A question for theists
Morbert
scientific method.
So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in GOd?"
Dan Barker
news:d7fe20a0.0309...@posting.google.com...
> Most people accept that God cannot be proven/disproven using natural
> scientific method.
>
Abundant information could be offered in answer to the "Why?" question, but
I will limit this to some brief thoughts on the issue of proof. What each of
has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible that something could
be real that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural
scientific method." If someone has decided that this is impossible, then
that individual can rest assured that so long as they hold that opinion,
they are not likely to receive proof of the supernatural world's existence
during their lifetime.
However, if a person is open-minded enough to allow for the possibility that
proof of the supernatural, and of God, requires different [although equally
sound] criteria than what is appropriate for the natural world, then that
person stands a good chance of observing an entirely new world and
subsequently becoming firmly convinced that this world is every bit as
"real" as the material world.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Appelonius
> scientific method.
>
> So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in GOd?"
Simple. Because they want to.
MarcRW
news:vmut2rf...@corp.supernews.com...
Direct. Correct. Accurate. I like it.
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Morbert" <kels...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d7fe20a0.0309...@posting.google.com...
> > Most people accept that God cannot be proven/disproven using natural
> > scientific method.
> >
> > So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in God?"
>
> Abundant information could be offered in answer to the "Why?" question, but
> I will limit this to some brief thoughts on the issue of proof. What each of
> has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible that something could
> be real that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural
> scientific method."
Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
possible.
> If someone has decided that this is impossible, then
> that individual can rest assured that so long as they hold that opinion,
> they are not likely to receive proof of the supernatural world's existence
> during their lifetime.
Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
term.
> However, if a person is open-minded enough to allow for the possibility that
> proof of the supernatural, and of God, requires different [although equally
> sound] criteria than what is appropriate for the natural world, ...
Please describe these "different although equally sound criteria".
Regards,
Josef
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.
-- Albert Einstein
Dan Still
> Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
> anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> possible.
So, the first guys asks, "Why would someone believe in God?" Then the
next guys says, "Well, you first have to decide if it's even possible
for anything to exist outside of the physical, material, energy
cosmos." And then you say, "That's begging the question."
That's not begging the question. That second guy is just getting at
the presupposition behind the issue. Some people, like yourself, have
a worldview that does not include anything outside the physical,
material, energy cosmos. That's an assumption that has not been
proven that you bring to the table.
> Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
> phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
Ad hoc??? I think you may have missed this one, too. The other
problem here is that no one is impartial. Even scientists.
> And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
> term.
I think "supernatural" here is referring to something outside the
natural order of cause and effect. Maybe "miracle" would be a
synonym.
> Please describe these "different although equally sound criteria".
I think you'd fall into the category of people that this second guy is
describing. So what's the point?
Dan
Morbert
> > scientific method.
> >
> > So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in God?"
>
> Abundant information could be offered in answer to the "Why?" question, but
> I will limit this to some brief thoughts on the issue of proof. What each of
> has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible that something could
> be real that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural
> scientific method." If someone has decided that this is impossible, then
> that individual can rest assured that so long as they hold that opinion,
> they are not likely to receive proof of the supernatural world's existence
> during their lifetime.
I have to stop you there, because I believe you have made the error
that many theists make. Atheists and Agnostics do not claim that
there is nothing beyond the natural. Instead they realise that
anything that can be realised is natural. In otherwords, we can
conceive of a God(S) all we want, but it is impossible to actually
"realise" their pesence (ie. know that they are there) Because of
this, arguments for the existnece of god are reduced to philosophical,
speculation, whic, in turn, brings me back to my original question.
> However, if a person is open-minded enough to allow for the possibility that
> proof of the supernatural, and of God, requires different [although equally
> sound] criteria than what is appropriate for the natural world,
I understand what you are saying, but this "Different" criteria, which
is appropriate for the natural world, if not natural, then can be only
philosophical.
> then that person stands a good chance of observing an entirely new world and
> subsequently becoming firmly convinced that this world is every bit as
> "real" as the material world.
THis boils down to perspectives. And from what I infer, you are
saying, that since someone's interpretation of the universe cannot be
disporven, then it is true.
> Dan Barker
> http://www.findhim.org
Justin_Martyr2000
> In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
> with the following:
>
>
> > "Morbert" <kels...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:d7fe20a0.0309...@posting.google.com...
> > > Most people accept that God cannot be proven/disproven using natural
> > > scientific method.
> > >
> > > So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in God?"
> >
> > Abundant information could be offered in answer to the "Why?" question, but
> > I will limit this to some brief thoughts on the issue of proof. What each of
> > has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible that something could
> > be real that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural
> > scientific method."
>
>
> Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
> anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> possible.
LOL. No, sir. What YOU have just demonstrated is the classic
example of "begging the question". Your opposite has not made an
assertion of fact but rather his comment has to do with one's approach
to the issue, that is, of being objective in one's approach to the
question. YOU, however, have taken it upon yourself to assert a
hypothesis (the existence of strictly naturalistic explanations)
without showing a warrant for your hypothesis and insisting that your
position is the correct one on that basis alone. Tch tch.
One could just as easily say, "What needs to be done is to show
that ONLY a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or possible" but
that wouldn't get us anywhere, since it does not give us a reason for
assuming that. It merely establishes the bias of the respondent.
We already know that. No need to repeat it. That is redundancy. It
also does not further the debate, but rather stops it dead in its
tracks.
But, then, I suppose that is the point, isn't it?
> The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the
> firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
> this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.
-Albert Einstein
(as if he is the final authority)
Icarus
> What each of has to establish in our minds is whether it is
> possible that something could be real that cannot be proven
> within the strict constraints of "natural scientific method."
...
> However, if a person is open-minded enough to allow for the
> possibility that proof of the supernatural, and of God, requires
> different [although equally sound] criteria than what is
> appropriate for the natural world, then that person stands a
> good chance of observing an entirely new world...
So what kind of proof do you envisage and on what sound criteria is it
based? The success of science has been due to working out what is and is
not a reliable way of finding out objective facts. What reliable system do
you propose in place of that?
Dan Barker
news:MPG.19d9589ba...@206.172.150.13...
> > "Morbert" <kels...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:d7fe20a0.0309...@posting.google.com...
> > > Most people accept that God cannot be proven/disproven using natural
> > > scientific method.
> > >
> > > So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in God?"
> >
> > Abundant information could be offered in answer to the "Why?" question,
but
> > I will limit this to some brief thoughts on the issue of proof. What
each of
> > has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible that something
could
> > be real that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural
> > scientific method."
>
> Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
> anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> possible.
I'm afraid you missed my point. That another explanation may be necessary if
we are to prove the existence of God should be self-evident, especially to
those who hold that such existence cannot be proven by the natural
scientific method. That such explanations are possible is something that you
have to first decide for yourself.
> > If someone has decided that this is impossible, then
> > that individual can rest assured that so long as they hold that opinion,
> > they are not likely to receive proof of the supernatural world's
existence
> > during their lifetime.
>
> Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
> phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
No reason to suppose this? It seems to me that there is abundant evidence
that would lead the inquiring mind to the supposition that some may indeed
observe phenomena that others are wholly unaware of. Why? Because equally
sentient, sane, and intelligent people sit on both sides of this divide. The
issue is whether what one sees and another denies is indeed provable using
the appropriate criteria.
> And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
> term.
Tell me first if you categorically reject the reality of the supernatural
[in its accepted meaning]. If this is the case, then nothing I write here is
going to mean a thing to you, right?
> > However, if a person is open-minded enough to allow for the possibility
that
> > proof of the supernatural, and of God, requires different [although
equally
> > sound] criteria than what is appropriate for the natural world, ...
>
> Please describe these "different although equally sound criteria".
That is the task before us, my friend. I already know that such criteria
exists, as I use it. But what we need to do is find if there is any bridge
between us that would allow you to grasp what the criteria is, accept the
reliability of it, and then apply it. But again, until you first sincerely
allow for the possibility that God exists, our efforts would be a perfect
waste of time, since you cannot walk through a door you refuse to open.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Severian
wrote:
What a preciously evasive and equivocal response.
From a quick glance, your site appears to be essentially an appeal to
fear. That's pretty sad.
- Sev
--
I am just a thought of mine, an egotisticality. (P. Crews)
Dan Barker
> > Abundant information could be offered in answer to the "Why?" question,
but
> > I will limit this to some brief thoughts on the issue of proof. What
each of
> > has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible that something
could
> > be real that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural
> > scientific method." If someone has decided that this is impossible, then
> > that individual can rest assured that so long as they hold that opinion,
> > they are not likely to receive proof of the supernatural world's
existence
> > during their lifetime.
>
> I have to stop you there, because I believe you have made the error
> that many theists make. Atheists and Agnostics do not claim that
> there is nothing beyond the natural. Instead they realise that
> anything that can be realised is natural. In otherwords, we can
> conceive of a God(S) all we want, but it is impossible to actually
> this, arguments for the existence of god are reduced to philosophical,
> speculation, which, in turn, brings me back to my original question.
Thanks for the clarification. I recently came to realize that what we refer
to as the supernatural is actually properly part of nature in the sense of
"all that it exists." In other words, God [assuming He exists] would chuckle
at our considering ourselves to be somehow more "natural" than Him. That
said, the general use of the term is to describe the spiritual world that is
outside the material world and/or phenomena that appears to exist outside
this world.
You wrote, "Instead they realize that anything that can be realized is
natural." I would agree with that if we admit that all that is can be
realized [which includes that which is "beyond the natural"]. But then you
state that, "Atheists and Agnostics do not claim that there is nothing
beyond the natural," which means you allow for the possibility of a world
that you believe cannot be known. My point is that so long as you are
certain that you are incapable of becoming aware of this world, then there
you likely will remain so long as you breathe. I believe that since you are
allowing for the possibility, you should explore whether you and I are
indeed capable of discerning the reality of that world, and keep in mind
that this may involve new methods of proof.
> > However, if a person is open-minded enough to allow for the possibility
that
> > proof of the supernatural, and of God, requires different [although
equally
> > sound] criteria than what is appropriate for the natural world,
>
> I understand what you are saying, but this "Different" criteria, which
> is appropriate for the natural world, if not natural, then can be only
> philosophical.
I believe the "different criteria" is that which is appropriate for the
spiritual, which is arguably part of the natural, as discussed above, and
therefore cannot be said to be only philosophical. The issue is whether a
human being can discover this criteria, establish the validity of it, and
then apply it to the spiritual world.
> > then that person stands a good chance of observing an entirely new world
and
> > subsequently becoming firmly convinced that this world is every bit as
> > "real" as the material world.
>
> THis boils down to perspectives. And from what I infer, you are
> saying, that since someone's interpretation of the universe cannot be
> disporven, then it is true.
No, that isn't what I am saying at all. I hold that it can be proved, but
that we must use appropriate criteria for this proof. Once doing so, one
opens a critically important door that can subsequently allow them to begin
to observe proofs which do indeed fall under the heading of the "natural
scientific method."
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
news:ofb1nvc5khe7abshv...@4ax.com...
[My words which so impressed you.]
> What a preciously evasive and equivocal response.
If you have the time, I would appreciate your responding in more depth, as I
would very much like to hear more of your perspectives on what we are
discussing here. Be assured I will not roundly dismiss your thoughts.
> From a quick glance, your site appears to be essentially an appeal to
> fear. That's pretty sad.
Once again, I would greatly appreciate some substantiation of your
observation, especially because that was never my intention in creating the
site, and certainly not something I wish to project.
Thanks,
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Still poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> Josef Balluch wrote...
>
> > Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
> > anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> > possible.
>
> So, the first guys asks, "Why would someone believe in God?" Then the
> next guys says, "Well, you first have to decide if it's even possible
> for anything to exist outside of the physical, material, energy
> cosmos." And then you say, "That's begging the question."
>
> That's not begging the question.
The way you phrase it, it would not be Begging the Question.
Here is what was actually said: "What each of has to establish in our
minds is whether it is possible that something could be real that cannot
be proven within the strict constraints of 'natural scientific method.'"
The statement assumes that there are things which cannot be proven
within the strict constraints, etc. This is the dubious assumption that
makes the argument a case of Begging the Question.
> That second guy is just getting at
> the presupposition behind the issue.
While making a presumption of his own, and a dubious one at that.
> Some people, like yourself, have
> a worldview that does not include anything outside the physical,
> material, energy cosmos. That's an assumption that has not been
> proven that you bring to the table.
I have brought no assumptions to the table. I am questioning the
assumptions made by Dan Barker.
> > Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
> > phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
>
> Ad hoc??? I think you may have missed this one, too.
I beg to differ. An ad hoc hypothesis is a patch on a porous argument.
There does not appear to be any specific philosophical justification for
the assumption that non-naturalistic phenomena should only be visible to
the believer. It is simply a patch used to explain away a problem with
the argument.
> The other
> problem here is that no one is impartial. Even scientists.
Debatable. I do not spend my day looking for indications that all I see
has a strictly natural explanation. The only time I consider the matter
is when I specifically set out to do so. But in retrospect I realize
that there was no need for the word "impartial". Non-naturalistic
phenomena should also be visible to even the hostile observer.
> > And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
> > term.
>
> I think "supernatural" here is referring to something outside the
> natural order of cause and effect. Maybe "miracle" would be a
> synonym.
No argument there. I simply feel that the word cannot be shown to be
meaningful. As should already be clear, it has not been established that
there are things "outside the natural order".
> > Please describe these "different although equally sound criteria".
>
> I think you'd fall into the category of people that this second guy is
> describing. So what's the point?
?????
Usenet is a forum for discussion, is it not?
Regards,
Josef
I said that he was free who is led by reason alone.
-- Baruch de Spinoza
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Justin_Martyr2000 poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
> Josef Balluch <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.19d9589ba...@206.172.150.13>...
> > In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
> > with the following:
> >
> >
> > > "Morbert" <kels...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d7fe20a0.0309...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Most people accept that God cannot be proven/disproven using natural
> > > > scientific method.
> > > >
> > > > So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in God?"
> > >
> > > Abundant information could be offered in answer to the "Why?" question, but
> > > I will limit this to some brief thoughts on the issue of proof. What each of
> > > has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible that something could
> > > be real that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural
> > > scientific method."
> >
> >
> > Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
> > anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> > possible.
>
>
> LOL. No, sir. What YOU have just demonstrated is the classic
> example of "begging the question". Your opposite has not made an
> assertion of fact but rather his comment has to do with one's approach
> to the issue, that is, of being objective in one's approach to the
> question.
Nope. The statement contains the assumption that something "cannot be
proven within the strict constraints of 'natural scientific method.'"
> YOU, however, have taken it upon yourself to assert a
> hypothesis (the existence of strictly naturalistic explanations)
> without showing a warrant for your hypothesis and insisting that your
> position is the correct one on that basis alone.
Baloney. There is no such claim. Dan Barker has put forward an
unsupported hypothesis, and it is quite reasonable to ask that it be
supported.
> Tch tch.
Ditto.
> One could just as easily say, "What needs to be done is to show
> that ONLY a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or possible" but
> that wouldn't get us anywhere, since it does not give us a reason for
> assuming that. It merely establishes the bias of the respondent.
> We already know that. No need to repeat it. That is redundancy. It
> also does not further the debate, but rather stops it dead in its
> tracks.
> But, then, I suppose that is the point, isn't it?
What ARE you babbling about?
> > The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the
> > firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
> > this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.
>
>
> -Albert Einstein
>
> (as if he is the final authority)
It's only a tag line. Don't get your shorts in a knot.
Regards,
Josef
Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion.
-- Mark Twain
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19d9589ba...@206.172.150.13...
>
> > > "Morbert" <kels...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d7fe20a0.0309...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Most people accept that God cannot be proven/disproven using natural
> > > > scientific method.
> > > >
> > > > So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in God?"
> > >
> > > Abundant information could be offered in answer to the "Why?" question,
> but
> > > I will limit this to some brief thoughts on the issue of proof. What
> each of
> > > has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible that something
> could
> > > be real that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural
> > > scientific method."
> >
> > Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
> > anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> > possible.
>
> I'm afraid you missed my point.
And it seems you missed my point. But you can take comfort in the fact
that you are not alone.
> That another explanation may be necessary if
> we are to prove the existence of God should be self-evident, ...
Self evident to whom? There are plenty of theists who post in these
newsgroups who think they can establish the existence of some deity or
another within the current paradigm. Can something be "self evident" to
only certain people?
> ... especially to
> those who hold that such existence cannot be proven by the natural
> scientific method. That such explanations are possible is something that you
> have to first decide for yourself.
Your explanation contains the assumption that a deity exists, which has
yet to be demonstrated, and thus is also a case of Begging the Question.
> > > If someone has decided that this is impossible, then
> > > that individual can rest assured that so long as they hold that opinion,
> > > they are not likely to receive proof of the supernatural world's
> existence
> > > during their lifetime.
> >
> > Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
> > phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
>
> No reason to suppose this? It seems to me that there is abundant evidence
> that would lead the inquiring mind to the supposition that some may indeed
> observe phenomena that others are wholly unaware of. Why? Because equally
> sentient, sane, and intelligent people sit on both sides of this divide.
I do not think there is any dispute that some "see" or "hear" things
that others do not. It is the interpretation that is in dispute. The
point is, if these phenomena are part of the outside world then why
should only believers experience them? And why should such phenomena be
assumed to be "non-natural"?
> The
> issue is whether what one sees and another denies is indeed provable using
> the appropriate criteria.
Nope. As pointed out above, the issue is the interpretation.
> > And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
> > term.
>
> Tell me first if you categorically reject the reality of the supernatural
> [in its accepted meaning]. If this is the case, then nothing I write here is
> going to mean a thing to you, right?
No, I am not categorically rejecting it.
> > > However, if a person is open-minded enough to allow for the possibility
> that
> > > proof of the supernatural, and of God, requires different [although
> equally
> > > sound] criteria than what is appropriate for the natural world, ...
> >
> > Please describe these "different although equally sound criteria".
>
> That is the task before us, my friend. I already know that such criteria
> exists, as I use it. But what we need to do is find if there is any bridge
> between us that would allow you to grasp what the criteria is, accept the
> reliability of it, and then apply it. But again, until you first sincerely
> allow for the possibility that God exists, ...
You will first have to define your deity.
> ... our efforts would be a perfect
> waste of time, since you cannot walk through a door you refuse to open.
Can you establish that the door exists?
Regards,
Josef
Whatsoever is contrary to nature is contrary to reason, and whatsoever
is contrary to reason is absurd.
-- Baruch Spinoza
Dan Barker
news:bkpfe2$4fbeh$1...@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
It's hard to know exactly where to start in approaching this as it is easy
to start building the bridge only to discover that the other side has begun
dropping footings 30 yards further down the river, but I will make a stab at
it...
I am only going to deal with the deity that I am most familiar with, and
that is the Christian God. Now I fully recognize that you don't believe any
such being exists, but we cannot even begin to discuss the issue without you
at least allowing that He might, as we are looking for the appropriate
criteria to establish whether He is indeed real.
First of all, we cannot expect God to jump through hoops for us. In other
words, we have to find criteria that allows us to find Him where He is, not
where some might wish He was [For example, appearing on live prime-time TV
every night performing incontrovertible miracles]. This means that we are
going to have to work with cause and effect, attempting to determine if the
effects of His actions in human lives are consistent with who He says that
He is, and how He deals with us, and most importantly, that these effects
show a very high likelihood of having no other plausible cause than God.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
In working through such proofs, we should also take into account any
pattern(s) that appear, as the level of likelihood that we might assign to a
given proof should in some cases be raised to a higher level of assurance if
we begin to find indentifiable patterns that point to His working on a broad
scale that is consistent with "who He says that He is, and how He deals with
us." Do you agree with this [these questions are to identify if I need to
move my footings to match yours]?
Since the data we must work with must come from individuals and their
personal accounts of the effects that we wish to determine the source of,
much background information should be gathered on each individual to
determine the level of credibility that can be assigned to their testimony.
Those that fall below perhaps the 90th percentile of a mutually agreed upon
scale should be removed from consideration [the scale would have to combine
the nature of the particular effect with specific background related to that
effect, as well as general information]. Now I am assuming that if you are
still with me, I may be losing you here as you may not be able to imagine
yourself crediting anyone who relates such causes. I hope this is not the
case, but if it is, ask yourself, "Where else you can possibly expect to
find evidence of these effects except in those who have experienced them?"
Once the hopefully pure data is collected, then the arduous process of
looking for possible primary causes other than God must begin. At times
these possible causes will have to be honestly viewed as extremely unlikely
and noted as such, as well as times when it is a stretch to come up with any
other viable explanation other than God. Then, of course, x amount of the
causes may well have relatively plausible primary causes, yet it should
still be considered if, in comparison to other data, these "natural" causes
are conclusively exclusive [i.e., there is no chance whatsoever that God
could have been the cause], and so rated as such.
O.K., that's enough for now on my brainstorming session. Shoot it full of
holes, suggest some alternatives, and let's see if the bridge can be built.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
[...]
> > That another explanation may be necessary if
> > we are to prove the existence of God should be self-evident, ...
>
> Self evident to whom? There are plenty of theists who post in these
> newsgroups who think they can establish the existence of some deity or
> another within the current paradigm. Can something be "self evident" to
> only certain people?
You will note that I wrote, "may be necessary." I say this because I
recognize that what is sufficient proof for one using currently established
methods may not be a proof for another since the perspectives of both
parties are diametrically opposed to one another, and/or only one party is
dealing with firsthand knowledge of the event in question. What I am
attempting to discover is whether there is any possibility of establishing
mutually-acceptable criteria for these proofs. So, I said "self-evident"
because it seems clear that this mutual ground has not yet been found.
> > ... especially to
> > those who hold that such existence cannot be proven by the natural
> > scientific method. That such explanations are possible is something that
you
> > have to first decide for yourself.
>
> Your explanation contains the assumption that a deity exists, which has
> yet to be demonstrated, and thus is also a case of Begging the Question.
Sigh. We are talking about whether such explanations, or proofs of a
hypothetical deity are possible, not about the results of these proofs. If
we had already demonstrated that a deity exists, we wouldn't be having this
discussion in the first place. One step at a time...
> > > > If someone has decided that this is impossible, then
> > > > that individual can rest assured that so long as they hold that
opinion,
> > > > they are not likely to receive proof of the supernatural world's
> > > > existence during their lifetime.
> > >
> > > Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
> > > phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
> >
> > No reason to suppose this? It seems to me that there is abundant
evidence
> > that would lead the inquiring mind to the supposition that some may
indeed
> > observe phenomena that others are wholly unaware of. Why? Because
equally
> > sentient, sane, and intelligent people sit on both sides of this divide.
>
> I do not think there is any dispute that some "see" or "hear" things
> that others do not. It is the interpretation that is in dispute. The
> point is, if these phenomena are part of the outside world then why
> should only believers experience them? And why should such phenomena be
> assumed to be "non-natural"?
The very nature of the phenomena in virtually all cases is that they are
only experienced by those who have entered a door that others have not
entered. Here's an analogy: You and I are both part of the "outside world,"
but at this moment we are each experiencing very different things. You can't
experience precisely what I am experiencing because you are not part of this
household, but that doesn't mean that you could say that my experience here
isn't valid because you are not able to experience it. If I tell you about
something I experienced here, and if you believe I am a credible source,
then you would believe it even though you not only didn't experience it, but
could not possibly ever experience it.
The phenomena isn't always "non-natural," by any means, but the problem is
that some refuse to believe that what happened to another person actually
happened if the particular occurrence demanded, for example, a miracle.
However, countless unbelievers, especially in the medical field, can indeed
testify to having witnessed what they themselves referred to as miracles in
the lives of their patients in the "natural" world.
> > The
> > issue is whether what one sees and another denies is indeed provable
using
> > the appropriate criteria.
>
> Nope. As pointed out above, the issue is the interpretation.
Sorry, but if mutually-accepted criteria is developed and applied then the
interpretations should be identical. You seem to still be working outside of
what I am proposing, which I admit has proved largely unworkable for
numerous reasons.
> > > And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
> > > term.
> >
> > Tell me first if you categorically reject the reality of the
supernatural
> > [in its accepted meaning]. If this is the case, then nothing I write
here is
> > going to mean a thing to you, right?
>
>
> No, I am not categorically rejecting it.
You wrote to Dan Still above, "I simply feel that the word cannot be shown
to be meaningful." O.K., it's late and I'm very fatigued, but that seems
awfully close to a categorical rejection to me.
[...]
> > > Please describe these "different although equally sound criteria".
> >
> > That is the task before us, my friend. I already know that such criteria
> > exists, as I use it. But what we need to do is find if there is any
bridge
> > between us that would allow you to grasp what the criteria is, accept
the
> > reliability of it, and then apply it. But again, until you first
sincerely
> > allow for the possibility that God exists, ...
>
>
> You will first have to define your deity.
