Atheism makes you smart, but don't take my word for it...

[volinbham]

No. I am saying that given the reasons and evidence behind my belief, I think that rational thinking will eventually get us there and history shows that just because something seems impossible now doesn't mean that it really is.

The 4 minute mile seemed impossible but wasn't. The 15 second mile is...

The point is we that just because we've learned a lot, we still have no idea how much more there is too learn and where the limits to knowledge are (I know, I know, you see no reason to believe there are limits to knowledge).


Maybe there are certain events/states/phenomena that will never be explained rationally, but I see no reason to believe that now.

My final word on the matter is that your last paragraph underscores the notion of "belief".

 

[rjd970]

My final word on the matter is that your last paragraph underscores the notion of "belief".

And I've never argued otherwise. I've only argued the belief based on its merits and reasons.

 

[emainvol]

Interesting. Good info.

That's pretty much the extent of my medical knowledge. Viruses are interesting things.

 

[JZVOL]

It's odd to me that some people choose to not believe in God because a loving God wouldn't allow people to die or some people have justified killing others in the name of religion, yet advancements in science (chemical weapons, A-Bomb, gun powder etc) have given mankind the ability to kill humans on a much larger scale.

 

[rjd970]

You're missing the boat here. Most rational Christians will tell you science has an important place. You believe in science as the alternative to God, many Christians see science as a way to understand God and his creation. This isn't about choosing one over the other.

I would argue you are taking your belief as primary then backtracking evidence. I don't see science as an alternative necessarily, I see it as the more reasonable option. If you are Christian first and foremost, then you are in fact choosing one over the other, because you are always going to see the hand of God in every scientific approach to explaining the natural world, whether it is there or not.

 

[volinbham]

I would argue you are taking your belief as primary then backtracking evidence. I don't see science as an alternative necessarily, I see it as the more reasonable option. If you are Christian first and foremost, then you are in fact choosing one over the other, because you are always going to see the hand of God in every scientific approach to explaining the natural world, whether it is there or not.

And an atheist always sees no God and attributes everything to "natural phenomena".

It's the same argument.

 

[rjd970]

Has your science disproven it? You know, the one that is making us smarter and improving continually, but struggling with a 2000 year old book and debating a bunch of head in the sand idiots? That science?

Has science disproved the claims of a 2000 year old book? Well, over the last 2000 years it absolutely has and that is why we get all these explanations now that many of the stories aren't in fact real, they are really metaphors and didatic poetry and any other thing theologians come up with, ignoring that they were considered fact for centuries. Can you honestly say that Genesis was considered anything other than legitimate science by church authorities a 1000 years ago?

The fact that people still argue the truth of what is said in the Bible shows more about the elasticity of religous belief combined with the admitted holes in scientific knowledge. The holes will be filled by religious explanations until they are pushed out by new evidence.

 

[KB5252]

I would argue you are taking your belief as primary then backtracking evidence. I don't see science as an alternative necessarily, I see it as the more reasonable option. If you are Christian first and foremost, then you are in fact choosing one over the other, because you are always going to see the hand of God in every scientific approach to explaining the natural world, whether it is there or not.

As VBH said lumping everything together as Gods work is the same as lumping everything together as natural phenomena.

 

[rjd970]

And an atheist always sees no God and attributes everything to "natural phenomena".

It's the same argument.

I would agree, but I would clarify by saying the atheist sees no evidence of God. If God would come right out and show himself to be behind it all, there wouldn't be a true atheist on the planet.

 

[KB5252]

Has science disproved the claims of a 2000 year old book? Well, over the last 2000 years it absolutely has and that is why we get all these explanations now that many of the stories aren't in fact real, they are really metaphors and didatic poetry and any other thing theologians come up with, ignoring that they were considered fact for centuries. Can you honestly say that Genesis was considered anything other than legitimate science by church authorities a 1000 years ago?

The fact that people still argue the truth of what is said in the Bible shows more about the elasticity of religous belief combined with the admitted holes in scientific knowledge. The holes will be filled by religious explanations until they are pushed out by new evidence.

