Hello from a UK Athiest
- Thread starter TheTB
- Start date
Always been athiests.
Always been athiests.
I think as a child I didn't have a strong view. I was prepared to accept there may be 'something'. As years went by I studied more investigated different religions. Eventually concluding that none have more validity than others. To me the only logical conclusion is atheism.
Always been athiests.
Hello Robert, welcome to TOL!
Have you always been an atheist? Forgive me, I suppose I should read the whole thread carefully but I've been distracted by this incredibly delicious corn on the cob and hamburger so I only skimmed it.
I think as a child I didn't have a strong view. I was prepared to accept there may be 'something'. As years went by I studied more investigated different religions. Eventually concluding that none have more validity than others. To me the only logical conclusion is atheism.
Automobiles.
Automobiles.
The problem here is that we can be confident to veryhigh degree of certainty that the other drivers will abide by the laws. There is no reason to believe that the other drivers won't abide by the laws. All drivers have to pass a driving test, have insurance etc. and all drivers know the dangers of not abiding by those rules. So the analogy is flawed I think.
The question of belief in god is a very different one. There is no tangible evidence anyone can provide me for the existence of god. I cannot place faith in something that's cannot see evidence for.
Automobiles.
The problem here is that we can be confident to veryhigh degree of certainty that the other drivers will abide by the laws. There is no reason to believe that the other drivers won't abide by the laws. All drivers have to pass a driving test, have insurance etc. and all drivers know the dangers of not abiding by those rules. So the analogy is flawed I think.
The question of belief in god is a very different one. There is no tangible evidence anyone can provide me for the existence of god. I cannot place faith in something that's cannot see evidence for.
PureX
Well-known member
I have to chuckle at all this baloney about "proof". We humans don't have "proof" of anything. The best we can get is reproducible evidence in support of some concept or other, and even then the "evidence" is basically just a matter of what "works" vs. what doesn't.
So the real question was never an issue of proof, but an issue of what works for us, repeatedly. And by that very reasonable criteria, "God" is as valid a concept as most others we hold to.
So the real question was never an issue of proof, but an issue of what works for us, repeatedly. And by that very reasonable criteria, "God" is as valid a concept as most others we hold to.
PureX
Well-known member
My point was to show you that you do in fact have faith. And that you practice it all the time. So that the issue becomes not an issue of having faith or not, but of what you are willing to put your faith in.
Well, that depends upon your definition of "God", though, doesn't it?
For example, if I define "God" is wetness, I will have direct personal experience of "God" every time it rains. But if I define "God" as a supernatural invisible being that defies natural law with feats of divine magic, then I will have pretty much ensured that I will never experience any such "God". Right?
So that the answer to the question: "does God exist" is really; "what God?", and, "exist how?". And the answer to those two questions are for YOU to determine for yourself. Otherwise, you'll just be arguing with other people's religions. And what's the sense in that?
I can offer you a concept of "God" that isn't much different from the traditional ideal, that you CAN experience direct evidence of, and that you can logically and reasonably choose to believe "exists". If you're interested.
No worries on that queue, i'm not God - and also not thinking you're at a place yet where you want the truth at all costs either.
Lets check:
If you had undeniable proof that the God of the bible was the real and only God and that everything in the bible was accurate the way we "fundies" present it all, would you drop everything and follow Him?
Or would you say something like " a God like that is not worthy of my worship"
Baloney about proof
Baloney about proof
I think this where we disagree profoundly. Everything I believe, I can provide evidence for to a reasonable degree of certainty which allows me to accept something as fact.
I can, if I want to, prove to myself the exists thence of an electron, I can test the theories surrounding it which repeatedly work, hence we have a global industry called electronics which tests and re-retest these theories every day. These things are tangible, they exists physically in the world I live in and to every meaningful effect there are real.
The God hypothesis on the other hand is not one for which anyone could present to me any tangible, or repeatable evidence for, in what I call the real world. In this regard I cannot see God is a valid concept?
Baloney about proof
I think this where we disagree profoundly. Everything I believe, I can provide evidence for to a reasonable degree of certainty which allows me to accept something as fact.
I can, if I want to, prove to myself the exists thence of an electron, I can test the theories surrounding it which repeatedly work, hence we have a global industry called electronics which tests and re-retest these theories every day. These things are tangible, they exists physically in the world I live in and to every meaningful effect there are real.
The God hypothesis on the other hand is not one for which anyone could present to me any tangible, or repeatable evidence for, in what I call the real world. In this regard I cannot see God is a valid concept?
Undeniable proof
Undeniable proof
If you could present me with undeniable proof as above then I certainly would be delighted to consider it. The problem is that once you have proof, you remove the need for faith. So the whole doctrine would break down. In respect I think we can never meet as undeniable proof for the existence of god does not exist.