See my response to Icarus earlier this evening and see if that lays the
groundwork for us to further consider this subject.
> > ... our efforts would be a perfect
> > waste of time, since you cannot walk through a door you refuse to open.
>
> Can you establish that the door exists?
We'll see. Again, see the above cited response.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Justin_Martyr2000
No, sir. Allow me to quote Mr. Barker's statement:
"What each of us has to establish in our minds is whether IT IS
POSSIBLE (emphasis added) that something could be real that cannot be
proven within the strict constraints of 'natural scientific method'."
The statement contains no assumptions whatsoever. What it contains
is a call for a prerequisite attitude of openmindedness towards the
question at hand. It neither asserts nor denies the answer as it does
not attempt to provide an answer. Your statement, however, contains
the assumption that only through naturalistic explanations do we know
anything. That has not been established, ergo: "begging the question".
> > YOU, however, have taken it upon yourself to assert a
> > hypothesis (the existence of strictly naturalistic explanations)
> > without showing a warrant for your hypothesis and insisting that your
> > position is the correct one on that basis alone.
>
>
> Baloney. There is no such claim. Dan Barker has put forward an
> unsupported hypothesis, and it is quite reasonable to ask that it be
> supported.
Ditto
Please quote Mr. Barker's unsupported hypothesis. In its entirety,
please.
> > Tch tch.
>
>
> Ditto.
Actually, that should have been "tsk, tsk". My apologies.
> > One could just as easily say, "What needs to be done is to show
> > that ONLY a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or possible" but
> > that wouldn't get us anywhere, since it does not give us a reason for
> > assuming that. It merely establishes the bias of the respondent.
> > We already know that. No need to repeat it. That is redundancy. It
> > also does not further the debate, but rather stops it dead in its
> > tracks.
> > But, then, I suppose that is the point, isn't it?
>
>
> What ARE you babbling about?
Read it slower this time. It addresses one of the effects of
unsound reasoning in a debate. Although it can be unwittingly done by
those with limited knowledge of logic and rhetoric, more often than
not it is deliberately performed by those who are afraid of the
outcome of the debate.
> > > The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the
> > > firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
> > > this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.
> >
> >
> > -Albert Einstein
> >
> > (as if he is the final authority)
>
>
> It's only a tag line. Don't get your shorts in a knot.
>
>
> Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion.
>
> -- Mark Twain
Man is kind? That's a laugh.
tortrix
> natural order of cause and effect. Maybe "miracle" would be a
> synonym.
The proper term is "anomalous". I have not chosen this word.
One may check out the Journal of Scientific Exploration for it.
This word is optimal, since it suggests the notion that weird,
unusual phenomena manifest themselves under sort of extremes of
physical and or emotional activity. The best analogy is that
time and length dilation does not occur at speeds which are
slow relative to the speed of light. Time dilation has been measured
under the extreme == DIFFICULT == experiment of high-speed aircraft
and space shuttles.
Secondly, I commend everyone here in an atheist forum for discussing
anomalous events. I feel comfortable being among brethren.
First, let me state my biases: I am an atheist, a nihilist (I have
my own meaning, I won't go into here), anti-spiritual person,
yet a believer that many anomalous phenomena are real -- some ufos are
intelligently controlled spacecraft, aliens from other planets or
dimensions
do interact with humans and abduct them, some poltergeist phenomena.
I STRONGLY believe that all this stuff is just super-advanced
technology
(in particular, nanotechnology) in which consciousness has now been
included in the science of physics.
FYI: I call myself "anti-spiritual" to suggest the idea that the
universe
is not trying to teach us anything in life and that morality has
NOTHING
to do with any particular cosmology.
Many great thinkers and many poor thinkers (like myself and Forrest
Gump) alike have not decided the Number One issue: is the universe
pre-
determined or is there free will? (Gump decided at the end there is a
little
of both, but I cannot figure out how they can co-exist.) All people
of
the world ought to put aside their difference and solve THIS problem
FIRST.
However, since I know we all will not, I have to address the other
differences which I know divide us (like belief in alien interaction).
We HAVE to formalize, like logicians have in mathematics, what
constitutes "proof" in the physical world. And then apply that notion
in EVERY aspect of existence. If you do not like the outcome because
it seems absurd,
too bad. Then go back and change your rules for proof -- but
once again you have to apply them to EVERY aspect of existence,
whether it is law and crime or alien interaction.
Just repeating some vague notions of "the scientific method" from
centuries ago is NOT good enough. Those notions form only the
BEGINNING.
You must NOW put those notions -- that one's ideas should be
based upon observation -- into a logical structure.
Oops! Gotta go! Benny Hill is on!
Also -- astrology and psychics who claim to be able to do anything
useful
with their supposed power are complete bunk. (I do not want to debunk
all psychic phenomena at this time.)
Charles & Mambo
> First, let me state my biases: I am an atheist, a nihilist (I have
> my own meaning, I won't go into here), anti-spiritual person,
> yet a believer that many anomalous phenomena are real -- some ufos are
> intelligently controlled spacecraft, aliens from other planets or
> dimensions
> do interact with humans and abduct them, some poltergeist phenomena.
> I STRONGLY believe that all this stuff is just super-advanced
> technology
> (in particular, nanotechnology) in which consciousness has now been
> included in the science of physics.
I'd be interested to know what kind of mental gymnastics do you employ to
differentiate between the wild-ass speculation, testimonials and wishful
thinking of theists and the wild-ass speculation, testimonials and wishful
thinking of the UFO/ghosts/aliens/abductions/anal-probe proponents.
--
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, better than a cup of gold
See, only a Chocolate Jesus can satisfy my soul
When the weather gets rough and its whiskey in the shade
Best to wrap your Savior up in cellophane
He flows like the Big Muddy, but that's okay
Pour him over ice-cream for a nice parfait...
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, make me feel so good inside
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, keep me satisfied
Morbert
> > that many theists make. Atheists and Agnostics do not claim that
> > there is nothing beyond the natural. Instead they realise that
> > anything that can be realised is natural. In otherwords, we can
> > conceive of a God(S) all we want, but it is impossible to actually
> > "realise" their presence (ie. know that they are there) Because of
> > this, arguments for the existence of god are reduced to philosophical,
> > speculation, which, in turn, brings me back to my original question.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I recently came to realize that what we refer
> to as the supernatural is actually properly part of nature in the sense of
> "all that it exists." In other words, God [assuming He exists] would chuckle
> at our considering ourselves to be somehow more "natural" than Him. That
> said, the general use of the term is to describe the spiritual world that is
> outside the material world and/or phenomena that appears to exist outside
> this world.
YEs, the supernatural is often used to describe phenomenon "outside"
our material world. Some, for example, consider the conscious being
to be "supernatural" and the body to be "natural. But the problem
with this definition of the supernatural is that conditions which
define a supernatural phenomenon are virtually impossible to
establish. For example, I said earlier that theist consider life
(More specifically the soul) a supernatural phenomenon. Yet Atheists
claim that the soul is the product of almost incomprehensibly complex
matter (the brain)reacting to stimuli from the "natural" world. So
what exactly constitutes the supernatural?
> You wrote, "Instead they realize that anything that can be realized is
> natural." I would agree with that if we admit that all that is can be
> realized [which includes that which is "beyond the natural"].
Two points here:
1)From what I understand, you are saying it is possible to realise the
existence of GOd. You say that empirical, scientific method is not
suitable for "prooving" gods existence. Instead, you claim that
spiritual criteria is more appropriate. Well then I must ask you what
exactly these spiritual proofs are, and what separates them from
philosophy
> But then you
> state that, "Atheists and Agnostics do not claim that there is nothing
> beyond the natural," which means you allow for the possibility of a world
> that you believe cannot be known.
IT may seem contradictory stating that atheists do not claim that
nothing lies beyond the natural. So let me clarify my position
regarding that statement. From the ATheist point of view, our
evolutionary path has by no means left us with a supreme intelligence,
capable of comprehending all the mechanics of the universe. BEcause
of this, there may be aspects of our world that we simply cannot
understand, the same way a Dog cannot understand calculus. What makes
ATheists different from Agnostics is that Atheists believe God's
origin can be found within the primal instincts ofcoexistence and
altruism. (ie. An authority figure that acts as the glue and guidance
of the human population) Whereas Agnostics believe that the
possibility of an entity responsible for the ENTIRE universe is not
absurd.
> My point is that so long as you are
> certain that you are incapable of becoming aware of this world, then there
> you likely will remain so long as you breathe. I believe that since you are
> allowing for the possibility, you should explore whether you and I are
> indeed capable of discerning the reality of that world, and keep in mind
> that this may involve new methods of proof.
I am an Atheist, but Atheists are some of the most open minded people
there are. WhEn I asked "Why do people believe in god?" It was not a
cynical statement. And If you have "proof" then I will gladly hear
it.
> > I understand what you are saying, but this "Different" criteria, which
> > is appropriate for the natural world, if not natural, then can be only
> > philosophical.
>
> I believe the "different criteria" is that which is appropriate for the
> spiritual, which is arguably part of the natural, as discussed above, and
> therefore cannot be said to be only philosophical. The issue is whether a
> human being can discover this criteria, establish the validity of it, and
> then apply it to the spiritual world.
When you say "discover this criteria", I take it you mean whether a
human can establish definitions which can identify "proof" as
spiritual. If you are aware of such criteria, I am more than happy to
hear them
> > THis boils down to perspectives. And from what I infer, you are
> > saying, that since someone's interpretation of the universe cannot be
> > disporven, then it is true.
>
> No, that isn't what I am saying at all. I hold that it can be proved, but
> that we must use appropriate criteria for this proof. Once doing so, one
> opens a critically important door that can subsequently allow them to begin
> to observe proofs which do indeed fall under the heading of the "natural
> scientific method."
I agree with you here, but I cannot conceive of "appropriate
criteria". But I'll gladly hear such criteria if you have it.
>
> Dan Barker
> http://www.findhim.org
Mike Uncle
> > > So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in GOd?"
> >
> > Simple. Because they want to.
>
> Direct. Correct. Accurate. I like it.
Me too. I also like all the stuff that Dan Barker was saying, it all
really does depend on how you look at it. If you don't think GOd can
exist then you are less likely to find Him. In the end most Christians
will tell you that they know GOd exists because they have met with
Him, ergo it is a personal experience, one that can not be proven by
argument. Indeed the Bible says that that is the point, that man
should beloeve because of personal faith, not because he or she was
'convinced'. What strikes me is the immense amount of people over a
thousands of years that have believed in the Christian God. the longer
a scientific theory lasts the more likely it would seem to be right,
if a religion has lasted for so long it makes me think there must be
something to it.
Morbert
> > anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> > possible.
>
>
> LOL. No, sir. What YOU have just demonstrated is the classic
> example of "begging the question". Your opposite has not made an
> assertion of fact but rather his comment has to do with one's approach
> to the issue, that is, of being objective in one's approach to the
> question. YOU, however, have taken it upon yourself to assert a
> hypothesis (the existence of strictly naturalistic explanations)
> without showing a warrant for your hypothesis and insisting that your
> position is the correct one on that basis alone. Tch tch.
In a courtroom, a person is "innocent until proven guilty" The basic
philosophy behind this is that, until something is reasonably
established to be true, then it bears no validility.
Likewise, until theists can properly establish that there are
"supernatural" phenomenon, then their beliefs must remain
philosophical speculation.
> One could just as easily say, "What needs to be done is to show
> that ONLY a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or possible"
One can envision and postulate countless possibilities (ie. God, Satan
etc.) But in order for these speculations to warrant a higher status
than mere ideas. So your above sentence isn't really logical, which
you seem to realise because you go on to say
Jeff Warrender
I think this is a fair-minded question, but I think it perhaps sets up
a dichotomy that atheists really want to enforce that may not be
appropriate. You're saying "science works well, why replace it?" But
the whole point is that science works well for what it purports to be
able to study, which is primarily recurring processes, but it may not
be equipped to address questions of the reality of "one off"
phenomena. And so for that, we may have to fall back on other
criteria, such as that which we might use to assess the validity of
eyewitness testimony. "Joe said he saw X; ought we to believe him?"
I think what we commonly hear from atheists is a conversation that
goes something like this:
Christian: I think [supernatural phenomenon A] exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Christian: How?
Atheist: With science.
Christian: But science can't really answer that question, because
[phenomenon A] is by definition not a recurring process for which a
good, controlled experiment can be contrived.
Atheist: Let's say I granted that [phenomenon A] even exists. Almost
certainly, a natural explanation is likely to account for it.
Christian: How can you be so sure?
Atheist: Because all of our experience is with the natural. Plus,
we've had great success at producing naturalistic explanations for
other phenomena that were previously thought to be supernatural in
origin; why should we not expect that further insight will give us
similar explanations in this case? Isn't positing the existence of
the supernatural less economical?
etc, etc
I think there are a couple of points that one could object to. First,
I think that what's often overlooked is that many of our natural
"explanations" for phenomena can give us a detailed mathematical
accouting for the *mechanisms* by which natural laws will operate, but
they of course can't actually tell us *why* those laws work the way
they do. For example, if I throw a ball up in the air, I can predict
the rate at which it will accelerate toward the earth, based on its
gravitational attraction, but why is there a gravitational attraction
in the first place? And why is it predictable? All that science can
do is identify and quantify the natural mechanisms at work around us.
To jump to the next level and say *why* they work is not warranted.
Thus, "nature is all there is, based on our experience which is only
with naturalistic causes for events" is a leap of logic. The truth
is, we don't really know the causes of certain events. ("The ball
fell to the ground because of gravity" begs the question, "why is
there gravity?")
How would we identify a supernatural event if it occured? I think
that the idea of the supernatural being something we haven't explained
yet, but eventually will, can be rejected quite easily. Consider
events like the Virgin birth, the resurrection, predictive prophecy.
If these events actually happened, they aren't just "currently
unexplained, but explainable" -- we know enough about the world now,
and people at the times these events are purported to have happened
knew enough then, to know that a dead person doesn't rise from the
grave. There is no natural cause that can explain this event. So I
think that would be a clue that something beyond nature existed. For
if we studied nature and became intimately familiar with all of its
inner workings, then we would be in the best position possible to say
whether an event was or was not naturalistic in origin. We would say
"we've observed every process, and we've never seen something like
this happen".
That we are at that point, or believe ourselves to be, is evidenced by
the grounds on which some discount the miraculous accounts reported by
the Bible. No one ever challenges the resurrection or the Virgin
birth on the grounds that "we just don't understand it yet, but it was
natural"; rather, the argument is always that the event is
ahistorical. A good example is the Book of Daniel, which contains
some detailed predictive prophecies of the empires that would rise and
fall in the Middle East. Many people conclude that Daniel must have
written this book after the events happened, because they recognize
that had the book been written when it was alleged to have been
written, then the abilities possessed by Daniel to foretell the future
accurately are beyond what can be explained by naturalistic causes.
So I think that would be a useful starting point. I don't think we
need to reject science outright as a way of knowing; on the contrary,
it can be a powerful tool, for if we know science very well, it can
authenticate for us the supernatural character of certain events. The
issue then becomes the historicity of such events, and that is a
separate issue, but assuming that could be satisfactorily established,
we could combine our knowledge of science and history to conclude that
a supernatural event happened, and thus the supernatural exists. A
good example is Daniel's book; if we could establish that it was
written before the events it predicts, then this would be powerful
evidence of the existence of the supernatural. (and the number of
dots to connect from there to God is not that large). The problem in
the discourse comes in when skeptics presuppose that the events are
ahistorical on the grounds that they are not naturalistic. Daniel
must be written late, because it would be miraculous otherwise. And
since our experience leans much more heavily toward non-miraculous
events, and non-miraculous explanations as being more likely,
therefore we should reject the early date for Daniel. The only
problem with this view, of course, is that it argues in a circle...
-Jeff
Severian
wrote:
>"Severian" <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message
>news:ofb1nvc5khe7abshv...@4ax.com...
>
>[My words which so impressed you.]
>
>> What a preciously evasive and equivocal response.
>
>If you have the time, I would appreciate your responding in more depth, as I
>would very much like to hear more of your perspectives on what we are
>discussing here. Be assured I will not roundly dismiss your thoughts.
I was responding to this:
>That is the task before us, my friend. I already know that such criteria
>exists, as I use it. But what we need to do is find if there is any bridge
>between us that would allow you to grasp what the criteria is, accept the
>reliability of it, and then apply it. But again, until you first sincerely
>allow for the possibility that God exists, our efforts would be a perfect
>waste of time, since you cannot walk through a door you refuse to open.
Which I would (perhaps unfairly) paraphrase as, "such criteria exist,
but -- nyah nyah nyah -- I won't tell you unless you're willing to
accept my premises and my fallacious arguments."
I'm relatively new to this newsgroup, but even in the few weeks I've
been lurking, I've probably seen every fallacy you're going to
produce.
>> From a quick glance, your site appears to be essentially an appeal to
>> fear. That's pretty sad.
>
>Once again, I would greatly appreciate some substantiation of your
>observation, especially because that was never my intention in creating the
>site, and certainly not something I wish to project.
I only scanned a few of the pages, but the arguments I saw were "you
don't need to be afraid (of death, of loneliness, of self, etc.),
instead you can have God."
You say you want to "discuss" the possibility of some god (and
specifically, your God), but if you're unwilling to admit the
possiblity that your God does not exist, then all you're doing is
proselytizing.
Dan Barker
> >[My words which so impressed you.]
> >
> >> What a preciously evasive and equivocal response.
> >
> >If you have the time, I would appreciate your responding in more depth,
as I
> >would very much like to hear more of your perspectives on what we are
> >discussing here. Be assured I will not roundly dismiss your thoughts.
>
> I was responding to this:
>
> >That is the task before us, my friend. I already know that such criteria
> >exists, as I use it. But what we need to do is find if there is any
bridge
> >between us that would allow you to grasp what the criteria is, accept the
> >reliability of it, and then apply it. But again, until you first
sincerely
> >allow for the possibility that God exists, our efforts would be a perfect
> >waste of time, since you cannot walk through a door you refuse to open.
>
> Which I would (perhaps unfairly) paraphrase as, "such criteria exist,
> but -- nyah nyah nyah -- I won't tell you unless you're willing to
> accept my premises and my fallacious arguments."
See my response to Icarus posted in this thread last night where I attempt
to open up intellectual dialog on the possibility of developing appropriate
criteria.
As to your last comments about my requiring that others "accept my premises
and my fallacious arguments," you are (as you conjectured) reading things
into my words that the words do not support. This is never helpful in mature
debate. If you want to know what I think, ask me, and then respond to what
I've actually said. I will give you the same courtesy.
> I'm relatively new to this newsgroup, but even in the few weeks I've
> been lurking, I've probably seen every fallacy you're going to
> produce.
Assuming that I am going to produce fallacies, and telling me so, is
presumptious and rude, don't you think?
> >> From a quick glance, your site appears to be essentially an appeal to
> >> fear. That's pretty sad.
> >
> >Once again, I would greatly appreciate some substantiation of your
> >observation, especially because that was never my intention in creating
the
> >site, and certainly not something I wish to project.
>
> I only scanned a few of the pages, but the arguments I saw were "you
> don't need to be afraid (of death, of loneliness, of self, etc.),
> instead you can have God."
I fail to see how presenting something as a cure for preexisting fears
constitutes "an appeal to fear." Perhaps you have never suffered from fears
as others have. Show some compassion, friend. It's a big world out there.
Just because a particular answer isn't right for you doesn't mean it isn't
right for anyone.
> You say you want to "discuss" the possibility of some god (and
> specifically, your God), but if you're unwilling to admit the
> possiblity that your God does not exist, then all you're doing is
> proselytizing.
Did I state, or even intimate that I am unwilling to admit the possibility
that God exists? Have you read any of my posts where I said that? No, you
haven't, as I have never said any such thing. And apparently you haven't
read posts such as the response to Morbert last night where I wrote, "In
other words, God [assuming He exists] would chuckle at our considering
ourselves to be somehow more "natural" than Him."
Again, I welcome debate, but I can only spend so much time on those who
dismiss other's opinions without expressing why, who show little or no
respect for other's worldviews, and who are constantly making assumptions as
to what I think without first asking me what I think. So if you're up to it,
step up to the plate and I believe you'll find that we can both learn things
of value from each other, whether we convince each other of anything or not.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
news:d7fe20a0.03092...@posting.google.com...
> > Thanks for the clarification. I recently came to realize that what we
refer
> > to as the supernatural is actually properly part of nature in the sense
of
> > "all that it exists." In other words, God [assuming He exists] would
chuckle
> > at our considering ourselves to be somehow more "natural" than Him. That
> > said, the general use of the term is to describe the spiritual world
that is
> > outside the material world and/or phenomena that appears to exist
outside
> > this world.
>
> YEs, the supernatural is often used to describe phenomenon "outside"
> our material world. Some, for example, consider the conscious being
> to be "supernatural" and the body to be "natural. But the problem
> with this definition of the supernatural is that conditions which
> define a supernatural phenomenon are virtually impossible to
> establish. For example, I said earlier that theist consider life
> (More specifically the soul) a supernatural phenomenon. Yet Atheists
> claim that the soul is the product of almost incomprehensibly complex
> matter (the brain)reacting to stimuli from the "natural" world. So
> what exactly constitutes the supernatural?
I think for this discussion we would be safe to say that "supernatural"
means that which requires special criteria appropriate for the phenomena
being investigated so as to establish validity. In other words, any
phenomena for which the "natural scientific method" may not be appropriate.
> > You wrote, "Instead they realize that anything that can be realized is
> > natural." I would agree with that if we admit that all that is can be
> > realized [which includes that which is "beyond the natural"].
>
> Two points here:
> 1)From what I understand, you are saying it is possible to realise the
> existence of GOd. You say that empirical, scientific method is not
> suitable for "prooving" gods existence. Instead, you claim that
> spiritual criteria is more appropriate. Well then I must ask you what
> exactly these spiritual proofs are, and what separates them from
> philosophy
I would not say that empirical proof of God is unavailable, rather that
finding it is problematic in many cases due to those with
diametrically-opposed views not being able to agree on the mechanics of the
experiments, as well as the validity of the results obtained. Thus it seems
that different criteria must be established, but I would not characterize
this criteria as "spiritual" as such. Please refer to my response to Icarus
in this thread last night where I have attempted to start a dialogue on the
issue of establishing mutually-acceptable criteria (criteria which would be
outside of the realm of mere philosophy).
> > But then you
> > state that, "Atheists and Agnostics do not claim that there is nothing
> > beyond the natural," which means you allow for the possibility of a
world
> > that you believe cannot be known.
>
> IT may seem contradictory stating that atheists do not claim that
> nothing lies beyond the natural. So let me clarify my position
> regarding that statement. From the ATheist point of view, our
> evolutionary path has by no means left us with a supreme intelligence,
> capable of comprehending all the mechanics of the universe. BEcause
> of this, there may be aspects of our world that we simply cannot
> understand, the same way a Dog cannot understand calculus. What makes
> ATheists different from Agnostics is that Atheists believe God's
> origin can be found within the primal instincts ofcoexistence and
> altruism. (ie. An authority figure that acts as the glue and guidance
> of the human population) Whereas Agnostics believe that the
> possibility of an entity responsible for the ENTIRE universe is not
> absurd.
Again, thank you for this clarification as it definitely helps me understand
your position better. It is free of the hubris so often seen on both sides
of these debates which complicates the process of collaboratively arriving
at sound conclusions.
> > My point is that so long as you are
> > certain that you are incapable of becoming aware of this world, then
there
> > you likely will remain so long as you breathe. I believe that since you
are
> > allowing for the possibility, you should explore whether you and I are
> > indeed capable of discerning the reality of that world, and keep in mind
> > that this may involve new methods of proof.
>
> I am an Atheist, but Atheists are some of the most open minded people
> there are. WhEn I asked "Why do people believe in god?" It was not a
> cynical statement. And If you have "proof" then I will gladly hear
> it.
I would surmise that you mean "pure" or "true" or "mature" Atheists are
"some of the most open-minded people there are." I have run into countless
professing Atheists in various newsgroups who are so deeply prejudiced and
close-minded that they are a constant embarrassment to themselves. And for
every one of them there is a professing Christian who is equally prejudiced,
uninformed, close-minded, and generally capable of only making a fool of
himself when faced with serious debate. For the most part I believe these
individuals are the products of the TV/Video-game generation who have never
learned to think.
As to proof, again, see the proposed criteria, as any proof we come up with
must come from working closely together to find it and apply it.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Justin_Martyr2000 poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
> Josef Balluch <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.19da9433b...@206.172.150.13>...
> > In a message sent 'round the world, Justin_Martyr2000 poured fuel on the
> > fire with the following:
...
> > Nope. The statement contains the assumption that something "cannot be
> > proven within the strict constraints of 'natural scientific method.'"