Alchemy (the ancestor of science) believed that old grain left in a bin would produce mice. The details were wrong but the overall premise is correct.

 

[KB5252]

I would agree, but I would clarify by saying the atheist sees no evidence of God. If God would come right out and show himself to be behind it all, there wouldn't be a true atheist on the planet.

and what would constitute evidence for you? I see no evidence science has the answer either, it doesn't mean that I discredit science in it's entirety.

 

[volinbham]

I would agree, but I would clarify by saying the atheist sees no evidence of God. If God would come right out and show himself to be behind it all, there wouldn't be a true atheist on the planet.

Not sure I agree with you on this one.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Has science disproved the claims of a 2000 year old book? Well, over the last 2000 years it absolutely has and that is why we get all these explanations now that many of the stories aren't in fact real, they are really metaphors and didatic poetry and any other thing theologians come up with, ignoring that they were considered fact for centuries. Can you honestly say that Genesis was considered anything other than legitimate science by church authorities a 1000 years ago?

The fact that people still argue the truth of what is said in the Bible shows more about the elasticity of religous belief combined with the admitted holes in scientific knowledge. The holes will be filled by religious explanations until they are pushed out by new evidence.

Wow... there's been some very interesting conversation in this thread. Sorry I came late to the party.

As far as your statement above, you couldn't be more wrong, If anything, science and events from the Bible have been more in line and that continues to be the case. Most of the arguing you are claiming comes from individuals like yourself who are waiting and wanting for something that proves them to be correct... and you will be waiting a long, long time.

At least IPOrange has reason to his statements and is willing to accept different people have different beliefs. You, on the other hand, it seems won't be content until science... as you say... proves everything! As the old saying goes, why don't you and your evolutionist buddies go explain the platypus and then come back to the table when you have more to add.

 

[JZVOL]

I would agree, but I would clarify by saying the atheist sees no evidence of God. If God would come right out and show himself to be behind it all, there wouldn't be a true atheist on the planet.

I guess someone should tell Jesus He was never on the earth and never revealed Himself.

 

[rjd970]

and what would constitute evidence for you? I see no evidence science has the answer either, it doesn't mean that I discredit science in it's entirety.

Evidence for God? I've already said, a booming voice or angles parting clouds would be a sufficient start. If Jesus were to come down trailing clouds of glory I would have no problem to bow down and revere Christianity as a science.

 

[rjd970]

Not sure I agree with you on this one.

This may be part of the reason we don't seem to understand each other on this topic. Frustratingly, I don't know how else to better explain my position, and from what I read of your posts I think you are misunderstanding mine.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Evidence for God? I've already said, a booming voice or angles parting clouds would be a sufficient start. If Jesus were to come down trailing clouds of glory I would have no problem to bow down and revere Christianity as a science.

This explains every thing.......

:mf_surrender:

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I guess someone should tell Jesus He was never on the earth and never revealed Himself.

Exactly, except that it is a stretch for RJD to even admit that Jesus existed (although he's never questioned the existence of Caesar, Pilate, or even Nebuchadnezzar). However, the thought that Jesus... based on eyewitness testimony... performed miracles and could be the Son of God just doesn't seem to process in his scientific brain.

 

[volinbham]

Evidence for God? I've already said, a booming voice or angles parting clouds would be a sufficient start. If Jesus were to come down trailing clouds of glory I would have no problem to bow down and revere Christianity as a science.

Of course this is an evidence requirement for a specific conceptualization of a Creator.

It's equivalent to me saying I'll believe the Big Bang when you can recreated it in a lab all the way to the formation of life.

The absence of these evidences is pretty much assured thus neither side concedes the possibility of the other's view.

We see evidence all around us that COULD be explained via a Big Bang theory or an intelligent design. The lens through which we view evidence and the rules we assign before it can be viewed as evidence shape how we look at said evidence.

It's a stalemate that is inherent in competing belief systems with often conflicting rules.

 

[JZVOL]

Evidence for God? I've already said, a booming voice or angles parting clouds would be a sufficient start. If Jesus were to come down trailing clouds of glory I would have no problem to bow down and revere Christianity as a science.