However, when I read passages like judges 21:21-24, which appears to blatantly encourage murder and rape, or Numbers 31:7-18, or maybe Deuteronomy 20:10-14, I would have to seriously consider if indeed I would want to follow such a being.
These passages condone rape and murder of men, women and children and inflicted suffering. The list goes on and on
Deuteronomy 22:23-24, stoning a man and a woman to death as punishment for having sexual relations. Tis would apply if the woman had been raped. She would still be stoned to death!
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 - rape of war prisoner. Entirely permitted it would seem.
Oh yes, I would definitely have to think long and hard about whether to follow him or not.
Undeniable proof
If you could present me with undeniable proof as above then I certainly would be delighted to consider it. The problem is that once you have proof, you remove the need for faith. So the whole doctrine would break down. In respect I think we can never meet as undeniable proof for the existence of god does not exist.
However, when I read passages like judges 21:21-24, which appears to blatantly encourage murder and rape, or Numbers 31:7-18, or maybe Deuteronomy 20:10-14, I would have to seriously consider if indeed I would want to follow such a being.
These passages condone rape and murder of men, women and children and inflicted suffering. The list goes on and on
Deuteronomy 22:23-24, stoning a man and a woman to death as punishment for having sexual relations. Tis would apply if the woman had been raped. She would still be stoned to death!
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 - rape of war prisoner. Entirely permitted it would seem.
Oh yes, I would definitely have to think long and hard about whether to follow him or not.
Advice
Advice
Hi, and thanks for the advice,
My point was to compare the principle that it very difficult, possibly impossible, to prove that something does not exist. Take the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can anyone prove to me that it does not exist?
So I am trying to establish in my own mind what evidence would satisfy me as to the existence of god. Which god would I choose? Jehovah's, Allah, Sheba, etc. all these religions claim to be the one true god. And to their followers they are convinced they are right. Are all Muslims deranged and deluded? Or Hindu's or Siekhs?
Surely belief in any specific god is primarily the result in the majority of cases of the accident of where you were born as to what is the prevailing doctrine in that place?
Advice
Hi, and thanks for the advice,
My point was to compare the principle that it very difficult, possibly impossible, to prove that something does not exist. Take the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can anyone prove to me that it does not exist?
So I am trying to establish in my own mind what evidence would satisfy me as to the existence of god. Which god would I choose? Jehovah's, Allah, Sheba, etc. all these religions claim to be the one true god. And to their followers they are convinced they are right. Are all Muslims deranged and deluded? Or Hindu's or Siekhs?
Surely belief in any specific god is primarily the result in the majority of cases of the accident of where you were born as to what is the prevailing doctrine in that place?
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
If you have totally bought into a logically flawed system, and have given yourself the ability to define all truth based on your limited perception and understanding there not a lot I can do to help you.
from people i know who take this stance you are either will be selective where you apply it, or you live in a very thin word where things you are willing to believe in are much more limited that the average person.
from people i know who take this stance you are either will be selective where you apply it, or you live in a very thin word where things you are willing to believe in are much more limited that the average person.
Lon
Well-known member
Hi Robert,
Need or fact? For me, I know there is a God, whether I feel I or you need Him or not, but I do agree that the 'need' is a driving force behind our respective views. God says He has made Himself known to all men, so either that is or isn't a fact. We could probably start there, because suddenly, the burden of proof is His rather than mine and either I've easily seen that proof and you are near or far-sighted and need help recognizing an elephant, or I'm near-sighted and need help recognizing an elephant, or...
You will run into both those who can and those who cannot here.
Great :up: What specific proof would it take, in the next couple of hourse, for you to be convinced?
Its a nice thought but for some of us, we are convinced that God has made Himself known and for those some of us, it is a fact. You can't challenge or argue facts with someone who is so convinced.
Definitely read the motto at the top of the page. This is first-off, a debate forum, not many holds barred, but there is no punching below the belt, so reading the TOL rules is a good idea. It is boxing verbally though, make no mistakes, though friendly bouts do take place here. Like all bouts, some are exhibition matches and others get bloody so get your meats taped up before entering a ring as a contender. Sometimes it goes more like tag-team wrestling though, so you can tap out sometimes. I don't know if the sparring metaphors help...
Floored logic. 
Floored logic.
Hey, I'm happy to believe anything that can be proved. And I prepared to keep an open mind about that which as yet cannot be proved. The logic here seems flawless to me and gives me a view of the world that is full of beautious wonder. The more we study it the more we understand about it. It's a wonderful world and a amazing univers in which we exist.
Floored logic.