>
>
> No, sir. Allow me to quote Mr. Barker's statement:
>
> "What each of us has to establish in our minds is whether IT IS
> POSSIBLE (emphasis added) that something could be real that cannot be
> proven within the strict constraints of 'natural scientific method'."
>
> The statement contains no assumptions whatsoever.
Then you have a reading comprehension problem. The statement, and Dan's
subsequent "clarification", both contain an unsupported assumption. In
fact, such assumptions appear several times in Dan's posts.
> What it contains
> is a call for a prerequisite attitude of openmindedness towards the
> question at hand. It neither asserts nor denies the answer as it does
> not attempt to provide an answer.
Nonsense. Dan's bias is quite clear, and appears numerous times in his
various posts.
> Your statement, however, contains
> the assumption that only through naturalistic explanations do we know
> anything. That has not been established, ergo: "begging the question".
Baloney. There is no such claim. Asking someone to justify their
assumptions does not, in itself, constitute a claim.
...
> Please quote Mr. Barker's unsupported hypothesis. In its entirety,
> please.
Both you and I quoted the relevant text near the beginning of this post.
...
> > > One could just as easily say, "What needs to be done is to show
> > > that ONLY a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or possible" but
> > > that wouldn't get us anywhere, since it does not give us a reason for
> > > assuming that. It merely establishes the bias of the respondent.
> > > We already know that. No need to repeat it. That is redundancy. It
> > > also does not further the debate, but rather stops it dead in its
> > > tracks.
> > > But, then, I suppose that is the point, isn't it?
> >
> >
> > What ARE you babbling about?
>
>
> Read it slower this time. It addresses one of the effects of
> unsound reasoning in a debate. Although it can be unwittingly done by
> those with limited knowledge of logic and rhetoric, more often than
> not it is deliberately performed by those who are afraid of the
> outcome of the debate.
I have not attempted to "stop debate in its tracks", so you are
babbling.
...
Regards,
Josef
> > Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion.
> >
> > -- Mark Twain
>
>
> Man is kind? That's a laugh.
>
People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a
confession of character.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Dan Barker
> > > Nope. The statement contains the assumption that something "cannot be
> > > proven within the strict constraints of 'natural scientific method.'"
> >
> >
> > No, sir. Allow me to quote Mr. Barker's statement:
> >
> > "What each of us has to establish in our minds is whether IT IS
> > POSSIBLE (emphasis added) that something could be real that cannot be
> > proven within the strict constraints of 'natural scientific method'."
> >
> > The statement contains no assumptions whatsoever.
>
>
> Then you have a reading comprehension problem. The statement, and Dan's
> subsequent "clarification", both contain an unsupported assumption. In
> fact, such assumptions appear several times in Dan's posts.
Josef, get some second opinions on this. Call a local professor of English.
You will discover that the statement does not, as others have informed you,
contain any assumptions. Here is the same statement rewritten to include a
bald-faced assumption: "It is obvious that something could be real that
cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural scientific
method." Do you see the difference?
Look, we're just trying to open up intelligent debate here, not throw stones
at one another, O.K?
> > What it contains
> > is a call for a prerequisite attitude of openmindedness towards the
> > question at hand. It neither asserts nor denies the answer as it does
> > not attempt to provide an answer.
>
> Nonsense. Dan's bias is quite clear, and appears numerous times in his
> various posts.
Sigh. Josef, you have your positions, I have mine. Do you think your "bias"
is not also quite clear? Is this wrong? No, it's not, unless this bias
causes us to close our minds and thus fail to learn from one another by
stifling useful and interesting debate.
> I have not attempted to "stop debate in its tracks", so you are
> babbling.
More than one of us wonders if that isn't exactly what you are doing, so why
don't you prove us wrong and join us in seeing what we can come up with
here?
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
"Jeff Warrender" <jwar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cb609cb8.03092...@posting.google.com...
Thanks much for taking the time to write such an interesting and
thought-provoking post, Jeff. You reveal a great deal of sagacity here. I
enjoyed reading and pondering your thoughts very much.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Still
Nicely done. You are the type of person that makes this group a
useful forum for discussion.
Dan
Dan Still
> In a courtroom, a person is "innocent until proven guilty" The basic
> philosophy behind this is that, until something is reasonably
> established to be true, then it bears no validility.
>
> Likewise, until theists can properly establish that there are
> "supernatural" phenomenon, then their beliefs must remain
> philosophical speculation.
Scientism is the worldview that only the physical, natural,
material/energy cosmos exist. Nothing else exists. Why is THAT the
defaul position???
Just because you or most people or all smart people or Albert Einstein
or whomever hold that worldview does not give it default status.
There are many, many contradictory worldviews that one could say are
"innocent until proven guilty" with this logic. Scientism is one. So
is Buddhism, Wiccan, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, nihilism, secular
humanism, etc.
The point is that there are many, many ways to interpret reality. No
particular view has more weight BEFORE THE DISCUSSION than any other.
To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
astray by something else. We were all raised from different
perspectives who now hold our own worldviews based on what we think to
be the best interpretation of reality.
"Innocent until proven guilty" just doesn't work here.
Dan
Jeff Warrender
> been lurking, I've probably seen every fallacy you're going to
> produce.
Does that include the "poisoning the well" fallacy?
(kidding)
-Jeff
Severian
wrote:
I already called first dibs on that one.
Severian
wrote:
>"Severian" <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message
Sorry, I should not have been rude, and I probably should not have
gotten involved in this conversation because I have very little free
time to pursue it.
But there are other branches to this thread here, and I've already
seen, for example:
>Where else you can possibly expect to find evidence of these effects
>except in those who have experienced them?
[...]
>Once the hopefully pure data is collected, then the arduous process
>of looking for possible primary causes other than God must begin."
You're presupposing God and seem to be saying, "if we can't figure out
some other cause, then God did it."
>> >> From a quick glance, your site appears to be essentially an appeal to
>> >> fear. That's pretty sad.
>> >
>> >Once again, I would greatly appreciate some substantiation of your
>> >observation, especially because that was never my intention in creating
>the
>> >site, and certainly not something I wish to project.
>>
>> I only scanned a few of the pages, but the arguments I saw were "you
>> don't need to be afraid (of death, of loneliness, of self, etc.),
>> instead you can have God."
>
>I fail to see how presenting something as a cure for preexisting fears
>constitutes "an appeal to fear." Perhaps you have never suffered from fears
>as others have. Show some compassion, friend. It's a big world out there.
>Just because a particular answer isn't right for you doesn't mean it isn't
>right for anyone.
Of course I have experienced fear, including fear of death. And I am
not attempting to dissuade anyone from their beliefs.
>> You say you want to "discuss" the possibility of some god (and
>> specifically, your God), but if you're unwilling to admit the
>> possiblity that your God does not exist, then all you're doing is
>> proselytizing.
>
>Did I state, or even intimate that I am unwilling to admit the possibility
>that God exists? Have you read any of my posts where I said that? No, you
>haven't, as I have never said any such thing. And apparently you haven't
>read posts such as the response to Morbert last night where I wrote, "In
>other words, God [assuming He exists] would chuckle at our considering
>ourselves to be somehow more "natural" than Him."
But you do assume that God exists; you've implied that any personal
experiences not explainable by other means must be attributed to God.
>Again, I welcome debate, but I can only spend so much time on those who
>dismiss other's opinions without expressing why, who show little or no
>respect for other's worldviews, and who are constantly making assumptions as
>to what I think without first asking me what I think. So if you're up to it,
>step up to the plate and I believe you'll find that we can both learn things
>of value from each other, whether we convince each other of anything or not.
You're right, as I really don't have the time or energy for this kind
of debate. I should have kept my mouth shut.
I'll leave this thread with a misquote of a Walker Percy quiz question
from his book "Lost in the Cosmos:"
Why do people believe in God?
a) Upbringing and indoctrination.
b) Peer pressure.
c) Fear of death and the unknown.
d) Because the world is a crazy, fucked up place, and
faith in God makes them feel better.
(Not intended as any sort of argument or disproof, merely as food for
thought. His original question was about using drugs.)
Kind regards,
Severian
Dan Barker
[...]
> But there are other branches to this thread here, and I've already
> seen, for example:
>
> >Where else you can possibly expect to find evidence of these effects
> >except in those who have experienced them?
> [...]
> >Once the hopefully pure data is collected, then the arduous process
> >of looking for possible primary causes other than God must begin."
>
> You're presupposing God and seem to be saying, "if we can't figure out
> some other cause, then God did it."
If you refer to the original post in this thread you will see that it was
asking why those who believed in God did so, after having brought up that
His existence "cannot be proven/disproven using natural scientific method."
I came to the discussion as a theist, and in the thread you quoted I am
responding to a request for what criteria I think should be used to attempt
to prove the existence of God. Given this context, I don't think it's fair
to say I was inappropriately presupposing anything, nor did I say that
anything that happens in the context of the supernatural must have been an
act of God [although I am glad you mentioned that as I need to later add
that other supernatural causes, such as satanic activity, would also have to
be considered as primary causes... Thanks].
[...]
> >Did I state, or even intimate that I am unwilling to admit the
possibility
> >that God exists? Have you read any of my posts where I said that? No, you
> >haven't, as I have never said any such thing. And apparently you haven't
> >read posts such as the response to Morbert last night where I wrote, "In
> >other words, God [assuming He exists] would chuckle at our considering
> >ourselves to be somehow more "natural" than Him."
>
> But you do assume that God exists; you've implied that any personal
> experiences not explainable by other means must be attributed to God.
Of course I do. I'm a Christian. I don't just assume He exists, I am
convinced He exists. But I am open-minded enough when entering into debates,
such as the one in this thread, to allow for the possibility that I am
wholly mistaken. And again, I do not hold that, "any personal experiences
not explainable by other means must be attributed to God."
Sorry your schedule won't allow you to participate further... perhaps we'll
meet again in another debate later. Take care.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
tortrix
> differentiate between the wild-ass speculation, testimonials and wishful
> thinking of theists and the wild-ass speculation, testimonials and wishful
> thinking of the UFO/ghosts/aliens/abductions/anal-probe proponents.
Name ONE well-documented anal-probe incident. Just one.
I would like to know where you come up with that.
First, try documents from the US government, uncovered by researchers
like Stanton Friedman by the Freedom of Information Act;
videotapes; chemical analyses of alleged landing sites of UFOs;
videotaped evidence from space shuttles.
On top of that NASA and other government agencies make every effort
to hinder any inquiries into the subject. Why did Presidents Clinton
and Bush refuse to let the tax-paying public see what is inside
Area 51, for instance? If they are doing nothing wrong in Area 51,
then there is no reason we should not be allowed to see what goes
on in there.
In contrast, name anyone who is trying to stop religious nuts from
proving Jesus rose from the dead, or investigate the Shroud of Turin,
etc. We do not have videotaped or modern medical
evidence of Jesus being born to a virgin.
I gave up a copy of about 200 pages of nothing but government
documents on UFO phenomena from the CSETI organization,
because I thought I would never have to answer detailed questions
about it. I am thinking of asking for it back, now that I am on
these newsgroups again.
On top of that, why do atheists ridicule people for believing in ufos
and et abductions but they do not ridicule religious people for believing
in god? I am not talking about atheists ridiculing religious fanatics
-- in other words, anti-atheists -- who DESERVE to be ridiculed and
even punished for forcing religion into the state. I mean that atheists
are not "anti-religion". Yet, inconsistently, they are "anti-ufo"
and "anti-ET", denying such people the right to work at the same jobs
as anyone else.
The answer: because it is easy for atheists like you to do so,
because organized religion -- mainly Christianity and Islam --- are
big and powerful with lots of money and lots of members.
In contrast, ufo-et experiencers are usually poor and few in number
and on top of that have to deal with terrifying
anomalous experiences which are FORCED upon them, often repeatedly.
They do not just mindlessly repeat the same book every week for the
rest of their lives in church. They may certainly repeat their own
directly-observed experiences, but people MUCH more justified in doing
THAT than religious nuts are in repeating the Bible or Koran.
Charles & Mambo
>>In a courtroom, a person is "innocent until proven guilty" The basic
>>philosophy behind this is that, until something is reasonably
>>established to be true, then it bears no validility.
>>
>>Likewise, until theists can properly establish that there are
>>"supernatural" phenomenon, then their beliefs must remain
>>philosophical speculation.
>
>
> Scientism is the worldview that only the physical, natural,
> material/energy cosmos exist. Nothing else exists. Why is THAT the
> defaul position???
Because science has consistently been able to explain readily observable
natural phenomena, while all that supernaturalists have to offer is
paranormal mumbo-jumbo, worthless testimonials, wishful thinking and lies.
> Just because you or most people or all smart people or Albert Einstein
> or whomever hold that worldview does not give it default status.
No, the default status comes from the fact that the supernaturalists make
outrageous claims that they are unable to support in any acceptable way.
> There are many, many contradictory worldviews that one could say are
> "innocent until proven guilty" with this logic. Scientism is one. So
> is Buddhism, Wiccan, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, nihilism, secular
> humanism, etc.
Yeah, right. Let's apply your twisted logic to a real life example, shall
we? Let's say that I claim that you're a child rapist, another person claims
that you're a baby murderer and yet another that you owe him a million
dollars. Needless to say, you claim none of this is true. According to you,
all these contradictory "worldviews" are equally valid.
> The point is that there are many, many ways to interpret reality. No
> particular view has more weight BEFORE THE DISCUSSION than any other.
No particular view has more weight before it can produce evidence. Your
superstitions have failed to do so for thousands of years now. Wake the hell up.
> To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
> astray by something else.
Really? You actually know someone who prayed to Jesus before he could say
"Dada"?
> We were all raised from different
> perspectives who now hold our own worldviews based on what we think to
> be the best interpretation of reality.
Stating with a straight face that you believe in ghosts falls short of the
interpretation of reality. It is escapism from reality.
> "Innocent until proven guilty" just doesn't work here.
OK, then you are a child rapist.
Charles & Mambo
>>I'd be interested to know what kind of mental gymnastics do you employ to
>>differentiate between the wild-ass speculation, testimonials and wishful
>>thinking of theists and the wild-ass speculation, testimonials and wishful
>>thinking of the UFO/ghosts/aliens/abductions/anal-probe proponents.
>
>
> Name ONE well-documented anal-probe incident. Just one.
> I would like to know where you come up with that.
What the fuck? Are you serious? You're the one claiming abductions, not me.
Other people claiming abductions say they were probed anally, not me.
> First, try documents from the US government, uncovered by researchers
> like Stanton Friedman by the Freedom of Information Act;
> videotapes; chemical analyses of alleged landing sites of UFOs;
> videotaped evidence from space shuttles.
I'm not "trying" shit. All the "evidence" you kooks claim has been
inconclusive at best, and fabrication at worst. Video-taped evidence from
space shuttles? Are you for real? How's this any different from the shroud
of Turin?
> On top of that NASA and other government agencies make every effort
> to hinder any inquiries into the subject. Why did Presidents Clinton
> and Bush refuse to let the tax-paying public see what is inside
> Area 51, for instance? If they are doing nothing wrong in Area 51,
> then there is no reason we should not be allowed to see what goes
> on in there.
I don't know... they are in on the massive interplanetary conspiracy
involving an alien race invading Earth and sucking our brains through a straw?
> In contrast, name anyone who is trying to stop religious nuts from
> proving Jesus rose from the dead, or investigate the Shroud of Turin,
> etc. We do not have videotaped or modern medical
> evidence of Jesus being born to a virgin.
This is a riot! I gotta hand it to you - your mental gymnastics is impressive.
> I gave up a copy of about 200 pages of nothing but government
> documents on UFO phenomena from the CSETI organization,
> because I thought I would never have to answer detailed questions
> about it. I am thinking of asking for it back, now that I am on
> these newsgroups again.
And the reason for this massive cover-up is...?
And the reason for the aliens' abductions of people is...?
And the reason they're playing interplanetary hide-and-seek is...?
And the reason you still believe after knowing that over 90% of the
so-called evidence has been fabricated/misinterpreted is...?
Has it ever occurred to you that all this shit is just a modern version of
gods, ghosts and goblins?
> On top of that, why do atheists ridicule people for believing in ufos
> and et abductions but they do not ridicule religious people for believing
> in god?
Who says they don't? I, for one, am not making a single distinction between
religious and UFO kooks.
> I am not talking about atheists ridiculing religious fanatics
> -- in other words, anti-atheists -- who DESERVE to be ridiculed and
> even punished for forcing religion into the state. I mean that atheists
> are not "anti-religion". Yet, inconsistently, they are "anti-ufo"
> and "anti-ET", denying such people the right to work at the same jobs
> as anyone else.
cough...strawmen...cough...
> The answer: because it is easy for atheists like you to do so,
> because organized religion -- mainly Christianity and Islam --- are
> big and powerful with lots of money and lots of members.
And... I'm being secretly paid off by the Vatican and Mecca in order to keep
my mouth shut or something?
> In contrast, ufo-et experiencers are usually poor
Make that insane, psychotic, alcoholic and highly suggestive.
> and few in number
> and on top of that have to deal with terrifying
> anomalous experiences which are FORCED upon them, often repeatedly.
> They do not just mindlessly repeat the same book every week for the
> rest of their lives in church. They may certainly repeat their own
> directly-observed experiences, but people MUCH more justified in doing
> THAT than religious nuts are in repeating the Bible or Koran.
Geez, I was right. You are a champion mental gymnast. Ground control to
Major Tom, your circuit's dead, there's something wrong.
Christopher A. Lee
>Morbert wrote...
>
>> In a courtroom, a person is "innocent until proven guilty" The basic
>> philosophy behind this is that, until something is reasonably
>> established to be true, then it bears no validility.
>>
>> Likewise, until theists can properly establish that there are
>> "supernatural" phenomenon, then their beliefs must remain
>> philosophical speculation.
>
>Scientism is the worldview that only the physical, natural,
>material/energy cosmos exist. Nothing else exists. Why is THAT the
>defaul position???
"Scientism" is of course a straw man invented by theists in a
trasparent attempt to make the investigation and understanding of how
reality works, an -ism that they can pretend is in competition with
theisw own ism.
>Just because you or most people or all smart people or Albert Einstein
>or whomever hold that worldview does not give it default status.
Good thing nobody ever said it did, then.
>There are many, many contradictory worldviews that one could say are
>"innocent until proven guilty" with this logic. Scientism is one. So
There is no such hing as "scientism" outside the paranoid fantases of
certain religious extremists.
>is Buddhism, Wiccan, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, nihilism, secular
>humanism, etc.
Reality is the default. Science (not scientism which is a paranoid
fantasy) is the method that investigates reality.
>The point is that there are many, many ways to interpret reality. No
>particular view has more weight BEFORE THE DISCUSSION than any other.
The one that is demonstrated to work in reality is the one that
carries any weight at all.
>To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
>astray by something else.
Yes, we were.
And atheist does not equal scientist or vice versa.
Children don't believe in any god or gods until, they are taught to
by those around them. They are _trivially_ atheist. And those who
weren't taught to be theist remain atehist.
> We were all raised from different
>perspectives who now hold our own worldviews based on what we think to
>be the best interpretation of reality.
No. You were taught to be theist. Unfortunately you derive your
wordview from your being theist.
Atheism/atheist is _not_ a worldview. It is arrogant to imagine that
everybody else has a worldview and that it is derived from the
presence or absence of your particular religious beliefs, which are
actually irrelevant outside yor religion.
Being atheist, is in fact a minor part ot the atheists' life.
Unfortunately theists who imagine their theism applies to everybody,
aren't.
Justin_Martyr2000
> Then you have a reading comprehension problem. The statement, and Dan's
> subsequent "clarification", both contain an unsupported assumption. In
> fact, such assumptions appear several times in Dan's posts.
>
>
>
>
> > What it contains
> > is a call for a prerequisite attitude of openmindedness towards the
> > question at hand. It neither asserts nor denies the answer as it does
> > not attempt to provide an answer.
>
>
> Nonsense. Dan's bias is quite clear, and appears numerous times in his
> various posts.
Josef, my friend, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and
assume that you are genuine in your responses and not merely hostile.
It seems that we are in danger of descending into a miasma of
conflicting and confusing ideas which serve merely to lead us away
from the point at hand. So, rather than continue in this vein to no
good end, it seems right to me to address this particular point since,
in my opinion, it may hold the key to why you are having such a
difficult time understanding what is being proposed here.
Understand that a bias is not an argument. That is, although you
may understand which side of a particular argument your opposite may
reside, that does not constitute a claim or a hypothesis or a
proposition and therefore is not subject to refutation or rebuttal in
the course of the debate.
It is only when the bias is expressed in the form of a statement
that it may validly be called into question and subsequently proven or
disproven on the basis of the evidence presented for the statement.
Mr. Barker may indeed have a "bias". It seems only natural to
assume that he does, given that he has taken it upon himself to engage
in debate on a particular issue. Without a bias, there would be no
debate. Similarly, it is also apparent that you also have your bias
and that is to be expected and welcomed. But neither your bias nor his
is the issue at hand, nor should they have been addressed as they are
not relevant to the points made so far.
Hope that helps.
"Time's fun when you're having flies"
-- Kermit the frog
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19dab42d6...@206.172.150.13...
> > > That another explanation may be necessary if
> > > we are to prove the existence of God should be self-evident, ...
> >
> > Self evident to whom? There are plenty of theists who post in these
> > newsgroups who think they can establish the existence of some deity or
> > another within the current paradigm. Can something be "self evident" to
> > only certain people?
>
> You will note that I wrote, "may be necessary." I say this because I
> recognize that what is sufficient proof for one using currently established
> methods may not be a proof for another since the perspectives of both
> parties are diametrically opposed to one another, and/or only one party is
> dealing with firsthand knowledge of the event in question. What I am
> attempting to discover is whether there is any possibility of establishing
> mutually-acceptable criteria for these proofs. So, I said "self-evident"
> because it seems clear that this mutual ground has not yet been found.
Dan, that's all very nice and you have made this point several times.
Can we lay it to rest and put it behind us?
As to my question whether something can be self evident to only some
people ....., I take it that was a Yes.
> > > ... especially to
> > > those who hold that such existence cannot be proven by the natural
> > > scientific method. That such explanations are possible is something that
> you
> > > have to first decide for yourself.
> >
> > Your explanation contains the assumption that a deity exists, which has
> > yet to be demonstrated, and thus is also a case of Begging the Question.
>
> Sigh. We are talking about whether such explanations, or proofs of a
> hypothetical deity are possible, not about the results of these proofs.
And yet you repeatedly assume your conclusion with regards to the
existence of a supernatural and your deity.
> If
> we had already demonstrated that a deity exists, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion in the first place. One step at a time...
So let's take it one step at a time.
It is correct that we would not have this discussion if you had already
demonstrated your deity.
As I have pointed out, you have not yet demonstrated your deity.
Your statements often contain the assumption that your deity, or a
supernatural, exists.
If it is your intention to demonstrate the existence of your deity then
start from square one, and not from the assumption that your deity can
be seen with a change in POV.
Hokay?
> > > > > If someone has decided that this is impossible, then
> > > > > that individual can rest assured that so long as they hold that
> opinion,
> > > > > they are not likely to receive proof of the supernatural world's
> > > > > existence during their lifetime.
> > > >
> > > > Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
> > > > phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
> > >
> > > No reason to suppose this? It seems to me that there is abundant
> evidence
> > > that would lead the inquiring mind to the supposition that some may
> indeed
> > > observe phenomena that others are wholly unaware of. Why? Because
> equally
> > > sentient, sane, and intelligent people sit on both sides of this divide.
> >
> > I do not think there is any dispute that some "see" or "hear" things
> > that others do not. It is the interpretation that is in dispute. The
> > point is, if these phenomena are part of the outside world then why
> > should only believers experience them? And why should such phenomena be
> > assumed to be "non-natural"?
>
> The very nature of the phenomena in virtually all cases is that they are
> only experienced by those who have entered a door that others have not
> entered.
That should be an important clue to you.
How can some parts of reality be dependent on one's beliefs?
> Here's an analogy: You and I are both part of the "outside world,"
> but at this moment we are each experiencing very different things. You can't
> experience precisely what I am experiencing because you are not part of this
> household, but that doesn't mean that you could say that my experience here
> isn't valid because you are not able to experience it. If I tell you about
> something I experienced here, and if you believe I am a credible source,
> then you would believe it even though you not only didn't experience it, but
> could not possibly ever experience it.
I'm not sure of the purpose of this dissertation, since this point is
not in dispute. I don't doubt that your experiences are different from
mine. I don't doubt that I cannot re-create your experiences. I want you
to explain HOW your beliefs can influence the reality you experience.
> The phenomena isn't always "non-natural," by any means, but the problem is
> that some refuse to believe that what happened to another person actually
> happened if the particular occurrence demanded, for example, a miracle.
> However, countless unbelievers, especially in the medical field, can indeed
> testify to having witnessed what they themselves referred to as miracles in
> the lives of their patients in the "natural" world.
