate person write anyway?

What are you suggesting?
That because people has refrenced it in literary pesuits like books, films and such that it means its some kind of itellectual guidline?
Would you not say the same of norse or greek mythology?

philologos

It inspired people from Robert Frost to John Donne in their poetry, and it influenced dramatists such as Shakespeare. From that I can conclude that the Bible did have some form of intellectual value, yes. To say otherwise is merely dishonest or ignorant surely?

maskofsanity

Soul Winner wrote: »

So now you are saying that we can only be intellectual if we abandon what you regard as the unbelievable? Oh and you spelt disobedient wrong there Mr. Intellectual.

See now your arguing from faith.
And if I may say so getting a bit personal...

studiorat

Morbert wrote: »

You cannot prove "1+1=2" is necessarily true, your belief therefore is one based on faith. Do you see anything wrong with the above sentence?

Stephentlig, what, in your opinion, is the difference between an assumption and faith?

You can but first you must define exactly what "1" and "2" is.

JimiTime

This place is like Troll city lately!

Morbert

studiorat wrote: »

You can but first you must define exactly what "1" and "2" is.

You must effectively assume a real number field with the relevant operators. Your proof will rest on specific assumptions, and something as mundane as counting becomes defined as an act of faith.

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts.

While his argument has some major flaws; Pascal, nevertheless, in his wager, had interesting things to say about such an offhand attitude.

studiorat wrote: »

No he didn't :pac:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Humm, I see that debate on this forum has reached a new low. But never one to back down, here follows my rebuttal.

Yes, he did plus infinity.

So I'm guessing here, but a picture of a German Jew has nothing to do with anything interesting that Pascal said about Meditations being offhand?

What exactly did Pascal have to say about Aurelius' off hand attitude then?

That's say I'm sure he did but I guess it might be an idea to let everybody else in on the secret.

studiorat

Morbert wrote: »

You must effectively assume a real number field with the relevant operators. Your proof will rest on specific assumptions, and something as mundane as counting becomes defined as an act of faith.

Or an act of Logic?

Morbert

studiorat wrote: »

Or an act of Logic?

Logic is essentially a set of inference rules. We cannot use logic without basic assumptions (axioms) to infer theorums from. When we count, we assume the properties of the real number field are true.

studiorat

Morbert wrote: »

Logic is essentially a set of inference rules. We cannot use logic without basic assumptions (axioms) to infer theorums from. When we count, we assume the properties of the real number field are true.

And back we come again because we can demonstrate that those different properties are true and apply to all real numbers. Can we apply that to all gods?

ad infinitum.