Hey, I'm happy to believe anything that can be proved. And I prepared to keep an open mind about that which as yet cannot be proved. The logic here seems flawless to me and gives me a view of the world that is full of beautious wonder. The more we study it the more we understand about it. It's a wonderful world and a amazing univers in which we exist.
Lon
Well-known member
I wouldn't say it doesn't, however, I'd rather say it is probably something or some idea that 'could' exist, I just don't know in what form or if I have another idea or name for it, so, I'd ask you questions to 1) tell me what he/she/it does, how it has manifested itself, 2) what physical evidence it has left behind 3) what rationale you personally have for believing in it, etc.
In other words, I'm much more open to an actual "real" conversation than a number of atheists on this site tend to be. They have already played their incredulous card long long before arriving here and then fake the idea that they are "open to 'honest' debate." They aren't and lied outright (hopefully you aren't one of these). Since I expect such from a nontheist, it is rather predictable behavior from these ones. Even some atheists who actually are sincere here on TOL are appauled at the lying behavior of some of these other 'allegedly honest' atheists...
I hope you are the former, you'll meet and know the latter in due time here and will either side with them in their self/other deceptions, or will be troubled by their callous indifference and self-deceptions.
This is more about 'what He is like' rather than 'if He exists' (different discussion).
Shouldn't you make a lot more observations before forming a hypothesis of any kind? In grade school science this is okay because it is 'guided' inquiry but in college, you have to have tons of data before forming anything. So in this case, 'Does God exist' should remain in the data collecting/inquiry stage a lot longer from an 'honest' inquiring mind. If you are already past this point, you should really be honest and reassess where you are in the scientific "if there is a God" inquiry to "I'm a wrapping it up atheist just checking to see how well my first draft final paper holds up under scrutiny however no longer in the 'honest inquiry' stage but a 'hopefully honest assessing/wrap-up stage."
Such accurate self-assessment helps move things along in a rather productive manner.
Hi Lon.
Hi Lon.
Hi Lon,
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.
I am intrigued? What proof convinces you with such certainty. Perhaps I am unworthy but I don't have any reason to believe that god has made himself known to me.
You will run into both those who can and those who cannot here.
This is something I am not sure I know the answer to yet, and may never will. And if I had proof, then faith becomes irrelevant. Without proof one relies on faith.
Good thoughts. Thanks again for the post.
Cheers
Robert
Hi Lon.
Hi Lon,
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.
I am intrigued? What proof convinces you with such certainty. Perhaps I am unworthy but I don't have any reason to believe that god has made himself known to me.
You will run into both those who can and those who cannot here.
This is something I am not sure I know the answer to yet, and may never will. And if I had proof, then faith becomes irrelevant. Without proof one relies on faith.
Good thoughts. Thanks again for the post.
Cheers
Robert
Lon
Well-known member
I think for each of us, it is rather unique. I was reading a book (can't remember the name) about a boy who didn't know his father loved him. For the kid, he thought his dad was sending him away after his mother died but in reality, the dad was working hard so that he raised the boy right in honor to his wife's wishes. It is a true but sad story. The boy got into trouble with the law only to find out as a young man how his father actually did love him, incredibly. What did I learn? I learned what proved love for the boy was an individual matter. God is like that for me. He has answered prayer that I believe only a God could answer in incredible and very very specific ways. Coincidence disappears after the hundredth time. I've found however, what means 'proof' to me isn't to another. I'm okay with that, but that's why I think the question below is of utmost importance. I truly believe God 'wants' to give those who want to know Him, that proof.
Cheers
Honesty and integrity.
Honesty and integrity.
Hi Lon,
A lot there so I shall try to be brief...
The Flying Spaghetti Monster thing is of course a distraction and we are drifting from the point a bit. We all know it doesn't exist. It is a ridiculous suggestion of course. But the principle of this supernatural being existing outside space and time is just the same as for any other deity with exactly the same substantiable evidence for it any other. I can't prove it doesn't exist though. But for anyone who is actually bonkers enough to believe in and follow the doctrine of the FSM, their belief and commitment would probably be as real to them as yours is to you.
You have already made it clear in an earlier post that your faith is unshakeable. So in this respect you do exactly what you accuse the close minded atheist of doing in having made up your mind and being unwilling to be convinced otherwise.
The fact that you take a religious standpoint or the atheist takes a non- belief position, requires that we have made a decision, otherwise we would be agnostic.
I have made up my mind based on the evidence available to me. So there is no dishonesty here and I don't pretend to be anything other than an atheist. I am open to discussion though and I do hope to understand more about what makes a believer believe as, (and I mean no disrespect) i really just don't get it! It makes no sense to me.
We will probably never agree but we can learn about each other.
Best wishes
Robert.