Dan, it should not be too difficult to see that words like "god" and
"miracle" are simply euphemisms that are used in such situations to mean
"We don't know why". Any inference beyond that is pure speculation.
> > > The
> > > issue is whether what one sees and another denies is indeed provable
> using
> > > the appropriate criteria.
> >
> > Nope. As pointed out above, the issue is the interpretation.
>
> Sorry, but if mutually-accepted criteria is developed and applied then the
> interpretations should be identical.
The point is, they are NOT identical. Until such time, the issue remains
the interpretation.
What you are trying to do is skip over the problems in the fond hope
that they will be magically dissolved by your "mutually accepted
criteria".
> You seem to still be working outside of
> what I am proposing, which I admit has proved largely unworkable for
> numerous reasons.
It is good that you recognize this.
We are making progress.
> > > > And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
> > > > term.
> > >
> > > Tell me first if you categorically reject the reality of the
> supernatural
> > > [in its accepted meaning]. If this is the case, then nothing I write
> here is
> > > going to mean a thing to you, right?
> >
> >
> > No, I am not categorically rejecting it.
>
> You wrote to Dan Still above, "I simply feel that the word cannot be shown
> to be meaningful." O.K., it's late and I'm very fatigued, but that seems
> awfully close to a categorical rejection to me.
It is entirely possible to hold a POV and still maintain an open mind.
Do you agree?
You have made your own bias quite clear with regards to the question
under discussion. Would I be justified in assuming that you have a
closed mind?
> > > > Please describe these "different although equally sound criteria".
> > >
> > > That is the task before us, my friend. I already know that such criteria
> > > exists, as I use it. But what we need to do is find if there is any
> bridge
> > > between us that would allow you to grasp what the criteria is, accept
> the
> > > reliability of it, and then apply it. But again, until you first
> sincerely
> > > allow for the possibility that God exists, ...
> >
> >
> > You will first have to define your deity.
>
> See my response to Icarus earlier this evening and see if that lays the
> groundwork for us to further consider this subject.
Well, it says you are arguing for the Christian god. From my observation
there are almost as many definitions of the Christian god as there are
Christians.
Beyond that it says your deity cannot be tested, but can be deduced from
observable effects.
> > > ... our efforts would be a perfect
> > > waste of time, since you cannot walk through a door you refuse to open.
> >
> > Can you establish that the door exists?
>
> We'll see. Again, see the above cited response.
As noted there is not too much to work with, but I HAVE commited myself
to keep an open mind. Also, I would like to see what sort of argument
you come up with. Will you object to my giving critiques of your
argument?
Regards,
Josef
What is not in nature can never be true.
-- Voltaire
tortrix
> What the fuck? Are you serious? You're the one claiming abductions, not me.
> Other people claiming abductions say they were probed anally, not me.
Yes. I am claiming abductions - NOT ANAL PROBES! That is YOUR
invention!
> I'm not "trying" shit. All the "evidence" you kooks claim has been
> inconclusive at best, and fabrication at worst.
YOU are a FUCK-ASS DUMB-SHIT debunker. Assfucks like you
give all atheists a bad name. Some atheists gather here to
discuss unusual things they cannot explain. However,
if you notice this thread: YOU started with the insults (kooks),
and YOU started with the BRAINLESS DEBUNKING.
How the fuck do you "know" it is shit UNLESS YOU HAVE READ IT?????
I just got off a ufo-abduction website, and it WAS discouraging to see
all the uncritical-thinking CRAP that IS there. But guess what ---
I READ it first! And, even though there ARE plenty of people who
are idiotic enough to believe they know aliens' intentions and
motives,
I can still pull out the kernels of truth in it. The same person can
say a lot of made-up things about aliens,
because it IS an unknown mysterious field,
yet still do serious research in it.
For that matter, the same person who believes in a lot of religious
crap and ridicules evolution CAN do serious scientific research in
fields closely related to biology. I told you: I had a Mormon boss
who dismissed evolution. Yet, he did important industrial work in
chemical corrosion. It is quite possible for some religious person
to produce valid scientific research in SOME SMALL NICHE of biology
-- say, discovering a new species of bird. No doubt, there are a LOT
of idiotic contradictions which must go on in their head between the
work they do and their denials of evolution.
However, that does not mean that the human mind cannot do both
at the same time. As long as they do not insert their hatred of
Karl Marx, communism, or Darwin into every other line of
their serious research, it will and should be taken seriously.
The ability of the human mind to compartmentalize the world is
amazing.
>Video-taped evidence from
> space shuttles? Are you for real? How's this any different from the shroud
> of Turin?
Do you have a videotape of Jesus making imprints in the Shroud of
Turin?
There IS, however, videotape evidence from the space shuttle of
objects flying around in controlled manner, making right-angle turns,
that look nothing like space debris or meteors.
> I don't know... they are in on the massive interplanetary conspiracy
> involving an alien race invading Earth and sucking our brains through a straw?
Sounds like YOU are the kook. *I* did not say that. And, even if
a million ufo believers said it, it is still false.
Therefore, the question of why presidents lie and do not reveal
the truth about where our money goes into secret government projects
has NOT been answered.
> > In contrast, name anyone who is trying to stop religious nuts from
> > proving Jesus rose from the dead, or investigate the Shroud of Turin,
> > etc. We do not have videotaped or modern medical
> > evidence of Jesus being born to a virgin.
>
> This is a riot! I gotta hand it to you - your mental gymnastics is impressive.
Yes, it is. Better than yours.
> And the reason for this massive cover-up is...?
Nobody knows. Speculation about government motive is 100% irrelevant.
That does not change the fact that they do it.
And, I never said "massive". I never said it is a coordinated
cover-up. It can be just various compartments within government
agencies.
Do you know how little professors in PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES actually
know about what professors in another academic departments right down
the hall from them do?
> And the reason for the aliens' abductions of people is...?
Nobody knows. Speculation about alien motive is 100% irrelevant.
That does not disprove that they happen.
> And the reason they're playing interplanetary hide-and-seek is...?
Nobody knows. Speculation about alien motive is 100% irrelevant.
That does not disprove that they happen.
> And the reason you still believe after knowing that over 90% of the
> so-called evidence has been fabricated/misinterpreted is...?
That still leaves 10% unexplained. If you are going to lie and make
up a number, you should have said 100% to make you case.
> Has it ever occurred to you that all this shit is just a modern version of
> gods, ghosts and goblins?
Yes -- many have seen the parallels.
Many have also seen the parallels between feminism and animal rights,
between parallels among the struggles of
workers of the world and advocated communism.
There is truth in all these parallels. That does NOT mean there are
plenty of other factors which make different events in different
parts of the world and at different times different,
requiring different types of action.
I cannot believe I have to say all this. I feel like I am talking
to a high school student who just jumps on some word and paragraphs
and blows them WAY out of context and is suddenly ramming full-speed
to some pre-ordained conclusion.
> Who says they don't? I, for one, am not making a single distinction between
> religious and UFO kooks.
That is because you do not have a critical THINKING brain cell in your
head.
And that does NOT help the cause of atheism.
For that matter, I suppose you do not make any distinction between
different religions, say, between
crap that says Jesus rose from the dead and
crap that says Mohammed had a vision in 650 A.D. (or about)?
They are both crap. However, THEY ARE STILL DISTINCT EVENTS!
Here is ANOTHER distinction I do not believe you can make:
an alien/angel/god telling someone TO DO something,
from just having the experience itself.
The stuff they are told IN the experience is undoubtedly crap.
However, the experience itself can be real.
> And... I'm being secretly paid off by the Vatican and Mecca in order to keep
> my mouth shut or something?
No, just that you are a bully who finds it easier to pick on ufo-et
researchers and experiencers and believers because they make easier
targets because they are powerless.
> Make that insane, psychotic, alcoholic and highly suggestive.
Name one who is alcoholic. And there is no such thing as "mental
sickness". That is just a term a lot of talk-show, pop-psychologist,
Dr. Phil
types use to make a lot of money on tv.
There ARE a LOT of IDIOTS in the ufo field. Absolutely.
And, they are idiots about the subject of ufos and aliens, making
up all kinds of crap. But, so are 90% of calculus students:
they write TONS of shit on exams, but you STILL have to grade the
10% that is right.
You are just as bad as the religious nuts who mistreat atheists.
tortrix
For those of you having trouble separating out truth from nonsense,
here is a distinction which can help you.
In religion,
BILLIONS of people simply REPEAT BACK what a FEW (tens?) of people
directly observed (or claimed to)
about Jesus rising from the dead, Noah and the fllod,
Mormon Joseph Smith having a great vision, etc.
In ufology,
it is MANY INDEPENDENT people directly observing an usual experience
(ufo, losses of memory of time). Certainly, a few million on the
internet may report these MANY -- not just one -- observed
events. These events ARE NOT IDENTICAL. Some occur in many different
ways. But there are common threads in them. The probability of
EVERYONE lying is vanishingly small.
In religion,
there is a MOTIVE to believing Islam (virgins waiting for the males
after death) and Christianity (heaven), which the human CREATORS of
these religions DELIBERATELY wrote into the tenets of the religion
so as to attract a following.
In ufology,
there is NO advantage in believing that your bloody nose you woke
up with in the morning is real, or that objects have flown around
the room and been broken.
Here is similarities:
in religion and ufology, there are those who feel they have everything
figured out.
Here is a difference:
in religions, there is MUCH more uniformity in what everyone believes,
since they are simply following a written religious script.
In ufology, you cannot get two people to agree on motives and explanations
of ANYthing! They even deny the direct experiences of each other!
Thus, ufology always has the disadvantage of being INCREDIBLY complex,
which debunkers LOVE to take advantage of! But, complex and messy
and having idiotic theories in the field STILL does not make
government documents, videotaped evidence, photographs, and chemical
analyses false.
Charles & Mambo
>>What the fuck? Are you serious? You're the one claiming abductions, not me.
>>Other people claiming abductions say they were probed anally, not me.
>
> Yes. I am claiming abductions - NOT ANAL PROBES! That is YOUR
> invention!
Anal probes are hardly my invention. If you've read any abductees'
testimonials, like you claim you did, you'd notice that very often they
include claims of being subjected to all sorts of medical examinations, some
of which are sexual (which is hardly surprising, considering the mental
state of the deluded and usually sexually repressed).
>>I'm not "trying" shit. All the "evidence" you kooks claim has been
>>inconclusive at best, and fabrication at worst.
>
> YOU are a FUCK-ASS DUMB-SHIT debunker. Assfucks like you
> give all atheists a bad name.
Is that so? Well, we can put your hypothesis to a test. I hereby call on any
atheist reading this particular thread on talk.atheism to cast his vote on
whether it is you or I "giving all atheists a bad name".
> Some atheists gather here to
> discuss unusual things they cannot explain.
If that is the case, I must admit that I haven't noticed. Please quote a
post on talk.ath in the last 3-4 months that "discusses unusual things they
cannot explain".
> How the fuck do you "know" it is shit UNLESS YOU HAVE READ IT?????
Who says I haven't?
> I just got off a ufo-abduction website, and it WAS discouraging to see
> all the uncritical-thinking CRAP that IS there. But guess what ---
> I READ it first! And, even though there ARE plenty of people who
> are idiotic enough to believe they know aliens' intentions and
> motives, I can still pull out the kernels of truth in it.
Good for you. I read it first, too, but unlike you, I am unable to pull out
any kernels at all. Well, I guess that makes me close-minded, because I
probably have to believe in UFOs first before I can accept that it's true
[snicker].
> The same person can
> say a lot of made-up things about aliens,
> because it IS an unknown mysterious field,
> yet still do serious research in it.
There is nothing unknown and mysterious about this so-called phenomenon,
unless you are prepared to accept as genuine millions of cases of fraud,
fabrication, lies, delusion, mental illness, photographic illusion and
artifacts, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, conspiracy theories, and
similar bullshit.
All these years, all this hype, all the smoke and mirrors and all you
UFO-logists have to offer is the same old tired shit about the Area 51 and
the huge conspiracy on which NASA, CIA, FBI, NSA, Congress, Senate, the
Vatican, CIO, AFL, NBA, NFL and probably the Jews, too, are in.
> For that matter, the same person who believes in a lot of religious
> crap and ridicules evolution CAN do serious scientific research in
> fields closely related to biology. I told you: I had a Mormon boss
> who dismissed evolution. Yet, he did important industrial work in
> chemical corrosion. It is quite possible for some religious person
> to produce valid scientific research in SOME SMALL NICHE of biology
> -- say, discovering a new species of bird. No doubt, there are a LOT
> of idiotic contradictions which must go on in their head between the
> work they do and their denials of evolution.
>
> However, that does not mean that the human mind cannot do both
> at the same time. As long as they do not insert their hatred of
> Karl Marx, communism, or Darwin into every other line of
> their serious research, it will and should be taken seriously.
>
> The ability of the human mind to compartmentalize the world is
> amazing.
You seem to be doing quite well on it.
>>Video-taped evidence from
>>space shuttles? Are you for real? How's this any different from the shroud
>>of Turin?
>
> Do you have a videotape of Jesus making imprints in the Shroud of
> Turin?
>
> There IS, however, videotape evidence from the space shuttle of
> objects flying around in controlled manner, making right-angle turns,
> that look nothing like space debris or meteors.
In other words, the same shit as the Shroud. There is video-tape "evidence"
of this type from all over the world and so fucking what? Almost 99% of it
has been discredited as fraud, misinterpretation of everyday objects and
optical/photographic/camera illusions and artifacts. The remaining 1% that
cannot be explained today may very well be explained some day as an ordinary
object or occurrence. Does the fact that we can't explain something
automatically mean we are to classify it as a deity or its modern
equivalent: a UFO? Used to be Thor throwing arrows for lightning, but now we
got sophisticated, so it's little green men flying around and kidnapping morons.
>>I don't know... they are in on the massive interplanetary conspiracy
>>involving an alien race invading Earth and sucking our brains through a straw?
>
> Sounds like YOU are the kook. *I* did not say that. And, even if
> a million ufo believers said it, it is still false.
> Therefore, the question of why presidents lie and do not reveal
> the truth about where our money goes into secret government projects
> has NOT been answered.
Jesuschristonthecrapper, the secret projects are for the military and that
answer is obvious even to a small toddler. I mean, for fuck's sake, do you
honestly believe that the modern US Air Force aircraft invisible to radar
was going to be announced on the national six o'clock news? I think the
answer is obvious: it was a highly classified military secret, guarded at
all cost, while its test flights were obviously being interpreted by
UFO-believers as the evidence for UFOs.
But let me quote what you said before: "If they are doing nothing wrong in
Area 51,then there is no reason we should not be allowed to see what goes
on in there."
Are you for real? Do you actually believe that the US Army is going to allow
a bunch of aluminum-hat-wearing idiots access to poke around even in a
non-classified military facility? I can't believe anyone can demand this
with a straight face. I, for one, would be pissed off to the point of
writing my congressman for having the tax-payers' money wasted on bullshit
like this.
>>>In contrast, name anyone who is trying to stop religious nuts from
>>>proving Jesus rose from the dead, or investigate the Shroud of Turin,
>>>etc. We do not have videotaped or modern medical
>>>evidence of Jesus being born to a virgin.
>>
>>This is a riot! I gotta hand it to you - your mental gymnastics is impressive.
>
> Yes, it is. Better than yours.
It certainly is, because I use no mental gymnastics at all. I am applying
the same criteria to all god claims, all UFO claims, and all other
supernatural and paranormal claims: you claim it, you prove it. Testimonials
ain't gonna cut it. Conspiracy theories and $3 will buy you a beer and a
straight jacket.
>>And the reason for this massive cover-up is...?
>
> Nobody knows. Speculation about government motive is 100% irrelevant.
> That does not change the fact that they do it.
Hahahahahaha, good one. Here we have an Earth shattering event, one that
would most certainly turn on its head almost everything we know about
physics, technology, theology, history, astronomy and philosophy, yet for
some "unknown" reason, the "government" is intent to keep this away from the
public at any cost.
How much for that aluminum hat?
> And, I never said "massive". I never said it is a coordinated
> cover-up. It can be just various compartments within government
> agencies.
Or it can also be that it is a figment of your imagination.
> Do you know how little professors in PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES actually
> know about what professors in another academic departments right down
> the hall from them do?
Straw men. Irrelevant.
>>And the reason for the aliens' abductions of people is...?
>
> Nobody knows. Speculation about alien motive is 100% irrelevant.
> That does not disprove that they happen.
Could be they are simply interstellar sexual perverts? Flying millions of
light years just so they can stick a metal object up Billy-Bob's ass.
>>And the reason they're playing interplanetary hide-and-seek is...?
>
> Nobody knows. Speculation about alien motive is 100% irrelevant.
> That does not disprove that they happen.
Of course. Notice how much you and the Jesus-freak species have in common -
they, too claim the exact same thing about their God. Aliens, too, seem to
be working in mysterious ways.
>>And the reason you still believe after knowing that over 90% of the
>>so-called evidence has been fabricated/misinterpreted is...?
>
> That still leaves 10% unexplained. If you are going to lie and make
> up a number, you should have said 100% to make you case.
And the fact that they are unexplained (be it 1, 10 or 100%) means we are
allowed to pull ad hoc hypotheses out of our asses. Hmmm, isn't that how
religions got started?
>>Has it ever occurred to you that all this shit is just a modern version of
>>gods, ghosts and goblins?
>
> Yes -- many have seen the parallels.
> Many have also seen the parallels between feminism and animal rights,
Straw men.
> between parallels among the struggles of
> workers of the world and advocated communism.
Straw men.
> There is truth in all these parallels. That does NOT mean there are
> plenty of other factors which make different events in different
> parts of the world and at different times different,
> requiring different types of action.
> I cannot believe I have to say all this. I feel like I am talking
> to a high school student who just jumps on some word and paragraphs
> and blows them WAY out of context and is suddenly ramming full-speed
> to some pre-ordained conclusion.
I, on the other hand, cannot believe I am actually discussing this shite.
The last time I had a surreal discussion like this was with a hard-core
stalinist who claimed Stalin never killed anyone and had the best country in
the World.
>>Who says they don't? I, for one, am not making a single distinction between
>>religious and UFO kooks.
>
> That is because you do not have a critical THINKING brain cell in your
> head.
Seriously, dude, allow me to say this and retire from this idiocy: you are
fucked up.
> And that does NOT help the cause of atheism.
If atheism means accepting the new age crop circle bullshit as a valid
substitute for a mainstream religion, I am running, not walking, to the
nearest church/synagogue/mosque.
> For that matter, I suppose you do not make any distinction between
> different religions, say, between
> crap that says Jesus rose from the dead and
> crap that says Mohammed had a vision in 650 A.D. (or about)?
> They are both crap. However, THEY ARE STILL DISTINCT EVENTS!
A myth is hardly an event. You need to brush up on your terminology. Santa
Claus coming down a chimney is not an event.
> Here is ANOTHER distinction I do not believe you can make:
> an alien/angel/god telling someone TO DO something,
> from just having the experience itself.
> The stuff they are told IN the experience is undoubtedly crap.
> However, the experience itself can be real.
So you say. Some other would have us believe they can talk to dead people.
My, my, I guess the competition for the gullible and their money is as stiff
as the corpse of an Area 51 alien.
>>And... I'm being secretly paid off by the Vatican and Mecca in order to keep
>>my mouth shut or something?
>
> No, just that you are a bully who finds it easier to pick on ufo-et
> researchers and experiencers and believers because they make easier
> targets because they are powerless.
Awww, shucks, golly gee... Poor pitiful you.
>>Make that insane, psychotic, alcoholic and highly suggestive.
>
> Name one who is alcoholic. And there is no such thing as "mental
> sickness".
????????????? Must... control... urge... to bang head... against... wall...
> That is just a term a lot of talk-show, pop-psychologist,
> Dr. Phil types use to make a lot of money on tv.
>
> There ARE a LOT of IDIOTS in the ufo field. Absolutely.
> And, they are idiots about the subject of ufos and aliens, making
> up all kinds of crap. But, so are 90% of calculus students:
> they write TONS of shit on exams, but you STILL have to grade the
> 10% that is right.
>
> You are just as bad as the religious nuts who mistreat atheists.
I think it's the other way around.
=================================
Tune in tomorrow, folks, for another exciting episode of... TALES FROM THE
DEEP SPACE CRYPT!!!!! The truth is out there, and so are you. Way the fuck out.
Morbert
> > our material world. Some, for example, consider the conscious being
> > to be "supernatural" and the body to be "natural. But the problem
> > with this definition of the supernatural is that conditions which
> > define a supernatural phenomenon are virtually impossible to
> > establish. For example, I said earlier that theist consider life
> > (More specifically the soul) a supernatural phenomenon. Yet Atheists
> > claim that the soul is the product of almost incomprehensibly complex
> > matter (the brain)reacting to stimuli from the "natural" world. So
> > what exactly constitutes the supernatural?
>
> I think for this discussion we would be safe to say that "supernatural"
> means that which requires special criteria appropriate for the phenomena
> being investigated so as to establish validity. In other words, any
> phenomena for which the "natural scientific method" may not be appropriate.
Yes, that's an apt description for the supernatural, but it also
raises the main stumbling block regarding discussions on the
validility of belief in God.
If a child sees a wasp on a window-sill, and tries to squish it with
his hand, he will undoubtedly get stung. So the next time the child
sees a wasp, he'll obviously leave it alone. The child has just used
the scientific method to gain understanding about the world. He
realises that if Fact A= True (The fact that wasps sting) then by
carrying out action B (touching the wasp) he will suffer consequence C
(He'll get stung). So needless to say, he will not carry out action
B.
Whats my point? Our brains are "hardwired" to make sense of the world
using the natural "scientific method". Many christians themselves
believe in God because it holds an apparent logic. (This watch is
here because I made it, so therefore, I must be here because somebody
made me).
I just find it difficult to hypothesis any other way of looking at the
world. But I will study your reply to Icarus.
> > > You wrote, "Instead they realize that anything that can be realized is
> > > natural." I would agree with that if we admit that all that is can be
> > > realized [which includes that which is "beyond the natural"].
> >
> > Two points here:
> > 1)From what I understand, you are saying it is possible to realise the
> > existence of GOd. You say that empirical, scientific method is not
> > suitable for "proving" gods existence. Instead, you claim that
> > spiritual criteria is more appropriate. Well then I must ask you what
> > exactly these spiritual proofs are, and what separates them from
> > philosophy
>
> I would not say that empirical proof of God is unavailable, rather that
> finding it is problematic in many cases due to those with
> diametrically-opposed views not being able to agree on the mechanics of the
> experiments, as well as the validity of the results obtained.
I understand what you are saying.
Scientists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own
facts. Which means that, while many theores may pop up over the
course of time, the facts will always remain the same. The
"diametrically-opposed views" you speak of are the results of the two
parties approaching the challenge of God with two different mindsets,
and therefore, coming to two different theories or conclusions
regarding the same facts.
THe best example of this is order in the universe. Both ATheists and
theists agree that order (ie. consistent physical laws) can be
considered fact. ATheists come to the conclusion that order is
infinite. Whereas theists come to the conclusion that order is
created by god, and god is infinite.
So I believe that before the existence of GOd can be "proven" with
empirical evidence, we must first find a common ground to work with
(Not a small task by any means)
> Thus it seems
> that different criteria must be established, but I would not characterize
> this criteria as "spiritual" as such. Please refer to my response to Icarus
> in this thread last night where I have attempted to start a dialogue on the
> issue of establishing mutually-acceptable criteria (criteria which would be
> outside of the realm of mere philosophy).
I have pasted your response to Icarus to make it easier for me to
discuss various points you have made.
> It's hard to know exactly where to start in approaching this as it is easy
> to start building the bridge only to discover that the other side has begun
> dropping footings 30 yards further down the river, but I will make a stab at
> it...
> I am only going to deal with the deity that I am most familiar with, and
> that is the Christian God. Now I fully recognize that you don't believe any
> such being exists, but we cannot even begin to discuss the issue without you
> at least allowing that He might, as we are looking for the appropriate
> criteria to establish whether He is indeed real.
The only way we'd know he didn't exist is if we knew everything about
the universe. Both atheists and agnostics accept that. But atheists
argue that even though there are aspects of the universe unknown to
us, the existence of GOD is soemwhat as absurd as believing we are all
the collective consciousness of some daydreaming beetle.
> First of all, we cannot expect God to jump through hoops for us. In other
> words, we have to find criteria that allows us to find Him where He is, not
> where some might wish He was [For example, appearing on live prime-time TV
> every night performing incontrovertible miracles]. This means that we are
> going to have to work with cause and effect, attempting to determine if the
> effects of His actions in human lives are consistent with who He says that
> He is, and how He deals with us,
Herein lies the 1st prblem. Cause and effect. ITs the same dilemma
as the chicken and the egg. Do things naturally happen because GOd
says they happen, or does god say things happen because things
naturally happen (For the latter, by God I mean people's idea of God).