So Christ already revealed Himself on Earth once. He performed signs and miracles yet some chose to believe and some did not.
So if He came to earth again to reveal himself to you, in a thousand years there would be someone just like you that would say the exact same thing you are saying.

The fact is if Christ came to the earth tomorrow and revealed Himself you, you would still not believe.

Perhaps if there was a fireworks show that accompanied Him that would change your mind.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Superstar!

 

[volinbham]

This may be part of the reason we don't seem to understand each other on this topic. Frustratingly, I don't know how else to better explain my position, and from what I read of your posts I think you are misunderstanding mine.

As I see it, your claim is that your underlying belief is that evidence rules what you consider to be "truth". If evidence is presented that runs counter to your currently held conception (no God) you will change your conception to reflect the new evidence.

Thus if a giant hand comes out of the sky and says I'm God boy then you will reconsider your position.

Alternatively, you argue that religious people by default argue some things you just can't know so there is no evidence that will every convince them to change their view point. As a result, you are open to new conceptualizations about our origins (based on evidence) but the religious are not since they say there just won't be evidence.

Am I on the right track?

My argument to you is that your underlying faith in "evidence" fitting "rational thought" will shape what you view as evidence and in effect discard things that point to the possibility of a Creator. Additionally, the notion of what counts as evidence is shaped wholly by your belief system.

Stating that it will take an example from the Bible (e.g. Jesus appearing from the sky) to count as evidence of a Creator shows this bias.

I realize it's a bit of a moving target to say since we don't know what a Creator really is we can't explicitly say what evidence would be relevant to exploring the issue but likewise it is an non-needed constraint to claim that evidence must be in the form such that we can use "rational thought" to interpret it.

So I continue to argue that your inherent belief in the ultimate power of rational thought is a limiting view point and creates the very real possibility that you will never see evidence of a Creator even if one exists.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

^^^ a great summary. I think you've captured it quite well.

 

[rjd970]

Of course this is an evidence requirement for a specific conceptualization of a Creator.

It's equivalent to me saying I'll believe the Big Bang when you can recreated it in a lab all the way to the formation of life.

The absence of these evidences is pretty much assured thus neither side concedes the possibility of the other's view.

We see evidence all around us that COULD be explained via a Big Bang theory or an intelligent design. The lens through which we view evidence and the rules we assign before it can be viewed as evidence shape how we look at said evidence.

It's a stalemate that is inherent in competing belief systems with often conflicting rules.

Why is absence of these evidences assured? Given the God claims of Christians, it should be peanuts for God or Jesus to come down and let us all know he is really there.

And the big bang to life evidence is not the same thing. No scientist in his right mind will say that absolutely, without question, we got here from the big bang to life evolving. Do Christians say this? Do Christians have any doubt that God exists, or that Jesus isn't the messiah? Because I have yet to meet one. I can say right now that every scientist does not agree with Big Bang theory, or the specifics of evolution. If Christians and what not are absolute in their belief, and they have their "faith conceptualization" to fall back on, then something as petty as real evidence for all of us simpletons should be nothing, especially given the supernatural claims that are being peddled.

I'm not so sure about your last sentence, but I can't put my finger on it.

 

[JZVOL]

Why is absence of these evidences assured? Given the God claims of Christians, it should be peanuts for God or Jesus to come down and let us all know he is really there.

And the big bang to life evidence is not the same thing. No scientist in his right mind will say that absolutely, without question, we got here from the big bang to life evolving. Do Christians say this? Do Christians have any doubt that God exists, or that Jesus isn't the messiah? Because I have yet to meet one. I can say right now that every scientist does not agree with Big Bang theory, or the specifics of evolution. If Christians and what not are absolute in their belief, and they have their "faith conceptualization" to fall back on, then something as petty as real evidence for all of us simpletons should be nothing, especially given the supernatural claims that are being peddled.

I'm not so sure about your last sentence, but I can't put my finger on it.

He already did. Again if He showed up tomorrow you would not believe unless he put on a dog and pony show for you.