Honesty and integrity.
Hi Lon,
A lot there so I shall try to be brief...
The Flying Spaghetti Monster thing is of course a distraction and we are drifting from the point a bit. We all know it doesn't exist. It is a ridiculous suggestion of course. But the principle of this supernatural being existing outside space and time is just the same as for any other deity with exactly the same substantiable evidence for it any other. I can't prove it doesn't exist though. But for anyone who is actually bonkers enough to believe in and follow the doctrine of the FSM, their belief and commitment would probably be as real to them as yours is to you.
You have already made it clear in an earlier post that your faith is unshakeable. So in this respect you do exactly what you accuse the close minded atheist of doing in having made up your mind and being unwilling to be convinced otherwise.
The fact that you take a religious standpoint or the atheist takes a non- belief position, requires that we have made a decision, otherwise we would be agnostic.
I have made up my mind based on the evidence available to me. So there is no dishonesty here and I don't pretend to be anything other than an atheist. I am open to discussion though and I do hope to understand more about what makes a believer believe as, (and I mean no disrespect) i really just don't get it! It makes no sense to me.
We will probably never agree but we can learn about each other.
Best wishes
Robert.
Lon
Well-known member
Er...did you see what I did there and how I turned it around, though? My point was that it is an escape hatch away from real and honest thinking. No true scientist would compare what we have evidence for, to something ridiculous because it is an apples to oranges comparision. Furthermore, if you, personally believed in something I've never heard of, I'd investigate. I'm pretty sure Lochness doesn't exist but I was never sarcastic. I'm pretty sure sasquatch doesn't exist, but I would listen to a witness who seemed adamant. Now, given that there are yet miraculous reports, even if not easily testable, I think agnostic is the best our scientific world should have to offer. I do not find atheist to be nearly scientific or honest enough for what I view as rational honest inquiry. Such to me, seems like trying to 'hide' or 'avoid,' even if they don't readily see it themselves.
No. If I came to an atheist board and said I was 'open' to honest inquiry, I'd be lying (like them). So no. I would say rather "Hi, I'm a militant theist. I know there is a God and that you are all very wrong. It doesn't matter if you don't like that I am right and you are wrong, facts are facts and I can't change that, but we can discuss the difficulty of language that is needed for me to transfere proof to you without my language or experiences that make me who I am (such is, unfortunately intangible for conveying as proof for others)." You know, just looking for a good self-assessment is all (some on here aren't trying to lie, they just aren't able to make these self-assessments as well).
Yes, again, it is about the announcement thing. I suppose with some I think, hey, this guy/gal might really be open. Being open is different than "Convince me, I'm very, (and then after that) very, (and then after that) very,(and then after that) very, skeptical."
I'd love for someone just come on here and say, "Hey, I think you guys are all a great bunch of people. I'm skeptical but willing. I'd love to believe there is a God and if you can help me believe in Him, I'd love to follow such a being!" So far it is just the "convince me, I'm very, (and then after that) very, (and then after that) very,(and then after that) very, skeptical" line (I don't know exactly when to shake the dust, if at all).
Even though it is annecdotal, I don't believe atheists here. When I tell you I've had many many miraculous and specific answers to prayer, you guys say your withheld skepticism is 'honest.' There is a point where I don't believe it is, and 'honestly' cannot be any more unless it is again, for the umpteenth time just to say "I honestly don't believe you." What is the point of that? It isn't even communicating anymore.
Yes, but that is quite different than an introduction of 'honest inquiry.' Again, just say so up front because not doing so should tell you why some posters get upset with you. It has a promise of something else and is a tease (for me, rather dishonest). I don't need a feather in my cap, but rather, whatever is done, is at least done in a mutually honest manner. The honest atheist is a bit of a novelty to me and I hurt for them but a good many of them are running away from a form of accountability for some hurt, action, or behavior, like an 'excuse to ignore' alone. An excuse to ignore God, by itself, isn't really an 'atheist' in my understanding. Again, we have a few of those on here. They hate it when I 'supernaturally' read them/analyze them, but such doesn't take rocket science (not that I know rocket science, but I did NOT lose the first Mars Rover due to metric conversion!).
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Thank you for taking the time to ignore mine. :up:
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Undeniable. Why do you need the qualifier? Its because proof can be different to different people. But you can always deny. Its meaningless unless you lay out a standard that would constitute proof to you.
Go ahead and try to prove evolution to me. I can just deny what you present. Maybe I'll go to an evolution forum and it'll be cute of me to demand proof and just deny, deny, deny. What kind of person would I be if I did that? The best word I can come up with is pathetic.
So I'm skeptical of atheists who show up saying they want rational honest debate. Its been done before a thousand times and its boring.