Heres my stance. I believe theists have manifested God because of
their thoughts and emotions, such as love, hate, war, death,
suffering, joy, paradise etc. So God is a product of these emotions
and thoughts. Because of this, peoples ideas of god will be
consistent with the world.
> and most importantly, that these effects
> show a very high likelihood of having no other plausible cause than God.
> Does that sound reasonable to you?
I'm not sure what you are refferring to here.... Are you talking about
miracles?
> In working through such proofs, we should also take into account any
> pattern(s) that appear, as the level of likelihood that we might assign to a
> given proof should in some cases be raised to a higher level of assurance if
> we begin to find indentifiable patterns
Theories always gain a higher validility if they are consistent, and
can be integrated into other validated theories, thereby becoming a
model.
> that point to His working on a broad
> scale that is consistent with "who He says that He is, and how He deals with
> us." Do you agree with this [these questions are to identify if I need to
> move my footings to match yours]?
How do we ascertain the difference between "Who HE says he is." and
"Who WE say he is."
> Since the data we must work with must come from individuals and their
> personal accounts of the effects that we wish to determine the source of,
> much background information should be gathered on each individual to
> determine the level of credibility that can be assigned to their testimony.
> Those that fall below perhaps the 90th percentile of a mutually agreed upon
> scale should be removed from consideration [the scale would have to combine
> the nature of the particular effect with specific background related to that
> effect, as well as general information]. Now I am assuming that if you are
> still with me, I may be losing you here as you may not be able to imagine
> yourself crediting anyone who relates such causes. I hope this is not the
> case, but if it is, ask yourself, "Where else you can possibly expect to
> find evidence of these effects except in those who have experienced them?"
ALL forms of evidence, regarding anything in the world can be divided
into 2 categories. Empirical and Anecdotal
This type of evidence is called anecdotal evidence, and unfortunately,
it can be very hard to use with integrity, as it lacks the
"theoretical support structure" of empirical evidence. In otherwords,
empirical evidence can be systematically gathered, and integrated into
existig theories, allowing such theories to evolve and strengthen.
The trouble with anecdotal evidence is it is subject to deep emotional
thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. For example, thousands of Americans
believe they have been abducted by aliens, If one were to approach
such evidence empirically (ie. A Census), then ALiens would be seen as
a valid theory, and the scientific community would accept aliens.
Credibility is important, when regarding testimonies. However,
because the belief in God is so widespread, and is so connected with
our inner thoughts, a perfectly sane person may interpret an
experience as an effect of God. So while belief in Alien abduction
can be easy to see as absurd, similar encounters with a deity may seem
more "plausible" because of our very nature.
> Once the hopefully pure data is collected, then the arduous process of
> looking for possible primary causes other than God must begin. At times
> these possible causes will have to be honestly viewed as extremely unlikely
> and noted as such, as well as times when it is a stretch to come up with any
> other viable explanation other than God. Then, of course, x amount of the
> causes may well have relatively plausible primary causes, yet it should
> still be considered if, in comparison to other data, these "natural" causes
> are conclusively exclusive [i.e., there is no chance whatsoever that God
> could have been the cause], and so rated as such.
True, although I must stress the PURE data phrase in the beginning.
------------
> > IT may seem contradictory stating that atheists do not claim that
> > nothing lies beyond the natural. So let me clarify my position
> > regarding that statement. From the ATheist point of view, our
> > evolutionary path has by no means left us with a supreme intelligence,
> > capable of comprehending all the mechanics of the universe. BEcause
> > of this, there may be aspects of our world that we simply cannot
> > understand, the same way a Dog cannot understand calculus. What makes
> > ATheists different from Agnostics is that Atheists believe God's
> > origin can be found within the primal instincts ofcoexistence and
> > altruism. (ie. An authority figure that acts as the glue and guidance
> > of the human population) Whereas Agnostics believe that the
> > possibility of an entity responsible for the ENTIRE universe is not
> > absurd.
>
> Again, thank you for this clarification as it definitely helps me understand
> your position better. It is free of the hubris so often seen on both sides
> of these debates which complicates the process of collaboratively arriving
> at sound conclusions.
>
> >
> > I am an Atheist, but Atheists are some of the most open minded people
> > there are. WhEn I asked "Why do people believe in god?" It was not a
> > cynical statement. And If you have "proof" then I will gladly hear
> > it.
>
> I would surmise that you mean "pure" or "true" or "mature" Atheists are
> "some of the most open-minded people there are." I have run into countless
> professing Atheists in various newsgroups who are so deeply prejudiced and
> close-minded that they are a constant embarrassment to themselves. And for
> every one of them there is a professing Christian who is equally prejudiced,
> uninformed, close-minded, and generally capable of only making a fool of
> himself when faced with serious debate. For the most part I believe these
> individuals are the products of the TV/Video-game generation who have never
> learned to think.
Yes, I agree. Although, I would unfortunately be considered part of
the TV/Videogame generation. But I understand perfectly what you are
saying.
Jeff Warrender
>
> Thanks much for taking the time to write such an interesting and
> thought-provoking post, Jeff. You reveal a great deal of sagacity here. I
> enjoyed reading and pondering your thoughts very much.
>
confused; are you *the* Dan Barker? It would seem you've either had a
serious change in your position, or else perhaps you're just really
good at playing devil's advocate...
Best,
Jeff
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19db8d47c...@206.172.150.13...
...
> > Then you have a reading comprehension problem. The statement, and Dan's
> > subsequent "clarification", both contain an unsupported assumption. In
> > fact, such assumptions appear several times in Dan's posts.
>
> Josef, get some second opinions on this. Call a local professor of English.
> You will discover that the statement does not, as others have informed you,
> contain any assumptions. Here is the same statement rewritten to include a
> bald-faced assumption: "It is obvious that something could be real that
> cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural scientific
> method." Do you see the difference?
In light of your admitted bias further on in this post, I an somewhat
surprised by your claim above. However, I will accept that it was not
your intention to include an unsupported assumption. Do me a favour and
rewrite the statement.
...
> > Nonsense. Dan's bias is quite clear, and appears numerous times in his
> > various posts.
>
> Sigh. Josef, you have your positions, I have mine. Do you think your "bias"
> is not also quite clear? Is this wrong? No, it's not, unless this bias
> causes us to close our minds and thus fail to learn from one another by
> stifling useful and interesting debate.
> > I have not attempted to "stop debate in its tracks", so you are
> > babbling.
>
> More than one of us wonders if that isn't exactly what you are doing, so why
> don't you prove us wrong and join us in seeing what we can come up with
> here?
The ball is in your court.
Regards,
Josef
Nature acts without masters.
-- Hippocrates
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Justin_Martyr2000 poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
> But neither your bias nor his
> is the issue at hand, nor should they have been addressed as they are
> not relevant to the points made so far.
Agreed.
> Hope that helps.
It is quite an improvement on your previous position. My mention of
Dan's bias was not for the purpose of making it the issue, but rather to
caution that it was colouring his approach.
Regards,
Josef
Scepticism . . . is the agent of truth.
-- Joseph Conrad
Morbert
> > philosophy behind this is that, until something is reasonably
> > established to be true, then it bears no validility.
> >
> > Likewise, until theists can properly establish that there are
> > "supernatural" phenomenon, then their beliefs must remain
> > philosophical speculation.
>
> Scientism is the worldview that only the physical, natural,
> material/energy cosmos exist. Nothing else exists. Why is THAT the
> defaul position???
You, like many theists do not understand the atheist point of view. I
do not claim that NOTHING outside the natural exists, Instead, I and
other atheists understand that anything which can be realised IS
natural.. In otherwords, Christians, muslims, etc. can postulate
benevolent deities all they want, but until their postulations gain
any evidence, or until they are actually REALISED, they will remain
nothing but postulation.
> Just because you or most people or all smart people or Albert Einstein
> or whomever hold that worldview does not give it default status.
> There are many, many contradictory worldviews that one could say are
> "innocent until proven guilty" with this logic. Scientism is one. So
> is Buddhism, Wiccan, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, nihilism, secular
> humanism, etc.
See my above paragraph.... Atheism is a way of looking at the world,
just as is Buddism Christianity etc. But theres one key difference,
ATheism relies on evidence to back it up, thereby making it so much
more "real" than all those ever could be
> The point is that there are many, many ways to interpret reality. No
> particular view has more weight BEFORE THE DISCUSSION than any other.
Atheism has more weight because it is based on the natural world, and
therefore, its "fabric" of belief is weaved into solid nature and
science, thereby making it stronger, and more durable.
>
> To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
> astray by something else. We were all raised from different
> perspectives who now hold our own worldviews based on what we think to
> be the best interpretation of reality.
There are far more people who were born christian and became atheist,
than the other way around, highlighting the strength of atheism.
>
> "Innocent until proven guilty" just doesn't work here.
This last statement is just plain false. If the philosphy of
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply, then the floodgates
becoem open. Eg. If I decided that we are all just the fleeting
daydream of a giant praying mantis, by your logic, my view is just as
valid as yours. Yet we bot
My generall point is, one can hypothesis matrix style realities beyond
our own all they want, but since these supernatural realities, by
definition, cannot be realised, then there is no reason to see them as
anything more than imaginative fantasies
> Dan
Dan Barker
Alas, only in a relatively small circle am I *the* Dan Barker... and thus
not the Dan Barker you are thinking of. If you can believe it, I had someone
in another NG accuse me of purposely masquerading as the other Dan Barker!
Later,
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Scot McDermid
"Appelonius" <noneofyou...@myemail.com> wrote in message
news:vmut2rf...@corp.supernews.com...> news:d7fe20a0.0309...@posting.google.com...
> > Most people accept that God cannot be proven/disproven using natural
> > scientific method.
> >
> > So the question I ask is "Why do theists believe in GOd?"
>
> Simple. Because they want to.
I, for one, would certainly hope that theists are not quite
so stupid. "I believe in God because I want believe in Him" is
a really lousy argument.
But theists usually have more 'proof' than that:
(1) Some may be convinced by the apparent 'fact' that
they pray for something and then by some
'meaningful coincidence' they get it. (They might be
convinced by this but I am not. Without impecable
records people are likely to forget about all
the prayers that weren't answered.)
(2) Some may be convinced when they "pray for guidance" then
their thoughts clarify and flow as if from some higher
intelligence. (They might be convinced by I am not.
This 'flow of knowledge from a higher intelligence'
is more likely from their subconscious mind.)
(3) Some may be convinced when they pray for
healing and they heal. (But on the other hand,
Christian Scientists die.)
(4) Some are convinced by a sense of "oneness"
attained through mediation (Yoga, "Atman is Brahman"),
falling in love ("God is Love") , or the use of hallucinogenic
drugs (Rastafarian, "Whoa... way cool man"). (But this
raises the question of whether God is actually real or
just a state of mind.)
Charles & Mambo
> In regard to my other posts in this thread.
> For those of you having trouble separating out truth from nonsense,
> here is a distinction which can help you.
>
> In religion,
> BILLIONS of people simply REPEAT BACK what a FEW (tens?) of people
> directly observed (or claimed to)
> about Jesus rising from the dead, Noah and the fllod,
> Mormon Joseph Smith having a great vision, etc.
That is precisely what people do in *every* superstition, UFOs included. Why
is this so difficult for you to comprehend? A typical example is the UFO
"sightings" where one idiot mistakes an aircraft for an alien spaceship,
reports it to the media and all of a sudden the media is flooded with
hundreds of "sightings". Remember crop circles?
> In ufology,
> it is MANY INDEPENDENT people directly observing an usual experience
> (ufo, losses of memory of time). Certainly, a few million on the
> internet may report these MANY -- not just one -- observed
> events. These events ARE NOT IDENTICAL. Some occur in many different
> ways. But there are common threads in them. The probability of
> EVERYONE lying is vanishingly small.
The same can be claimed about religions. Also, no one is saying that
everyone is lying - usually it is a misinterpretation of a natural
occurrence, as well as delusions.
> In religion,
> there is a MOTIVE to believing Islam (virgins waiting for the males
> after death) and Christianity (heaven), which the human CREATORS of
> these religions DELIBERATELY wrote into the tenets of the religion
> so as to attract a following.
This is a post facto motive, i.e. no one starts believing in Allah after
thinking that it'd be cool to pop some cherries after death. Don't be
ridiculous. However, there are motives to believe in UFOs as well, and they
fall into the usual: a moment of fame, being in the center of attention,
monetary reasons, a need to believe due to the superstitious human nature,
repressing serious psychological problems, etc.
> In ufology,
> there is NO advantage in believing that your bloody nose you woke
> up with in the morning is real, or that objects have flown around
> the room and been broken.
Of course there is. If this happened to someone of inferior mind or
suffering from delirium tremens, mental disorders or delusions, it is much,
much easier to blame it on the external factors than on themselves. So when
in the past people were seeing witches, ghosts and devils en masse, today
they see little green (or is it gray?) men.
> Here is similarities:
> in religion and ufology, there are those who feel they have everything
> figured out.
Actually, by far the largest similarity lies in the fact that there is
absolutely no physical evidence of the phenomenon, but there is certainly no
lack of testimonials and fabrications.
> Here is a difference:
> in religions, there is MUCH more uniformity in what everyone believes,
> since they are simply following a written religious script.
> In ufology, you cannot get two people to agree on motives and explanations
> of ANYthing!
You gotta be kidding! Do you actually know the history of religious strife?
Even today, after centuries of religious extermination and persecution,
there are literally hundreds of religions, cults and sects. No two cult
followers agree on the same interpretations, yet you would have us believe
that this somehow validates the aliens claims.
> They even deny the direct experiences of each other!
Golly gee, so do Muslims and Christians! Shit, I guess that makes them true.
> Thus, ufology always has the disadvantage of being INCREDIBLY complex,
> which debunkers LOVE to take advantage of! But, complex and messy
> and having idiotic theories in the field STILL does not make
> government documents, videotaped evidence, photographs, and chemical
> analyses false.
Yeah, right. One thing is certain, though - there is no arguing the religion
of a true believer. Amen, brother, or whatever the Klingon equivalent is.
But, what the hell, prove us wrong: provide some real, undisputed, physical
evidence of a visiting alien race, not the usual crappy videos, phony
pictures, broken twigs, anal bleeding and conspiracy theories that make
sense only to cretins.
You'd think that at least the alleged repeated abductees would smuggle a
video camera on board a UFO once in a while. But let me guess: aliens are
camera-shy or are having a constant bad hair day?
Mike
news:2bb50648.03092...@posting.google.com...
> Josef Balluch wrote...
>
> > Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
> > anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> > possible.
>
> So, the first guys asks, "Why would someone believe in God?" Then the
> next guys says, "Well, you first have to decide if it's even possible
> for anything to exist outside of the physical, material, energy
> cosmos." And then you say, "That's begging the question."
>
> That's not begging the question. That second guy is just getting at
> the presupposition behind the issue. Some people, like yourself, have
> a worldview that does not include anything outside the physical,
> material, energy cosmos. That's an assumption that has not been
> proven that you bring to the table.
No, it's just NOT bringing in the unsupported assumption that there IS
anything outside of the physical world. We know the physical world exists.
No assumptions needed there. There IS an assumption on the other side and
that is where the question-begging comes in.
>
> > Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
> > phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
>
> Ad hoc??? I think you may have missed this one, too. The other
> problem here is that no one is impartial. Even scientists.
No, the problem is that people are throwing in god(s), with no support at
all, just to try and support their previous assumptions. Thus the ad hoc.
>
> > And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
> > term.
>
> I think "supernatural" here is referring to something outside the
> natural order of cause and effect. Maybe "miracle" would be a
> synonym.
If something happens in the natural world, then it, by definition, is
natural.
>
> > Please describe these "different although equally sound criteria".
>
> I think you'd fall into the category of people that this second guy is
> describing. So what's the point?
>
> Dan
--
Mike atheism: a non-prophet organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
The multi-named one posting under rooster/bob white/sceptic and various
other names (identifiable by the header line reading "NNTP-Posting-Host:
12.231.81.82") might as well ignore this post. He is a lying, illogical
troll who has been kill-file'd and any posts of his will not be seen or
replied to.
Dan Still
> > Scientism is the worldview that only the physical, natural,
> > material/energy cosmos exist. Nothing else exists. Why is THAT the
> > defaul position???
>
> Because science has consistently been able to explain readily observable
> natural phenomena, while all that supernaturalists have to offer is
> paranormal mumbo-jumbo, worthless testimonials, wishful thinking and lies.
True, through the use of science much of reality has been
understood... but not everything. We don't know why anything exists
at all? Why did the big bang happen at all? Why is there gravity?
Etc... So, yes, science is helpful.
But just because something is not scientific doesn't automatically
mean it is worthless. What about art? What about history? How can
we know that George Washington was the first president of the US?
Science can not tell us. History can. People who lived back then who
wrote stuff down can tell us. Reliable eye witness testimony can tell
us. So let's not write off every non-scientific thing as mumbo-jumbo
just yet.
And remember there are many Muslims scientists, many Christian
scientists, Jewish ones, too. Does that mean only mumbo-jumbo comes
out of their mouths? I think not.
> No, the default status comes from the fact that the supernaturalists make
> outrageous claims that they are unable to support in any acceptable way.
That's your own opinion. That's not the universally accepted
standard. Many smart, thinking, rational, honest people think
otherwise about the support for the supernatural.
> Yeah, right. Let's apply your twisted logic to a real life example, shall
> we? Let's say that I claim that you're a child rapist, another person claims
> that you're a baby murderer and yet another that you owe him a million
> dollars. Needless to say, you claim none of this is true. According to you,
> all these contradictory "worldviews" are equally valid.
They are not worldviews (someone's ultimate viewpoint of reality) so
it's a completely different category. But they are all truth-claims.
And before any evidence (scientific, historical, or otherwise) is put
forth, any COULD be true. The point is that none of them should be
preferred BEFORE the evidence is given.
> No particular view has more weight before it can produce evidence.
Exactly. Now you're getting it. No particular view has more weight
before the evidence is given.
> > To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
> > astray by something else.
>
> Really?
Yes, really. Some people can see the divine in nature before ever
going to church, synagogue, or mosque.
> OK, then you are a child rapist.
Before any other evidence is given that statement is just as possible
as this one: I am not a child rapist.
Nicely done Charles & Mambo. Please write more.
Dan Still
> "Scientism" is of course a straw man invented by theists in a
> trasparent attempt to make the investigation and understanding of how
> reality works, an -ism that they can pretend is in competition with
> theisw own ism.
Actually, no. Scientism is the worldview that most atheists hold to.
> There is no such hing as "scientism" outside the paranoid fantases of
> certain religious extremists.
Actually, no. Like I just said, scientism is the worldview that most
atheists hold to. I know. I used to be an atheist.
> Reality is the default. Science is the method that investigates reality.
Exactly. Now you're getting it. Reality is the default. Science
helps us understand reality. Our worldview helps us interpret
reality.
> The one that is demonstrated to work in reality is the one that
> carries any weight at all.
Right again! That's the whole point. Whichever worldview best
interprets the whole of reality is the proper choice.
> >To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
> >astray by something else.
>
> Yes, we were.
>
> And atheist does not equal scientist or vice versa.
>
> Children don't believe in any god or gods until, they are taught to
> by those around them. They are _trivially_ atheist. And those who
> weren't taught to be theist remain atehist.
Actually, no, we weren't. Some people can see the divine in nature
long before ever going to a church, synagogue, or mosque.
> No. You were taught to be theist. Unfortunately you derive your
> wordview from your being theist.
Not really. I was raised Catholic. Then I saw the light and became a
hard-core atheist. I used to make my Christian friends cry because of
the stupid-ness of their worldview. Then, as an adult, I became a
theist after I realized what interpretation of reality was most likely
true.
> Being atheist, is in fact a minor part ot the atheists' life.
True. But adhering to scientism is a worldview. And THAT is one of
the most important parts of someone's life.
Dan Still
> You, like many theists do not understand the atheist point of view. I
> do not claim that NOTHING outside the natural exists, Instead, I and
> other atheists understand that anything which can be realised IS
> natural...
I understand atheism. What I'm getting at is the bigger issue for
most (not all) atheists. Most adhere to scientism, the worldview that
only the material/energy cosmos exist.
> ...In otherwords, Christians, muslims, etc. can postulate
> benevolent deities all they want, but until their postulations gain
> any evidence, or until they are actually REALISED, they will remain
> nothing but postulation.
Exactly. One must wait for the evidence before making an accurate
judgment.
> See my above paragraph.... Atheism is a way of looking at the world,
> just as is Buddism Christianity etc. But theres one key difference,
> ATheism relies on evidence to back it up, thereby making it so much
> more "real" than all those ever could be
Not exactly. Scientism is based on evidence. So is Christianity,
Islam, etc. Each "religion" is based on truth-claims from Jesus,
Muhammad, Buddha, etc. Those claims are deemed true based on
evidence, historical, scientific, etc.
I'm not saying that contradictory religious worldviews are all true.
That's logically impossible. I'm just saying that those worldviews
are based on what their adherents deem to be the truth based on the
evidence.
> There are far more people who were born christian and became atheist,
> than the other way around, highlighting the strength of atheism.
I was raised a Catholic before seeing the light and becoming a
hard-core atheist. I used to make my Christian friends cry because of
the silliness of their worldview. Then, as an adult, I became a
theist based upon new evidence that I hadn't been aware of previously.
> This last statement is just plain false. If the philosphy of
> "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply, then the floodgates
> becoem open. Eg. If I decided that we are all just the fleeting
> daydream of a giant praying mantis, by your logic, my view is just as
> valid as yours.
Yes it is... BEFORE any other evidence is given.
> My generall point is, one can hypothesis matrix style realities beyond
> our own all they want, but since these supernatural realities, by
> definition, cannot be realised, then there is no reason to see them as
> anything more than imaginative fantasies
That is only by your own definition. You have already subscribed to
scientism. You BELIEVE nothing exists outside of the natural cosmos.
That is only a personal belief of yours. Many intelligent, rational
thinkers believe otherwise.
Mike
news:9327eab3.03092...@posting.google.com...
> > I think "supernatural" here is referring to something outside the
> > natural order of cause and effect. Maybe "miracle" would be a
> > synonym.
>
> One may check out the Journal of Scientific Exploration for it.
> This word is optimal, since it suggests the notion that weird,
> unusual phenomena manifest themselves under sort of extremes of
> physical and or emotional activity. The best analogy is that
> time and length dilation does not occur at speeds which are
> slow relative to the speed of light. Time dilation has been measured
> under the extreme == DIFFICULT == experiment of high-speed aircraft
> and space shuttles.
Just a nit-pick...dilation occurs at ALL speeds greater than 0. It's just
that for low (terrestrial)speeds, it's so small a dilation that we can't
measure it (kinda hard to measure differences of 0.000000000001% when your
tools are only accurate to 0.000001% :)
Dan Barker
> > > Then you have a reading comprehension problem. The statement, and
Dan's
> > > subsequent "clarification", both contain an unsupported assumption. In
> > > fact, such assumptions appear several times in Dan's posts.
> >
> > Josef, get some second opinions on this. Call a local professor of
English.
> > You will discover that the statement does not, as others have informed
you,
> > contain any assumptions. Here is the same statement rewritten to include
a
> > bald-faced assumption: "It is obvious that something could be real that
> > cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural scientific
> > method." Do you see the difference?
>
>
> In light of your admitted bias further on in this post, I an somewhat
> surprised by your claim above. However, I will accept that it was not
> your intention to include an unsupported assumption. Do me a favour and
> rewrite the statement.
What claim above? Surely you aren't referring to the example sentence
containing the "bald-faced assumption" are you? This *was* the rewritten
sentence, used only to illustrate the point about what an assumption is. I
was not making a statement at all. I should have wrote something like,
"Everyone knows that Josef only works at his job because he enjoys it, as
you can tell from the car he drives that he is actually independently
wealthy."
> > > Nonsense. Dan's bias is quite clear, and appears numerous times in his
> > > various posts.
> >
> > Sigh. Josef, you have your positions, I have mine. Do you think your
"bias"
> > is not also quite clear? Is this wrong? No, it's not, unless this bias
> > causes us to close our minds and thus fail to learn from one another by
> > stifling useful and interesting debate.
I note that you did not respond to my comments on the issue of bias here. Do
you understand that both of us have pulled up to this table, each with our
own biases?
> > > I have not attempted to "stop debate in its tracks", so you are
> > > babbling.
> >
> > More than one of us wonders if that isn't exactly what you are doing, so
why
> > don't you prove us wrong and join us in seeing what we can come up with
> > here?
>
>
> The ball is in your court.
The "ball" in this case, which is obvious from the context above, is your
entering into debate, instead of getting mired in the preliminaries. Which
means that the ball is actually still lingering in your court. Again,
recognize that both of us [and everyone else in this thread] come to the
debate with our own assumptions and bias, but that doesn't mean we can't
work together to come up with something of value.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
> > > > That another explanation may be necessary if
> > > > we are to prove the existence of God should be self-evident, ...
> > >
> > > Self evident to whom? There are plenty of theists who post in these
> > > newsgroups who think they can establish the existence of some deity or
> > > another within the current paradigm. Can something be "self evident"
to
> > > only certain people?
> >
> > You will note that I wrote, "may be necessary." I say this because I
> > recognize that what is sufficient proof for one using currently
established
> > methods may not be a proof for another since the perspectives of both
> > parties are diametrically opposed to one another, and/or only one party
is
> > dealing with firsthand knowledge of the event in question. What I am
> > attempting to discover is whether there is any possibility of
establishing
> > mutually-acceptable criteria for these proofs. So, I said "self-evident"
> > because it seems clear that this mutual ground has not yet been found.
>
>
> Dan, that's all very nice and you have made this point several times.
> Can we lay it to rest and put it behind us?
>
> As to my question whether something can be self evident to only some
> people ....., I take it that was a Yes.
You take it wrong... What did I say that made you think otherwise? Stop and
think about what we are dealing with here. I wrote, "That another
explanation may be necessary if we are to prove the existence of God should
be self-evident, especially to those who hold that such existence cannot be
proven by the natural scientific method." Unless you are referring to people
who not only don't believe in God, but who are absolutely 100% convinced
there could be a God [and these are individuals who should not be taken
seriously as they obviously believe they have perfect knowledge of all that
can be known], what reasonable person wouldn't agree that this statement is
self-evident? In other words, IF God exists, it MAY be necessary to find
other criteria than we normally use if we are to prove His existence.
[...]
> > > Your explanation contains the assumption that a deity exists, which
has
> > > yet to be demonstrated, and thus is also a case of Begging the
Question.
> >
> > Sigh. We are talking about whether such explanations, or proofs of a
> > hypothetical deity are possible, not about the results of these proofs.
>
>
> And yet you repeatedly assume your conclusion with regards to the
> existence of a supernatural and your deity.
Josef, as I have told you before, I am a theist. You are an atheist. Both of
us have reached conclusions on the subject of "Is God real." So does that
mean we can't debate or experiment with the issue to discover
mutually-acceptable proofs? Are you saying that if a scientist admits that
he is approaching an experiment with some assumptions as to the possible
outcome that he has shown that he has no business doing the experiment?
Without assumptions, many experiments would never have been done!
Assumptions aren't the problem, prejudice is the problem, as that is what
causes people to misinterpret results that others without prejudice would
see altogether differently.
> > If
> > we had already demonstrated that a deity exists, we wouldn't be having
this
> > discussion in the first place. One step at a time...
>
> So let's take it one step at a time.
>
> It is correct that we would not have this discussion if you had already
> demonstrated your deity.
>
> As I have pointed out, you have not yet demonstrated your deity.
Did this need to be pointed out? No, as I never said that I had, nor did
anything I said require that I did demonstrate my deity.
>
> Your statements often contain the assumption that your deity, or a
> supernatural, exists.
>
> If it is your intention to demonstrate the existence of your deity then
> start from square one, and not from the assumption that your deity can
> be seen with a change in POV.
Here is where you are missing the point. Given that I have proof that this
deity exists and you don't, the only hope of us meeting in the middle is
that you either personally discover the proof that I have in a similar
manner [which is not likely to be something you wish to pursue at this
point], or we attempt to find other criteria that we both would find
acceptable. In other words, it should be obvious that looking for a
different POV is a viable option that should be explored.
[...]
> > > I do not think there is any dispute that some "see" or "hear" things
> > > that others do not. It is the interpretation that is in dispute. The
> > > point is, if these phenomena are part of the outside world then why
> > > should only believers experience them? And why should such phenomena
be
> > > assumed to be "non-natural"?
> >
> > The very nature of the phenomena in virtually all cases is that they are
> > only experienced by those who have entered a door that others have not
> > entered.
>
> That should be an important clue to you.
And to you also. Can you allow that these individuals have perhaps gone
somewhere that you know nothing about, a place that you assume is
necessarily invalid and unreal, yet you are in no position to comment on
with absolute assurance because you haven't been there? Are you open-minded
enough to do that?
> How can some parts of reality be dependent on one's beliefs?
If you don't believe that something exists, you are going to be blind to it
if its nature is such that it does not often reveal itself to those who
refuse to believe.
> > Here's an analogy: You and I are both part of the "outside world,"
> > but at this moment we are each experiencing very different things. You
can't
> > experience precisely what I am experiencing because you are not part of
this
> > household, but that doesn't mean that you could say that my experience
here
> > isn't valid because you are not able to experience it. If I tell you
about
> > something I experienced here, and if you believe I am a credible source,
> > then you would believe it even though you not only didn't experience it,
but
> > could not possibly ever experience it.
>
> I'm not sure of the purpose of this dissertation, since this point is
> not in dispute. I don't doubt that your experiences are different from
> mine. I don't doubt that I cannot re-create your experiences. I want you
> to explain HOW your beliefs can influence the reality you experience.
Again, if you refuse to allow that something could be real, then you have
closed a door. Others have been more open-minded, and they have opened that
door so as to find out if the claims were true. Intelligent, sentient, sane,
reasoning atheists have done this by the countless thousands, and never come
back.
> > The phenomena isn't always "non-natural," by any means, but the problem
is
> > that some refuse to believe that what happened to another person
actually
> > happened if the particular occurrence demanded, for example, a miracle.
> > However, countless unbelievers, especially in the medical field, can
indeed
> > testify to having witnessed what they themselves referred to as miracles
in
> > the lives of their patients in the "natural" world.
>
>
> Dan, it should not be too difficult to see that words like "god" and
> "miracle" are simply euphemisms that are used in such situations to mean
> "We don't know why". Any inference beyond that is pure speculation.
That's your opinion, and I respect your right to hold it. But it is not
universally held.
> > > > The issue is whether what one sees and another denies is indeed
provable
> > > > using the appropriate criteria.
> > >
> > > Nope. As pointed out above, the issue is the interpretation.
> >
> > Sorry, but if mutually-accepted criteria is developed and applied then
the
> > interpretations should be identical.
>
> The point is, they are NOT identical. Until such time, the issue remains
> the interpretation.
Hello? Did you catch the tense and the qualifiers in that sentence? You
cannot state that the results of experiments that have yet to be performed
have results that "are NOT identical."
> What you are trying to do is skip over the problems in the fond hope
> that they will be magically dissolved by your "mutually accepted
> criteria".
What problems am I attempting to "skip over"? Your use of phrases like "fond
hope" and "magically dissolved" are belittling and disrespectful. I work
very hard to not show disrespect for you and your ideas, and I would
appreciate your doing the same.
> > You seem to still be working outside of
> > what I am proposing, which I admit has proved largely unworkable for
> > numerous reasons.
>
> It is good that you recognize this.
>
> We are making progress.
>
Sigh. No, I'm afraid we're not. But I will keep trying.
[...]
> > > No, I am not categorically rejecting it.
> >
> > You wrote to Dan Still above, "I simply feel that the word cannot be
shown
> > to be meaningful." O.K., it's late and I'm very fatigued, but that seems
> > awfully close to a categorical rejection to me.
>
> It is entirely possible to hold a POV and still maintain an open mind.
> Do you agree?
And what is the difference in this case between an assumption and a POV?
> You have made your own bias quite clear with regards to the question
> under discussion. Would I be justified in assuming that you have a
> closed mind?
Assume whatever you wish, Josef.
[...]
> > > You will first have to define your deity.
> >
> > See my response to Icarus earlier this evening and see if that lays the
> > groundwork for us to further consider this subject.
>
> Well, it says you are arguing for the Christian god. From my observation
> there are almost as many definitions of the Christian god as there are
> Christians.
Is that really what you read there? Give me some examples to support this.
> Beyond that it says your deity cannot be tested, but can be deduced from
> observable effects.
I did not say my deity cannot be tested, rather that new tests may be
necessary so as to satisfy both sides of the debate. I have tested Him over
and over again, and could write a book on the "observable effects." But that
doesn't mean it would convince you, so I am opening the possibility of find
new criteria for proof.
> > > > ... our efforts would be a perfect
> > > > waste of time, since you cannot walk through a door you refuse to
open.
> > >
> > > Can you establish that the door exists?
> >
> > We'll see. Again, see the above cited response.
>
>
> As noted there is not too much to work with, but I HAVE commited myself
> to keep an open mind. Also, I would like to see what sort of argument
> you come up with. Will you object to my giving critiques of your
> argument?
As I stated at the end of the response to Icarus, I welcome critiques.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
[...]
> > I think for this discussion we would be safe to say that "supernatural"
> > means that which requires special criteria appropriate for the phenomena
> > being investigated so as to establish validity. In other words, any
> > phenomena for which the "natural scientific method" may not be
appropriate.
>
> Yes, that's an apt description for the supernatural, but it also
> raises the main stumbling block regarding discussions on the
> validility of belief in God.
>
> If a child sees a wasp on a window-sill, and tries to squish it with
> his hand, he will undoubtedly get stung. So the next time the child
> sees a wasp, he'll obviously leave it alone. The child has just used
> the scientific method to gain understanding about the world. He
> realises that if Fact A= True (The fact that wasps sting) then by
> carrying out action B (touching the wasp) he will suffer consequence C
> (He'll get stung). So needless to say, he will not carry out action
> B.
>
> Whats my point? Our brains are "hardwired" to make sense of the world
> using the natural "scientific method". Many christians themselves
> believe in God because it holds an apparent logic. (This watch is
> here because I made it, so therefore, I must be here because somebody
> made me).
I agree that our brains are in some ways "hardwired" as you mention. But
most people at some point in life begin to sense that their brains are able
to pick up other information through means that don't always fit too well
under the heading of "natural scientific method."
[...]
> So I believe that before the existence of God can be "proven" with
> empirical evidence, we must first find a common ground to work with
> (Not a small task by any means)
Agreed. But again, we may first have to use something other than strict
empirical evidence, and then work back to it once finding the common ground
with other criteria.
[...]
> I have pasted your response to Icarus to make it easier for me to
> discuss various points you have made.
>
>
> > It's hard to know exactly where to start in approaching this as it is
easy
> > to start building the bridge only to discover that the other side has
begun
> > dropping footings 30 yards further down the river, but I will make a
stab at
> > it...
>
> > I am only going to deal with the deity that I am most familiar with, and
> > that is the Christian God. Now I fully recognize that you don't believe
any
> > such being exists, but we cannot even begin to discuss the issue without
you
> > at least allowing that He might, as we are looking for the appropriate
> > criteria to establish whether He is indeed real.
>
> The only way we'd know he didn't exist is if we knew everything about
> the universe. Both atheists and agnostics accept that. But atheists
> argue that even though there are aspects of the universe unknown to
> us, the existence of GOD is soemwhat as absurd as believing we are all
> the collective consciousness of some daydreaming beetle.
That seems rather shortsighted to me, as it is rife with presumptions about
what we do and do not know about the universe. In other words, it seems odd
to say, "I accept that there are unknowns, but I don't accept certain
unknowns, even though those unknowns are unknown to me." But perhaps I have
misunderstood you, so please correct me if I have.
> > First of all, we cannot expect God to jump through hoops for us. In
other
> > words, we have to find criteria that allows us to find Him where He is,
not
> > where some might wish He was [For example, appearing on live prime-time
TV
> > every night performing incontrovertible miracles]. This means that we
are
> > going to have to work with cause and effect, attempting to determine if
the
> > effects of His actions in human lives are consistent with who He says
that
> > He is, and how He deals with us,
>
> Herein lies the 1st prblem. Cause and effect. ITs the same dilemma
> as the chicken and the egg. Do things naturally happen because GOd
> says they happen, or does god say things happen because things
> naturally happen (For the latter, by God I mean people's idea of God).
>
> Heres my stance. I believe theists have manifested God because of
> their thoughts and emotions, such as love, hate, war, death,
> suffering, joy, paradise etc. So God is a product of these emotions
> and thoughts. Because of this, peoples ideas of god will be
> consistent with the world.
Yet if you had walked where I have for the last nearly 27 years, you would
have an entirely different picture of where theists are. But this life is
yet an unknown to you, as many things you have experienced are a complete
unknown to me.
> > and most importantly, that these effects
> > show a very high likelihood of having no other plausible cause than God.
> > Does that sound reasonable to you?
>
> I'm not sure what you are refferring to here.... Are you talking about
> miracles?
No, not just miracles, although they will end up being some of the most
convincing proofs when properly analyzed. But there is a wealth of other
events which when understood in the right context also can argue powerfully
for the existence of God.
> > In working through such proofs, we should also take into account any
> > pattern(s) that appear, as the level of likelihood that we might assign
to a
> > given proof should in some cases be raised to a higher level of
assurance if
> > we begin to find indentifiable patterns
>
> Theories always gain a higher validility if they are consistent, and
> can be integrated into other validated theories, thereby becoming a
> model.
Right... I hoped I was making sense there. I believe these patterns would
prove to be extremely critical for tipping the balance from coincidence and
other such explanations to a realization that there is indeed a model for
which God is the most likely source.
> > that point to His working on a broad
> > scale that is consistent with "who He says that He is, and how He deals
with
> > us." Do you agree with this [these questions are to identify if I need
to
> > move my footings to match yours]?
>
> How do we ascertain the difference between "Who HE says he is." and
> "Who WE say he is."
Despite all the embarrassing confusion on this issue, believe it or not,
there are some basics that are held by the vast majority of protestants, so
we aren't without guidance in this area. But your question was very valid,
to be sure.
> existing theories, allowing such theories to evolve and strengthen.
> The trouble with anecdotal evidence is it is subject to deep emotional
> thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. For example, thousands of Americans
> believe they have been abducted by aliens, If one were to approach
> such evidence empirically (ie. A Census), then ALiens would be seen as
> a valid theory, and the scientific community would accept aliens.
>
> Credibility is important, when regarding testimonies. However,
> because the belief in God is so widespread, and is so connected with
> our inner thoughts, a perfectly sane person may interpret an
> experience as an effect of God. So while belief in Alien abduction
> can be easy to see as absurd, similar encounters with a deity may seem
> more "plausible" because of our very nature.
Your points are very valid. And this is why I mentioned the very generous
90th percentile cutoff for establishing credibility, as since we are forced
to (initially) work with anecdotal evidence, we need to be as sure as we can
of the sources. Again, I believe that the patterns and the repeatability
that would quickly become apparent would serve to eventually settle concerns
about the unreliability of personal experience for all but the most
prejudiced of doubters. Trust me, I never would have stayed with it this
long had I not personally observed this clear pattern.
> > Once the hopefully pure data is collected, then the arduous process of
> > looking for possible primary causes other than God must begin. At times
> > these possible causes will have to be honestly viewed as extremely
unlikely
> > and noted as such, as well as times when it is a stretch to come up with
any
> > other viable explanation other than God. Then, of course, x amount of
the
> > causes may well have relatively plausible primary causes, yet it should
> > still be considered if, in comparison to other data, these "natural"
causes
> > are conclusively exclusive [i.e., there is no chance whatsoever that God
> > could have been the cause], and so rated as such.
>
> True, although I must stress the PURE data phrase in the beginning.
Agreed.
Thanks much for taking the time to review the proposed criteria. And I have
appreciated the various clarifications and perspectives that you have
provided me with.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
news:bkviu1$112b$1...@news3.infoave.net...
[...]
[From Dan Still's message]
> > That's not begging the question. That second guy is just getting at
> > the presupposition behind the issue. Some people, like yourself, have
> > a worldview that does not include anything outside the physical,
> > material, energy cosmos. That's an assumption that has not been
> > proven that you bring to the table.
>
> No, it's just NOT bringing in the unsupported assumption that there IS
> anything outside of the physical world. We know the physical world exists.
> No assumptions needed there. There IS an assumption on the other side and
> that is where the question-begging comes in.
You "know" the physical world exists. Theists "know" that the spiritual
world exists. The fact that you personally have no basis for believing the
latter does not mean it is not real, right? Only that you don't believe it
is real because you have not personally experienced the proof that others
claim to have experienced. You can say their claims are baseless all day
long, but since none of us are the final authority on such things, you are
only presuming they are indeed baseless due to your own experience.
Thus when I opened up the possibility of finding mutually-acceptable
criteria for establishing or disproving this reality, it really wasn't fair
or right to say it was begging the question.
[Josef Balluch and Dan Still]
> > > Ad Hoc Hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that non-naturalistic
> > > phenomena would not be evident to an impartial observer.
> >
> > Ad hoc??? I think you may have missed this one, too. The other
> > problem here is that no one is impartial. Even scientists.
>
> No, the problem is that people are throwing in god(s), with no support at
> all, just to try and support their previous assumptions. Thus the ad hoc.
The whole point was to work toward finding "support" acceptable to both
sides, so nobody is throwing deities around, we're just trying to open up an
intelligent debate.
[Josef Balluch and Dan Still]
> > > And please demonstrate that the word "supernatural" is a meaningful
> > > term.
> >
> > I think "supernatural" here is referring to something outside the
> > natural order of cause and effect. Maybe "miracle" would be a
> > synonym.
>
> If something happens in the natural world, then it, by definition, is
> natural.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that it can't include what human beings typically
refer to as the supernatural, only that in truth, all that is in this
universe could be argued to be "natural," which would include phenomena
referred to as supernatural, assuming such phenomena actually occurs.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Justin_Martyr2000
>
>
>
> It is quite an improvement on your previous position. My mention of
> Dan's bias was not for the purpose of making it the issue, but rather to
> caution that it was colouring his approach.
My previous position? I would be curious to see what exactly you
think my previous position was?
> Scepticism . . . is the agent of truth.
>
> -- Joseph Conrad
Beware of the cynic who masquerades as a skeptic
-- Anonymous
Justin_Martyr2000
> > > Nope. Begging the Question. What needs to be done is to show that
> > > anything other than a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or
> > > possible.
> >
> >
> > example of "begging the question". Your opposite has not made an
> > assertion of fact but rather his comment has to do with one's approach
> > to the issue, that is, of being objective in one's approach to the
> > question. YOU, however, have taken it upon yourself to assert a
> > hypothesis (the existence of strictly naturalistic explanations)
> > without showing a warrant for your hypothesis and insisting that your
> > position is the correct one on that basis alone. Tch tch.
>
> <snip>
>
> In a courtroom, a person is "innocent until proven guilty" The basic
> philosophy behind this is that, until something is reasonably
> established to be true, then it bears no validility.
>
> Likewise, until theists can properly establish that there are
> "supernatural" phenomenon, then their beliefs must remain
> philosophical speculation.
*Sigh* Please. Comparing what is taking place here to a
courtroom where a person is being tried for a crime stretches the
analogy to the point of absurdity.
Additionally, the point was not that there ARE supernatural
phenomena, but rather, what one's intellectual and philosophical
approach to the question SHOULD BE in the first place.
Furthermore, your implication that "philosophical speculation"
equals "untrue" or "unproven", besides being a continuation of your
missing the point, is, in my opinion, dishonest and does not speak
well of your objectivity in this matter.
> > One could just as easily say, "What needs to be done is to show
> > that ONLY a naturalistic explanation is necessary, or possible"
> One can envision and postulate countless possibilities (ie. God, Satan
> etc.) But in order for these speculations to warrant a higher status
> than mere ideas. So your above sentence isn't really logical, which
> you seem to realise because you go on to say
> > that wouldn't get us anywhere, since it does not give us a reason for
> > assuming that. It merely establishes the bias of the respondent.
> > We already know that. No need to repeat it. That is redundancy. It
> > also does not further the debate, but rather stops it dead in its
> > tracks.
> > But, then, I suppose that is the point, isn't it?
No kidding, Dick Tracy. Thanks for repeating my point. Got any of
your own which may help further the debate?
________________________________________________________________________________
Morbert
> > do not claim that NOTHING outside the natural exists, Instead, I and
> > other atheists understand that anything which can be realised IS
> > natural...
>
> I understand atheism. What I'm getting at is the bigger issue for
> most (not all) atheists. Most adhere to scientism, the worldview that
> only the material/energy cosmos exist.
Let me repeat myself because youre not getting the point... Atheists
do NOT claim than NOTHING outside the material world exists (that
would be a religious belief). Instead, ATheists understand that only
thing mankind is CAPABLE of realising is the natural (ie. We can only
acknowledge the natural world, because that is all our brain can
handle.)
What makes an atheist different from an agnostic is that atheists see
GOd as the emotional manifestation of mankinds instinct for tribal
organisation coupled with his search for meaning and the unknown.
>
> > ...In otherwords, Christians, muslims, etc. can postulate
> > benevolent deities all they want, but until their postulations gain
> > any evidence, or until they are actually REALISED, they will remain
> > nothing but postulation.
>
> Exactly. One must wait for the evidence before making an accurate
> judgment.
Yep.... And since the evidence for atheism is the natural world, then
atheism automatically gains a footing where the others fall.
HEres a 9compressed) conversation I had with a fellow theist.
Him: So you've become an atheist right?
Me: Yep
Him: But how do you know there's nothing beyond our universe
Me: I never claimed there was definately nothing.
Him: But you said you were an atheist!
Me: Yep, I understand that we live in a natural world.
Him: So, you accept that there could be something beyond our world
Me: Yep
Him: SO aren't you an agnostic?
Me: NO, I said there could be soemthing, I didn't say there was. Its
up to you to provide evidence for the claim you make [THat something
exists beyond our world]
> > See my above paragraph.... Atheism is a way of looking at the world,
> > just as is Buddism Christianity etc. But theres one key difference,
> > ATheism relies on evidence to back it up, thereby making it so much
> > more "real" than all those ever could be
>
> Not exactly. Scientism is based on evidence. So is Christianity,
> Islam, etc. Each "religion" is based on truth-claims from Jesus,
> Muhammad, Buddha, etc. Those claims are deemed true based on
> evidence, historical, scientific, etc.
Scientism isn't a word... Are you talking about Science?
Religion isn't based on evidence. Religion is just a spin off of
philosophy.
And such "evidence you speak of is anecdotal. For instance, thousands
(perhaps millions) of americans believe they were abducted by aliens.
Does that mean aliens exist? SO the evidence you speak of is not
evidence, it is the interpretation and philosophies of those who took
it down.
>
> I'm not saying that contradictory religious worldviews are all true.
> That's logically impossible. I'm just saying that those worldviews
> are based on what their adherents deem to be the truth based on the
> evidence.
Based on what evidence...
I understand that there is evidence that we should "love one another"
and show compassion, but there is no evidence that god exists, or that
jesus was his son.
> > There are far more people who were born christian and became atheist,
> > than the other way around, highlighting the strength of atheism.
>
> I was raised a Catholic before seeing the light and becoming a
> hard-core atheist. I used to make my Christian friends cry because of
> the silliness of their worldview. Then, as an adult, I became a
> theist based upon new evidence that I hadn't been aware of previously.
What evidence.. please specify
> > This last statement is just plain false. If the philosphy of
> > "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply, then the floodgates
> > becoem open. Eg. If I decided that we are all just the fleeting
> > daydream of a giant praying mantis, by your logic, my view is just as
> > valid as yours.
>
> Yes it is... BEFORE any other evidence is given.
So we can agree that BEFORE any evidence is given, such views are
speculation.
>
> > My generall point is, one can hypothesis matrix style realities beyond
> > our own all they want, but since these supernatural realities, by
> > definition, cannot be realised, then there is no reason to see them as
> > anything more than imaginative fantasies
>
> That is only by your own definition.
Definition of supernatural is "Above Nature" or "Beyond Nature".
Since the human mind can interpret ONLY nature, then we cannot realise
the supernatural.
You have already subscribed to
> scientism. You BELIEVE nothing exists outside of the natural cosmos.
> That is only a personal belief of yours. Many intelligent, rational
> thinkers believe otherwise.
Theres no such thing as Scientism... If there is, then whats the
difference between scientism and atheism?
(ILL be gone for the weekend so Ill continue conversation on monday)
Morbert
This "information" that does not fit under natural scientific method
is hard to define. For in a sense, mankind trying to interpret their
own consciousness is like a person trying to look into his own eyes
without the use of a mirror or reflective surface. So this
information could be defined as spiritual, divine, psychological, or
emotional....
> [...]
> > So I believe that before the existence of God can be "proven" with
> > empirical evidence, we must first find a common ground to work with
> > (Not a small task by any means)
>
> Agreed. But again, we may first have to use something other than strict
> empirical evidence, and then work back to it once finding the common ground
> with other criteria.
>
> [...]
> > I have pasted your response to Icarus to make it easier for me to
> > discuss various points you have made.
> >
> >
> > The only way we'd know God didn't exist is if we knew everything about
> > the universe. Both atheists and agnostics accept that. But atheists
> > argue that even though there are aspects of the universe unknown to
> > us, the existence of GOD is soemwhat as absurd as believing we are all
> > the collective consciousness of some daydreaming beetle.
>
> That seems rather shortsighted to me, as it is rife with presumptions about
> what we do and do not know about the universe. In other words, it seems odd
> to say,
> "I accept that there are unknowns,but I don't accept certain unknowns, even
> though those unknowns are unknown to me." But perhaps I have misunderstood
> you, so please correct me if I have.
You have misunderstood me, but part of it is my fault, so let me try
and clarify. I do accept there are unknowns, but what I find "absurd"
is to impose possibilities into those unknowns before we know anything
about the nature of those unkowns.
In other words, because these unknowns are unknown, then the existence
of GOd deserves as much merit as the "daydreaming beetle" theory.
However, and evidence you have would be appreciated
> > Herein lies the 1st prblem. Cause and effect. ITs the same dilemma
> > as the chicken and the egg. Do things naturally happen because GOd
> > says they happen, or does god say things happen because things
> > naturally happen (For the latter, by God I mean people's idea of God).
> >
> > Heres my stance. I believe theists have manifested God because of
> > their thoughts and emotions, such as love, hate, war, death,
> > suffering, joy, paradise etc. So God is a product of these emotions
> > and thoughts. Because of this, peoples ideas of god will be
> > consistent with the world.
>
> Yet if you had walked where I have for the last nearly 27 years, you would
> have an entirely different picture of where theists are. But this life is
> yet an unknown to you, as many things you have experienced are a complete
> unknown to me.
As I am unaware of your experiences, I cannot comment on them.
From what I am inferring, you say that past experiences shape the way
we interpret the world. That I will agree on.
> > I'm not sure what you are refferring to here.... Are you talking about
> > miracles?
>
> No, not just miracles, although they will end up being some of the most
> convincing proofs when properly analyzed.
I find it very difficult to analyse Miracles. As you said earlier,
god will not jump through hoops for us, so analysing a miracle may be
difficult.
> But there is a wealth of other
> events which when understood in the right context also can argue powerfully
> for the existence of God.
The only other events in the world that I can think of other than
miracles and non-miracles are biblical "prophecies and predictions".
> > Theories always gain a higher validility if they are consistent, and
> > can be integrated into other validated theories, thereby becoming a
> > model.
>
> Right... I hoped I was making sense there. I believe these patterns would
> prove to be extremely critical for tipping the balance from coincidence and
> other such explanations to a realization that there is indeed a model for
> which God is the most likely source.
Agreed, but forming a model where god is the most likely source will
be difficult.
Occams razor states that : "All things being equal, the most likely
explanation carries the most merit."
SO one must be extremely critical when attributing events to God.
> > How do we ascertain the difference between "Who HE says he is." and
> > "Who WE say he is."
>
> Despite all the embarrassing confusion on this issue, believe it or not,
> there are some basics that are held by the vast majority of protestants, so
> we aren't without guidance in this area. But your question was very valid,
> to be sure.
But does this guidence come from GOd or From Man.
Protestants believe in Yahweh, the God of Abraham (originally thought
to be god of storms and flood). So these guidlines may be man made
We will agree then, that anecdotal evidence can be considered, just so
long as it is not used exclusively, for we need some form of evidence
that at least ties God to the natural world, and anecdotal evidence
only ties God to our said peoples perception of the natural world.
> Thanks much for taking the time to review the proposed criteria. And I have
> appreciated the various clarifications and perspectives that you have
> provided me with.
N problem, although I won't be back till monday or tuesday, as I have
no home computer, and must sponge of the college labs during my free
time.
> Dan Barker
> http://www.findhim.org
Morbert
> > > material/energy cosmos exist. Nothing else exists. Why is THAT the
> > > defaul position???
> >
> > Because science has consistently been able to explain readily observable
> > natural phenomena, while all that supernaturalists have to offer is
> > paranormal mumbo-jumbo, worthless testimonials, wishful thinking and lies.
>
> True, through the use of science much of reality has been
> understood... but not everything. We don't know why anything exists
> at all? Why did the big bang happen at all? Why is there gravity?
> Etc... So, yes, science is helpful.
The answer to these questions is "WHy not?"
> But just because something is not scientific doesn't automatically
> mean it is worthless. What about art?
Art is the science of the soul, art often has meaning behind it, and
art
critics scientifically interpret art based on past knowledge.
You are confusing science with "exact science" or "lab science"
> What about history? How can
> we know that George Washington was the first president of the US?
> Science can not tell us. History can.
History follows the same rationality of science. It pieces accounts
togethar, and integrates them into the scientific timeline, as well as
researching their validility.
> People who lived back then who
> wrote stuff down can tell us. Reliable eye witness testimony can tell
> us.
But how can we test reliability, other than scientific method.
> So let's not write off every non-scientific thing as mumbo-jumbo
> just yet.
?
> And remember there are many Muslims scientists, many Christian
> scientists, Jewish ones, too. Does that mean only mumbo-jumbo comes
> out of their mouths? I think not.
No... Whered that Idea come from. Science is independant from the
person who describes it. A Christian can speak about Newtons law and
speak non- mumbojumbo. It is only when he starts talking about God
that the mumbojumbo begins
> > No, the default status comes from the fact that the supernaturalists make
> > outrageous claims that they are unable to support in any acceptable way.
>
> That's your own opinion. That's not the universally accepted
> standard. Many smart, thinking, rational, honest people think
> otherwise about the support for the supernatural.
Concensus of the majority does not equal truth. Supernaturalists are
not able to support their claim.. that is fact, regardless of how many
there are.
People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own fatcs
> > Yeah, right. Let's apply your twisted logic to a real life example, shall
> > we? Let's say that I claim that you're a child rapist, another person
> > claims
> > that you're a baby murderer and yet another that you owe him a million
> > dollars. Needless to say, you claim none of this is true. According to you,
> > all these contradictory "worldviews" are equally valid.
>
> They are not worldviews (someone's ultimate viewpoint of reality) so
> it's a completely different category. But they are all truth-claims.
> And before any evidence (scientific, historical, or otherwise) is put
> forth, any COULD be true. The point is that none of them should be
> preferred BEFORE the evidence is given.
But ATheism makes no claims, so why does it need evidence.
> > No particular view has more weight before it can produce evidence.
>
> Exactly. Now you're getting it. No particular view has more weight
> before the evidence is given.
YEs, that is what makes all religions equal. But what makes atheism
different is that it's evidence IS the natural world, you are sitting
in atiest evidence right now, so Atheist is interwoven with its
evidence
>
> > > To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
> > > astray by something else.
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes, really. Some people can see the divine in nature before ever
> going to church, synagogue, or mosque.
>
> > OK, then you are a child rapist.
>
> Before any other evidence is given that statement is just as possible
> as this one: I am not a child rapist.
"innocent until proven guilty" I have no reason to believe you are a
child rapist, therefore, the statement that you are not a child rapist
bears more truth. It could be wrong... but until you give me evidence
that you ARE, then I cannot claim you are.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote...
>
>> "Scientism" is of course a straw man invented by theists in a
>> trasparent attempt to make the investigation and understanding of how
>> reality works, an -ism that they can pretend is in competition with
>> theisw own ism.
>
>Actually, no. Scientism is the worldview that most atheists hold to.
How do you imaging that lying to your atheist audience is going to
convince them that you are beith truthful about anything?
There is no such thing as "scientism" outside the paranoid fantasies
of religious fundamentalists.
Discuss science if you feel you have to, but don't lie about straw
men.
>> There is no such hing as "scientism" outside the paranoid fantases of
>> certain religious extremists.
>
>Actually, no. Like I just said, scientism is the worldview that most
>atheists hold to. I know. I used to be an atheist.
Why do you lie? Three times in this small paragraph: "Scientism" is a
stupid straw man and not "the worldview" held by atheists. You do
*not* "know that" and you were obviously not an atheist because you
would know that this does not describe atheists.
>> Reality is the default. Science is the method that investigates reality.
>
>Exactly. Now you're getting it. Reality is the default. Science
>helps us understand reality. Our worldview helps us interpret
>reality.
No. Reality is not a worldview. It's the religious who have a
worldview that they prefer over reality. People who observe,
investigate and understand reality don't filter it throufh a
worldview. *I*F* they can be said to have a worldview (which is a
stretch) it would be derived from reality.
>> The one that is demonstrated to work in reality is the one that
>> carries any weight at all.
>
>Right again! That's the whole point. Whichever worldview best
>interprets the whole of reality is the proper choice.
No. There's nothing to choose. Why invent worldviews where they are
neither there nor needed? Once again, REALITY IS NOT A WORLDVIEW. It
is dishonest to project theists filtering of reality through a
worldview onto everybody else.
>> >To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
>> >astray by something else.
>>
>> Yes, we were.
>>
>> And atheist does not equal scientist or vice versa.
>>
>> Children don't believe in any god or gods until, they are taught to
>> by those around them. They are _trivially_ atheist. And those who
>> weren't taught to be theist remain atehist.
>
>Actually, no, we weren't. Some people can see the divine in nature
>long before ever going to a church, synagogue, or mosque.
No. They imagine they do because they were programmed to do so in
their formative years. If they weren't then they would just see
nature.
>> No. You were taught to be theist. Unfortunately you derive your
>> wordview from your being theist.
>
>Not really. I was raised Catholic. Then I saw the light and became a
>hard-core atheist. I used to make my Christian friends cry because of
>the stupid-ness of their worldview. Then, as an adult, I became a
>theist after I realized what interpretation of reality was most likely
>true.
Stop lying. If you imagine that your caricature atheist actually
describes atheists then you were never atheist.
>> Being atheist, is in fact a minor part ot the atheists' life.
>
>True. But adhering to scientism is a worldview. And THAT is one of
>the most important parts of someone's life.
You're either a deliberate liar or incredibly stupid. Like far too
many theists you don't understand that you are lecturing atheists
about what their atheism "really" is, and are too stupid to realise
that they see through you.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote...
>
>> "Scientism" is of course a straw man invented by theists in a
>> trasparent attempt to make the investigation and understanding of how
>> reality works, an -ism that they can pretend is in competition with
>> theisw own ism.
>
>Actually, no. Scientism is the worldview that most atheists hold to.
How do you imagine that lying to your atheist audience is going to
convince them that you are being truthful about anything?
There is no such thing as "scientism" outside the paranoid fantasies
of religious fundamentalists.
Discuss science if you feel you have to, but don't lie about straw
men.
>> There is no such hing as "scientism" outside the paranoid fantases of
>> certain religious extremists.
>
>Actually, no. Like I just said, scientism is the worldview that most
>atheists hold to. I know. I used to be an atheist.
Why do you lie? Three times in this small paragraph: "Scientism" is a
stupid straw man and not "the worldview" held by atheists. You do
*not* "know that" and you were obviously not an atheist because you
would know that this does not describe atheists.
>> Reality is the default. Science is the method that investigates reality.
>
>Exactly. Now you're getting it. Reality is the default. Science
>helps us understand reality. Our worldview helps us interpret
>reality.
No. Reality is not a worldview. It's the religious who have a
worldview that they prefer over reality. People who observe,
investigate and understand reality don't filter it through a
worldview. *I*F* they can be said to have a worldview (which is a
stretch) it would be derived from reality.
>> The one that is demonstrated to work in reality is the one that
>> carries any weight at all.
>
>Right again! That's the whole point. Whichever worldview best
>interprets the whole of reality is the proper choice.
No. There's nothing to choose. Why invent worldviews where they are
neither there nor needed? Once again, REALITY IS NOT A WORLDVIEW. It
is dishonest to project theists filtering of reality through a
worldview onto everybody else.
>> >To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
>> >astray by something else.
>>
>> Yes, we were.
>>
>> And atheist does not equal scientist or vice versa.
>>
>> Children don't believe in any god or gods until, they are taught to
>> by those around them. They are _trivially_ atheist. And those who
>> weren't taught to be theist remain atehist.
>
>Actually, no, we weren't. Some people can see the divine in nature
>long before ever going to a church, synagogue, or mosque.
No. They imagine they do because they were programmed to do so in
their formative years. If they weren't then they would just see
nature.
>> No. You were taught to be theist. Unfortunately you derive your
>> wordview from your being theist.
>
>Not really. I was raised Catholic. Then I saw the light and became a
>hard-core atheist. I used to make my Christian friends cry because of
>the stupid-ness of their worldview. Then, as an adult, I became a
>theist after I realized what interpretation of reality was most likely
>true.
Stop lying. If you imagine that your caricature atheist actually
describes atheists then you were never atheist.
>> Being atheist, is in fact a minor part ot the atheists' life.
>
>True. But adhering to scientism is a worldview. And THAT is one of
>the most important parts of someone's life.
You're either a deliberate liar or incredibly stupid. Like far too
Morbert
>
> "What each of us has to establish in our minds is whether IT IS
> POSSIBLE (emphasis added) that something could be real that cannot be
> proven within the strict constraints of 'natural scientific method'."
>
> The statement contains no assumptions whatsoever. What it contains
> is a call for a prerequisite attitude of openmindedness towards the
> question at hand. It neither asserts nor denies the answer as it does
> not attempt to provide an answer.
....
> Your statement, however, contains
> the assumption that only through naturalistic explanations do we know
> anything. That has not been established, ergo: "begging the question".
>
Ok Justin, be sure to read this nice and slowy, and don't miss
anything okay? 'Cause it's REEEEEEEEEAALLLLLL important that you
actually pay attention.
Atheists believe the world is natural
Theists believe the world is natural and SUPER NATURAL
Now, Atheists believe the world is natural because of the rational
character of Physical Laws. Atheists accept that there may be aspects
of the universe we cannot understand. (Stop me if Im going to fast)
But since these "aspects cannot be understood, they cannot be
realised, and we humans cannot superimpose our psychlogical fantasies
(That means our thoughts) into the supernatural. So talk about
"could" all you want, it doesn' change anything.
So "NAtural Scientific method" actually IS the only way we can
establish validility, because that is our nature.
I would have thought that was kind of obvious Justin... And don't say
things like LOL.
Also, Maybe you can answer my Question.... WHy do you believe in God?
Dan Barker
> togethar, and integrates them into the scientific timeline, as well as
> researching their validility.
But the same can't be done for Christianity?
[Dan Still]
> > People who lived back then who
> > wrote stuff down can tell us. Reliable eye witness testimony can tell
> > us.
>
> But how can we test reliability, other than scientific method.
Didn't someone already give the answer to this above with the statement,
"...as well as researching their validity" using the "rationality of
science"?
[...]
[Dan Still]
> > That's your own opinion. That's not the universally accepted
> > standard. Many smart, thinking, rational, honest people think
> > otherwise about the support for the supernatural.
>
> Concensus of the majority does not equal truth. Supernaturalists are
> not able to support their claim.. that is fact, regardless of how many
> there are.
I submit that if you used the "rationality of science" to thoroughly
research the validity of their claims you would find that some of them are
indeed valid [I say "some" because I believe there are many spurious
claims]. Keep in mind that there are countless people who not only don't
believe in God, they also don't *want* to believe in God, so it follows that
they understandably are going to be antagonistic to any efforts to fairly
and thoroughly investigate these claims. The price of finding they were
wrong is simply too high.
[...]
> But ATheism makes no claims, so why does it need evidence.
Hmmm... I am constantly being told by atheists that the existence of God
cannot be proved, and that therefore He does not exist. In my book, these
certainly sound like claims, especially as it must be admitted that: 1) They
can't prove He does not exist; and, 2) They tend to be unwilling to look for
the proof where it must be found (empirical and anecdotal evidence that is
gathered, verified for credibility, and collated with other evidence to find
patterns pointing to the possibility of God as the primary cause).
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
news:l288nv4rfk6596p6i...@4ax.com...
[Dan Still]
> >Actually, no, we weren't. Some people can see the divine in nature
> >long before ever going to a church, synagogue, or mosque.
>
> No. They imagine they do because they were programmed to do so in
> their formative years. If they weren't then they would just see
> nature.
You are aware, I trust, that you are making baseless assumptions here,
right? Some of us were programmed during our "formative years" to believe
that this life was all there was and that the concept of God was a fantasy
of simple minds. But because we could think for ourselves, we began to
process the data and eventually began to see that the atheistical viewpoint
that we had adopted and even argued for wasn't as waterproof as we once
thought it was.
[Dan Still]
> >Not really. I was raised Catholic. Then I saw the light and became a
> >hard-core atheist. I used to make my Christian friends cry because of
> >the stupid-ness of their worldview. Then, as an adult, I became a
> >theist after I realized what interpretation of reality was most likely
> >true.
>
> Stop lying. If you imagine that your caricature atheist actually
> describes atheists then you were never atheist.
The definition of the word atheist is, "one that disbelieves or denies the
existence of God or gods." Can you demonstrate that Mr. Still did not fit
this definition when he was younger? Do you know that anything else he
related is in fact not true? If not, how in the world do you have the
audacity to state that he is lying? He is giving you his personal
experience. This kind of talk does nothing to further intelligent debate,
and shows a tremendous lack of respect for others.
Your thoughts and views on life are something that I personally am
interested in reading, but like others, I am put off when it degenerates
into this kind of childish banter. In the future, let us read the best you
have to offer, and maybe we will be able to learn valuable perspectives from
what you have observed in life.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
news:d7fe20a0.03092...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> Scientism isn't a word... Are you talking about Science?
[...]
> Theres no such thing as Scientism... If there is, then whats the
> difference between scientism and atheism?
The dictionary defines "scientism" as, "The theory that investigational
methods used in the natural sciences should be applied in all fields of
inquiry."
So... not only is it a word, it also forms the basis of the mantra that I
personally have had repeated to me over and over again by countless
atheists.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19dc35ab2...@206.172.150.13...
...
> > > Josef, get some second opinions on this. Call a local professor of
> English.
> > > You will discover that the statement does not, as others have informed
> you,
> > > contain any assumptions. Here is the same statement rewritten to include
> a
> > > bald-faced assumption: "It is obvious that something could be real that
> > > cannot be proven within the strict constraints of "natural scientific
> > > method." Do you see the difference?
> >
> >
> > In light of your admitted bias further on in this post, I an somewhat
> > surprised by your claim above. However, I will accept that it was not
> > your intention to include an unsupported assumption. Do me a favour and
> > rewrite the statement.
>
> What claim above?
Your claim that " ... the statement does not, as others have informed
you, contain any assumptions".
...
> > > > Nonsense. Dan's bias is quite clear, and appears numerous times in his
> > > > various posts.
> > >
> > > Sigh. Josef, you have your positions, I have mine. Do you think your
> "bias"
> > > is not also quite clear? Is this wrong? No, it's not, unless this bias
> > > causes us to close our minds and thus fail to learn from one another by
> > > stifling useful and interesting debate.
>
> I note that you did not respond to my comments on the issue of bias here. Do
> you understand that both of us have pulled up to this table, each with our
> own biases?
The fact that I did not contest the point speaks for itself, does it
not?
...
> > The ball is in your court.
>
> The "ball" in this case, which is obvious from the context above, is your
> entering into debate, instead of getting mired in the preliminaries.
The "preliminaries" obviously set the stage. What I have asked above is
quite reasonable, IMHO. Remove the ambiguity from your position, and let
us proceed.
...
Regards,
Josef
We cannot make it rain, but we can see to it that the rain falls on
prepared soil.
-- Henri Nouwen
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Justin_Martyr2000 poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
> Josef Balluch <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.19dcc0f7...@206.172.150.13>...
> > It is quite an improvement on your previous position. My mention of
> > Dan's bias was not for the purpose of making it the issue, but rather to
> > caution that it was colouring his approach.
>
>
> My previous position? I would be curious to see what exactly you
> think my previous position was?
Well, I THOUGHT your previous position was:
"YOU, however, have taken it upon yourself to assert a hypothesis (the
existence of strictly naturalistic explanations) without showing a
warrant for your hypothesis and insisting that your position is the
correct one on that basis alone."
"Your statement, however, contains the assumption that only through
naturalistic explanations do we know anything."
Regards,
Josef
> Beware of the cynic who masquerades as a skeptic
>
> -- Anonymous
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Dan Barker
> > most people at some point in life begin to sense that their brains are
able
> > to pick up other information through means that don't always fit too
well
> > under the heading of "natural scientific method."
>
> This "information" that does not fit under natural scientific method
> is hard to define. For in a sense, mankind trying to interpret their
> own consciousness is like a person trying to look into his own eyes
> without the use of a mirror or reflective surface. So this
> information could be defined as spiritual, divine, psychological, or
> emotional....
But remember that there is repeatability here, which indicates the
possibility of a consistent source for what at least Christians sense in
this regard. This repeatability commonly manifests itself in a pattern where
a given action on the part of the person brings about a very similar
response from this same apparently consistent source. It is these types of
things that move such phenomena from the isolated incidents to the realm of
being possible indicative of a deity.
> > > So I believe that before the existence of God can be "proven" with
> > > empirical evidence, we must first find a common ground to work with
> > > (Not a small task by any means)
> >
> > Agreed. But again, we may first have to use something other than strict
> > empirical evidence, and then work back to it once finding the common
ground
> > with other criteria.
I am impressed with your open-mindedness and sagacity as evidenced by that
statement. Many in your position would refuse to admit even the possibility,
or fail to understand how one could lead to the other.
> > > I have pasted your response to Icarus to make it easier for me to
> > > discuss various points you have made.
> > >
> > >
>
> > > The only way we'd know God didn't exist is if we knew everything about
> > > the universe. Both atheists and agnostics accept that. But atheists
> > > argue that even though there are aspects of the universe unknown to
> > > us, the existence of GOD is soemwhat as absurd as believing we are all
> > > the collective consciousness of some daydreaming beetle.
> >
> > That seems rather shortsighted to me, as it is rife with presumptions
about
> > what we do and do not know about the universe. In other words, it seems
odd
> > to say,
> > "I accept that there are unknowns,but I don't accept certain unknowns,
even
> > though those unknowns are unknown to me." But perhaps I have
misunderstood
> > you, so please correct me if I have.
>
> You have misunderstood me, but part of it is my fault, so let me try
> and clarify. I do accept there are unknowns, but what I find "absurd"
> is to impose possibilities into those unknowns before we know anything
> about the nature of those unkowns.
Valid point. Thanks for the clarification. But in this case there is a large
body of people who have found consistent patterns in that unknown that have
made it "known" and quantifiable in the sense that it has been proved again
and again that certain actions always bring about certain supernatural
results that are remarkably similar, if not identical to one another, yet
[and this is very critical] most all of these results are of such a nature
that the individual is convinced that he or she could not have arrived at
such a point without the intervention of the supernatural. Indeed, many had
tried on their own and failed, until they stepped into the pattern.
> In other words, because these unknowns are unknown, then the existence
> of GOd deserves as much merit as the "daydreaming beetle" theory.
That would be the case if we didn't have abundant anecdotal evidence
reaching across cultures, languages, and the centuries of time as mentioned
above. So that will have to do until we can learn to communicate with
beetles. ; )
> However, and evidence you have would be appreciated
Reams of it could be sent your way, but let's see what presents itself
naturally as we continue.
> > > Herein lies the 1st prblem. Cause and effect. ITs the same dilemma
> > > as the chicken and the egg. Do things naturally happen because GOd
> > > says they happen, or does god say things happen because things
> > > naturally happen (For the latter, by God I mean people's idea of God).
> > >
> > > Heres my stance. I believe theists have manifested God because of
> > > their thoughts and emotions, such as love, hate, war, death,
> > > suffering, joy, paradise etc. So God is a product of these emotions
> > > and thoughts. Because of this, peoples ideas of god will be
> > > consistent with the world.
> >
> > Yet if you had walked where I have for the last nearly 27 years, you
would
> > have an entirely different picture of where theists are. But this life
is
> > yet an unknown to you, as many things you have experienced are a
complete
> > unknown to me.
>
> As I am unaware of your experiences, I cannot comment on them.
>
> From what I am inferring, you say that past experiences shape the way
> we interpret the world. That I will agree on.
Past and, of course, present experiences. Wisdom dictates that we always
seek to collate the former with the latter, and only discard the former when
we are sure the model is no longer valid.
> > > I'm not sure what you are refferring to here.... Are you talking about
> > > miracles?
> >
> > No, not just miracles, although they will end up being some of the most
> > convincing proofs when properly analyzed.
>
> I find it very difficult to analyse Miracles. As you said earlier,
> god will not jump through hoops for us, so analysing a miracle may be
> difficult.
Actually, most miracles are pretty straightforward. The problem I've
observed is that some will either refuse to believe they happened, or come
up with explanations that are more far-fetched than the reality. A humorous
[but true] example related to a biblical miracle is those who explained away
the crossing of the Red Sea by saying it was actually the "Reed Sea" and
that the water was only a foot deep. The problem is that they didn't
consider how Pharoah's army in pursuing the Israelites managed to drown
itself in a foot of water.
Here are two more that I recently mentioned to someone on another thread in
this NG. They both happened to a unique man named Clarke who was a member of
the fellowship I attended when I lived in Oregon.
One day God instructed Clarke to get on a certain streetcar. At each stop he
waited to hear if he was to get off, but heard nothing. He eventually
reached the end of the line where the streetcar was to head back into town,
and God told him to get off and head down a certain street, and
then stop at a certain house. He knocked on the front door and no one
answered. Wondering for a moment if he had got the message wrong, God told
him to go the back door. Upon knocking there, he heard a loud thump and soon
a young woman came to the door. Clarke asked what was going on, and she told
him that she had just taken the rope from her neck and jumped down from the
chair to answer the door. She did not follow through with her plans that
day, but instead soon became a Christian.
Here's another miraculous event from his life. He was staying with a recent
convert and his family in Pennsylvania, I believe it was, and they were
tobacco farmers. When he was there they had a
barn full of harvested tobacco, that the sons of the man wanted to sell, but
the new convert was struggling with as he knew tobacco was going to do no
good for those who used it. But he couldn't stand up to his sons. When
Clarke knew the whole story, he let his opinion be known and then went
upstairs to pray that the issue would be resolved. Later, while he was still
praying, a tornado appeared suddenly, and made directly for the barn, which
it soon tore to shreds, spreading the tobacco all over the county. The owner
of the house came running in shouting to his wife, "Tell Clarke to stop
praying! Maybe we can save the house!" He had no reason to fear, as the
tornado dissipated without damaging anything else.
Could someone come up with other explanations for how these two events
happened? Well, the first one would be pretty challenging, but one could say
that the second was just coincidence. But collated with the credibility of
this particular man, countless other wondrous events which occurred in his
life, the testimony of credible eyewitnesses (both believers and
unbelievers), etc., etc. makes any such explanations sound less and less
likely (especially when they were exceedingly improbable, if not absurd, in
the first place).
These are among the types of things that I propose should be analyzed using
something similar to the criteria that I have detailed and then, as you
noted, it would lead to the use of standard empirical evidence for events
that fit that standard of proof.
> > But there is a wealth of other
> > events which when understood in the right context also can argue
powerfully
> > for the existence of God.
>
> The only other events in the world that I can think of other than
> miracles and non-miracles are biblical "prophecies and predictions".
Those, my friend, are exceedingly powerful. I mean to where they can make
your hair stand on end. But I rarely mention them because uninformed people
are quick to say that "the prophecies were written after the events
happened," despite the fact that there is no evidence to support that
assumption. And when it comes to the raft of prophecies about Christ's first
appearance, these individuals fail to realize that the Jews who looked to
the Old Testament were not interested in proving the reality of Jesus
Christ, who they wanted to believe was an impostor, so they certainly
wouldn't have written things after the fact that pointed only to that time
in history, and to that Person. Then we have the prophecies stating that in
the last times the Israelites would return to their land, and become a
nation again, which happened in the first part of this century, with them
officially becoming a nation again in 1948. Now who can argue that these
biblical prophecies were written after the fact? Yet people still won't
credit them because they don't want to deal with the consequences of doing
so. To me, this is putting one's proverbial head in the sand.
> > > Theories always gain a higher validility if they are consistent, and
> > > can be integrated into other validated theories, thereby becoming a
> > > model.
> >
> > Right... I hoped I was making sense there. I believe these patterns
would
> > prove to be extremely critical for tipping the balance from coincidence
and
> > other such explanations to a realization that there is indeed a model
for
> > which God is the most likely source.
>
> Agreed, but forming a model where god is the most likely source will
> be difficult.
>
> Occams razor states that : "All things being equal, the most likely
> explanation carries the most merit."
>
> SO one must be extremely critical when attributing events to God.
I agree, and again that is why, for instance, I proposed the strict 90th
percentile cutoff in establishing credibility. If I wasn't sure of what I
believed would be found, I would be foolish for making such a suggestion.
> > > How do we ascertain the difference between "Who HE says he is." and
> > > "Who WE say he is."
> >
> > Despite all the embarrassing confusion on this issue, believe it or not,
> > there are some basics that are held by the vast majority of protestants,
so
> > we aren't without guidance in this area. But your question was very
valid,
> > to be sure.
>
> But does this guidence come from GOd or From Man.
Depends who you ask.
> Protestants believe in Yahweh, the God of Abraham (originally thought
> to be god of storms and flood). So these guidlines may be man made
Some believe that. Others have proved to their own satisfaction otherwise.
BTW, I don't believe there is any solid textual or historical basis for the
"god of storms and flood." It certainly isn't biblical.
[...]
> We will agree then, that anecdotal evidence can be considered, just so
> long as it is not used exclusively, for we need some form of evidence
> that at least ties God to the natural world, and anecdotal evidence
> only ties God to our said peoples perception of the natural world.
Once you heard the anecdotal evidence, I believe you would quickly see that
it is very definitely tied to the natural world. In other words, I am not
talking about "I felt this," and "I had this distinct impression," and
"Suddenly I was filled with peace" types of things as anything but decidedly
peripheral evidence. It's things like people who tried unsuccessfuly for
years to quit smoking, but couldn't do it. Then the moment the initial
supernatural change that marks entrance into communion with God happened,
they had no more desire to smoke than they did to eat dirt. Many have
related that the very smell of smoke thereafter was distasteful to them.
Even more conclusive are those I have known who were instantly delivered
from drugs that are not only highly addictive, but which will cause serious
withdrawal symptoms if someone quits cold turkey, yet not only was the
craving instantaneously removed, but there were no withdrawal symptoms
whatsoever. Things like this I believe are very much tied to the natural
world, and defy easy explanations other than God as a primary cause, given
the context in which they occurred, and the fact that countless people have
had the same exact experience.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Dan Barker
> > > In light of your admitted bias further on in this post, I an somewhat
> > > surprised by your claim above. However, I will accept that it was not
> > > your intention to include an unsupported assumption. Do me a favour
and
> > > rewrite the statement.
> >
> > What claim above?
>
>
> Your claim that " ... the statement does not, as others have informed
> you, contain any assumptions".
My original statement was, "What each of has to establish in our minds is
whether it is possible that something could be real that cannot be proven
within the strict constraints of 'natural
scientific method.'" I see no need to rewrite it to remove an assumption, as
I, like others, fail to see any assumption in this statement. Does this
statement mention God? No. Did the context clearly indicate that I was
referring only to God? No. So what possible assumptions are you seeing
here???
> > > > > Nonsense. Dan's bias is quite clear, and appears numerous times in
his
> > > > > various posts.
> > > >
> > > > Sigh. Josef, you have your positions, I have mine. Do you think your
"bias"
> > > > is not also quite clear? Is this wrong? No, it's not, unless this
bias
> > > > causes us to close our minds and thus fail to learn from one another
by
> > > > stifling useful and interesting debate.
> >
> > I note that you did not respond to my comments on the issue of bias
here. Do
> > you understand that both of us have pulled up to this table, each with
our
> > own biases?
>
> The fact that I did not contest the point speaks for itself, does it
> not?
It would have said a lot more if you had directly responded to it.
> > > The ball is in your court.
> >
> > The "ball" in this case, which is obvious from the context above, is
your
> > entering into debate, instead of getting mired in the preliminaries.
>
>
> The "preliminaries" obviously set the stage. What I have asked above is
> quite reasonable, IMHO. Remove the ambiguity from your position, and let
> us proceed.
Clearly define the ambiguity that you perceive, and then I will do my utmost
to remove it, if I can see what you are referring to.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19dc2e5f1...@206.172.150.13...
...
> > Dan, that's all very nice and you have made this point several times.
> > Can we lay it to rest and put it behind us?
> >
> > As to my question whether something can be self evident to only some
> > people ....., I take it that was a Yes.
>
> You take it wrong... What did I say that made you think otherwise?
The fact that your statements are sometimes convoluted and obscure.
> Stop and
> think about what we are dealing with here.
> I wrote, "That another
> explanation may be necessary if we are to prove the existence of God should
> be self-evident, especially to those who hold that such existence cannot be
> proven by the natural scientific method."
> Unless you are referring to people
> who not only don't believe in God, but who are absolutely 100% convinced
> there could be a God ...
An example of the careless way you throw sentences together.
> ... [and these are individuals who should not be taken
> seriously as they obviously believe they have perfect knowledge of all that
> can be known], what reasonable person wouldn't agree that this statement is
> self-evident? In other words, IF God exists, it MAY be necessary to find
> other criteria than we normally use if we are to prove His existence.
What you are saying here confirms my previous interpretation. When ALL
people are taken into account, then they will not agree as to what
things are self evident.
...
> > Your statements often contain the assumption that your deity, or a
> > supernatural, exists.
> >
> > If it is your intention to demonstrate the existence of your deity then
> > start from square one, and not from the assumption that your deity can
> > be seen with a change in POV.
>
> Here is where you are missing the point.
Nope. Not really. I'm just making sure we are on the same page.
...
> In other words, it should be obvious that looking for a
> different POV is a viable option that should be explored.
Fire away.
> > > > I do not think there is any dispute that some "see" or "hear" things
> > > > that others do not. It is the interpretation that is in dispute. The
> > > > point is, if these phenomena are part of the outside world then why
> > > > should only believers experience them? And why should such phenomena
> be
> > > > assumed to be "non-natural"?
> > >
> > > The very nature of the phenomena in virtually all cases is that they are
> > > only experienced by those who have entered a door that others have not
> > > entered.
> >
> > That should be an important clue to you.
>
> And to you also. Can you allow that these individuals have perhaps gone
> somewhere that you know nothing about, a place that you assume is
> necessarily invalid and unreal, yet you are in no position to comment on
> with absolute assurance because you haven't been there? Are you open-minded
> enough to do that?
Sure.
Actually, I've Been There. Done That.
Are you open minded enough to consider that their experience is a
product of their brain processes?
> > How can some parts of reality be dependent on one's beliefs?
>
> If you don't believe that something exists, you are going to be blind to it
> if its nature is such that it does not often reveal itself to those who
> refuse to believe.
And my point is: What philosophical justification is there for the claim
that some things are only visible to a believer?
...
> > I'm not sure of the purpose of this dissertation, since this point is
> > not in dispute. I don't doubt that your experiences are different from
> > mine. I don't doubt that I cannot re-create your experiences. I want you
> > to explain HOW your beliefs can influence the reality you experience.
>
> Again, if you refuse to allow that something could be real, then you have
> closed a door. Others have been more open-minded, and they have opened that
> door so as to find out if the claims were true. Intelligent, sentient, sane,
> reasoning atheists have done this by the countless thousands, and never come
> back.
Nevertheless, one can pass through the "door" in either direction, as
many millions of former theists have discovered.
There is only ONE reality. It should not be divided into two areas
separated by a door. I contend that the door is an illusion, Dan,
created by those dissatisfied with what they see in the ONE reality that
exists.
...
> > > Sorry, but if mutually-accepted criteria is developed and applied then
> the
> > > interpretations should be identical.
> >
> > The point is, they are NOT identical. Until such time, the issue remains
> > the interpretation.
>
> Hello? Did you catch the tense and the qualifiers in that sentence? You
> cannot state that the results of experiments that have yet to be performed
> have results that "are NOT identical."
Hello? Did you catch the tense and qualifier in my statement?
"Until such time ..."
Furthermore, you also appear to feel that the "experiments" have already
been done, by yourself for example.
> > What you are trying to do is skip over the problems in the fond hope
> > that they will be magically dissolved by your "mutually accepted
> > criteria".
>
> What problems am I attempting to "skip over"?
The fact that the interpretations are not (yet) identical.
> Your use of phrases like "fond
> hope" and "magically dissolved" are belittling and disrespectful. I work
> very hard to not show disrespect for you and your ideas, and I would
> appreciate your doing the same.
Sorry, man! The fourth glass of wine must have clouded my judgement.
> > > You seem to still be working outside of
> > > what I am proposing, which I admit has proved largely unworkable for
> > > numerous reasons.
> >
> > It is good that you recognize this.
> >
> > We are making progress.
> >
>
> Sigh. No, I'm afraid we're not. But I will keep trying.
You and I agree that your approach has some problems. Since we agree on
something then we are making progress. Clearly though, it is not the
"progress" you had in mind.
> > > > No, I am not categorically rejecting it.
> > >
> > > You wrote to Dan Still above, "I simply feel that the word cannot be
> shown
> > > to be meaningful." O.K., it's late and I'm very fatigued, but that seems
> > > awfully close to a categorical rejection to me.
> >
> > It is entirely possible to hold a POV and still maintain an open mind.
> > Do you agree?
>
> And what is the difference in this case between an assumption and a POV?
Well, there no doubt is a distinction, but that is not where I am going
here.
I simply need to know if you would agree or disagree with the statement.
> > You have made your own bias quite clear with regards to the question
> > under discussion. Would I be justified in assuming that you have a
> > closed mind?
>
> Assume whatever you wish, Josef.
That one also went right past you.
I was expecting you to reply that you are capable of holding a POV while
maintaining an open mind. I am surprised that you have not done so.
> > > > You will first have to define your deity.
> > >
> > > See my response to Icarus earlier this evening and see if that lays the
> > > groundwork for us to further consider this subject.
> >
> > Well, it says you are arguing for the Christian god. From my observation
> > there are almost as many definitions of the Christian god as there are
> > Christians.
>
> Is that really what you read there? Give me some examples to support this.
No, not in your statement. This observation comes from several years of
Usenet participation. I am not putting it forward as a point of
contention. As stated, it's just an observation. It means that your
"definition" doesn't actually narrow the field all that much for me.
> > Beyond that it says your deity cannot be tested, but can be deduced from
> > observable effects.
>
> I did not say my deity cannot be tested, rather that new tests may be
> necessary so as to satisfy both sides of the debate.
?????
"First of all, we cannot expect God to jump through hoops for us. In
other words, we have to find criteria that allows us to find Him where
He is, not where some might wish He was"
...
Regards,
Josef
Truth never envelops itself in mystery, and the mystery in which it is
at any time enveloped is the work of its antagonist, and never of
itself.
-- Thomas Paine
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Dan Barker poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19de39469...@206.172.150.13...
...
> > The "preliminaries" obviously set the stage. What I have asked above is
> > quite reasonable, IMHO. Remove the ambiguity from your position, and let
> > us proceed.
>
> Clearly define the ambiguity that you perceive, and then I will do my utmost
> to remove it, if I can see what you are referring to.
"What each of has to establish in our minds is whether it is possible
that something could be real that cannot be proven within the strict
constraints of 'natural scientific method.'"
whether it is possible
that something could be real
that cannot be proven within the strict constraints of 'natural
scientific method.'"
The word "possible" is followed by two participial phrases. The sentence
structure produces an ambiguity because it is not clear if the
participial phrases are appositional.
Regards,
Josef
The one thing harder than doing something right is repairing the damage
after doing it wrong.
Charles & Mambo
>>>Scientism is the worldview that only the physical, natural,
>>>material/energy cosmos exist. Nothing else exists. Why is THAT the
>>>defaul position???
>>
>>Because science has consistently been able to explain readily observable
>>natural phenomena, while all that supernaturalists have to offer is
>>paranormal mumbo-jumbo, worthless testimonials, wishful thinking and lies.
>
> True, through the use of science much of reality has been
> understood... but not everything. We don't know why anything exists
> at all? Why did the big bang happen at all? Why is there gravity?
> Etc... So, yes, science is helpful.
First of all, science does not deal with "why", but "how". Second, the fact
that we don't know the answer to a difficult question does not mean we can
just make it up as we go, which is how superstitions get started. Third,
when science *does* provide the answers to questions and those answers
clearly render a particular superstition false, then that superstition
should not be held on to as if our lives depended on it.
> But just because something is not scientific doesn't automatically
> mean it is worthless. What about art?
Irrelevant example. Nothing to do with science or the supernatural. You
might as well have asked "What about yogurt?".
> What about history?
> How can we know that George Washington was the first president of the US?
> Science can not tell us. History can.
History and science are not some sort of opposites. The study of history
actually involves strict scientific principles, in case you didn't notice.
No one in his right mind goes around studying history based on myths and
fables, unless (s)he's a creationist. Therefore, Washington's life and
presidency is established through scientific principles exclusively.
> People who lived back then who
> wrote stuff down can tell us. Reliable eye witness testimony can tell
> us. So let's not write off every non-scientific thing as mumbo-jumbo
> just yet.
History is not non-scientific. Most of history does not involve
eye-witnesses, anyway, but records, from archeological to archivic. Now, if
we didn't use scientific methods to sift out those records, we would be
giving the same credence to the story of George Washington, the story of
Ulysses, the story of Thor, the story of Jesus, the story of Atlantis, the
story of Robin Hood, etc.
> And remember there are many Muslims scientists, many Christian
> scientists, Jewish ones, too. Does that mean only mumbo-jumbo comes
> out of their mouths? I think not.
Non sequitur. I clearly stated that supernaturalists spouted mumbo-jumbo.
This has nothing to do with your example.
>>No, the default status comes from the fact that the supernaturalists make
>>outrageous claims that they are unable to support in any acceptable way.
>
> That's your own opinion. That's not the universally accepted
> standard. Many smart, thinking, rational, honest people think
> otherwise about the support for the supernatural.
Intelligence and honesty are irrelevant to this example. However,
rationality is not and this is where you're wrong: it is irrational to
believe in any supernatural concept, because its premises are not supported
by knowledge, evidence, proof, logic or reason. That is why it is called a
belief, not knowledge. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of every
rational, logical and scientific mind.
>>Yeah, right. Let's apply your twisted logic to a real life example, shall
>>we? Let's say that I claim that you're a child rapist, another person claims
>>that you're a baby murderer and yet another that you owe him a million
>>dollars. Needless to say, you claim none of this is true. According to you,
>>all these contradictory "worldviews" are equally valid.
>
> They are not worldviews (someone's ultimate viewpoint of reality) so
> it's a completely different category. But they are all truth-claims.
> And before any evidence (scientific, historical, or otherwise) is put
> forth, any COULD be true. The point is that none of them should be
> preferred BEFORE the evidence is given.
Bingo. So, on one hand we have a preponderance of evidence for the current
existing scientific theories, from the Big Bang to evolution. On the other
hand, we have the utter lack of evidence for the supernatural hypotheses,
since it is irrational to accept myths, testimonials and sixth senses as
valid methods. Not only that, but we also have a huge amount of evidence
that completely debunks a vast amount of the supernatural claims that are
supposedly "alternative world views". The conclusion is obvious.
>>No particular view has more weight before it can produce evidence.
>
> Exactly. Now you're getting it. No particular view has more weight
> before the evidence is given.
The default "view" is the one without a positive claim, while the positive
claim "views" (in this example, the child rapist, the baby murderer, the $1
million debt) are worthless unless they can produce evidence. This is how
logic and rationality work in real life. In the example of "scientism" vs.
supernaturalism, scientific claims are based on the real life observations
and their claims are backed up by scientific principles which are
indisputable. Superstition, otoh, makes a bunch of outrageous positive
claims that is immediately unable to back up with anything, other that smoke
and mirrors. Am I getting through at all?
>>>To put it another way, we were not all born atheists who were led
>>>astray by something else.
>>
>>Really?
>
> Yes, really. Some people can see the divine in nature before ever
> going to church, synagogue, or mosque.
Babies and toddlers can hardly "see the divine" in anything, since they are
unable to form a coherent thought. Unless you can show me a person who was
able to "see the divine" immediately upon being pulled out with the forceps,
you have no case. Once a child starts to develop a thinking process, the
religious indoctrination begins. However, without the religious
brain-washing, most of the people would never "see the divine" in anything
because they would not have a notion of what the divine is supposed to be in
the world that doesn't recognize divinity and other superstitions.
>>OK, then you are a child rapist.
>
> Before any other evidence is given that statement is just as possible
> as this one: I am not a child rapist.
Yes, everything is possible! It is *possible* that science is completely
wrong and all the natural laws are just a fiat of some god. It is *possible*
that I created the Universe yesterday at 10:01 a.m. It is, unfortunately,
not very probable. The consequence of that is that we don't have to go
through life sweating from fear that we are possible rapists and murderers,
because these claims are positive and need evidence. If that evidence is
lacking, the only logical answer to such a claim would be to tell the
claimant to prove it or get lost. That's what atheists have been telling
theists for hundreds of years.
--
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, better than a cup of gold
See, only a Chocolate Jesus can satisfy my soul
When the weather gets rough and its whiskey in the shade
Best to wrap your Savior up in cellophane
He flows like the Big Muddy, but that's okay
Pour him over ice-cream for a nice parfait...
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, make me feel so good inside
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, keep me satisfied
Charles & Mambo
[snip]
> Do you see the continuous gradation one can make,
> from interpreting an observed
> event as one with great meaning and social impact
> to one with no such impact?
Yes, I see it. Unfortunately, you fail to see one obvious fact: in your
example it is completely irrelevant what the UN reporter saw, reported and
retracted. The real evidence of the crime will be the bodies and the
forensic results. Only then will his claim be taken into consideration in
the court of law.
In the case of the UFOs (and let's make one thing clear: when we say UFOs, I
think we both mean an alien spaceship with little gray men inside, not
simply an unidentified flying object, which can be anything), there is no
such thing as material evidence, so all we have is observations,
interpretations of observations and lousy quality photographic artifacts.
[snip]
>>That is precisely what people do in *every* superstition, UFOs included. Why
>>is this so difficult for you to comprehend? A typical example is the UFO
>>"sightings" where one idiot mistakes an aircraft for an alien spaceship,
>>reports it to the media and all of a sudden the media is flooded with
>>hundreds of "sightings". Remember crop circles?
>
>
> So? Perhaps all those further
> DIRECT OBSERVATIONS of ufos and crop circles are true.
> Even if FURTHER claims of ufos sighting are false,
> notice that people call in to report A DIFFERENT SIGHITING.
> This is NOT just people calling into to report, say, the
> same miracle (Jesus resurrected). Once in awhile you hear
> reports of someone seeing the Virgin Mary in a cloud or something.
> But, that is rare.
[sigh] The argument ad numerum: there are many sightings, so that must make
them true. Let's just count the adherents to the various superstitions and
declare a winner, shall we?
Also, the argument ad ignorantium: we don't know if those sightings are
aliens, so that may be true...
>>The same can be claimed about religions. Also, no one is saying that
>>everyone is lying - usually it is a misinterpretation of a natural
>>occurrence, as well as delusions.
>
> Which is just as bad and insulting as saying they are all lying.
What the fuck do I care if they're insulted? I feel insulted on behalf of
all the rational people in the world by their stupid ass claims. And I'm not
even counting the debunked fraudsters.
> None of those motives make it false. Your argument is the same false
> argument which the anti-evolution folks use against academicians.
Your pathetic attempts to equate my position with religious claims can only
be laughable, because it is precisely you making a religious claim! You are
making a positive outrageous claim, based on nothing but belief. You have no
evidence whatsoever, and you're trying to make up for it with blind faith,
faulty reasoning and some strange need to believe. At least I can understand
Christers, because the promise of the everlasting life with all their loved
ones who passed away can be too much to pass up for some, but what's in your
belief for you and others like you? I don't get it.
> Again, this is very different from totally bullshit crap like
> ASTROLOGY or the "psychic" John Edwards. THOSE people claim
> SPECIAL POWERS, suggesting the rest of us have not developed
> (they always give us false hope by claiming we all have the power,
> too).
> Therefore, they make money by claiming to help people with those
> special powers.
>
> This is VERY different from having weird events happen TO you.
No, it isn't. For a deluded person with mental dysfunction, it probably
provides a great relief if he can blame his condition on an external
subject, but hey, why even attempt to attribute these claims to what they
really are when you have already convinced yourself of their "truth"?
> Ufology is where the theory of evolution was back in Darwin's time: it
> was ridiculed, heckled by the establishment, and told it was wrong
> simply because it could not predict EVERYthing.
That is only partially correct (Darwin's non-acceptance, not that ufology is
comparable to the theory of evolution). However:
> In contrast, ufology is not a "theory".
> It is just the beginnings of collecting and collating observations
> of anomalous events and trying to make some sense out of them
Exactly. This is how every superstition got started, from triskaidekaphobia
to Jesus. Someone observes an event that he is unable to explain with his
limited knowledge, then proceeds to manufacture a wild-ass hypothesis of the
explanation if the event. Other people observe a similar event, add to the
hypothesis and a superstition is born. This is how Thor made bolts of
lightning, how God created the Earth and how aliens visit our planet and
abduct people for kicks.
> But, people who totally deny the existence of these
> observations are equally guilty of making a unified predictive theory
> of alien's, poltergeist's motives.
First of all, I am not denying the existence of observations. Clearly, some
people saw unusual lights or objects in the sky and made a culturally
induced connection to the flying saucers. That does not mean flying saucers
exist. And i'm not even going to dwell on the poltergeist shit - that type
of stuff exists only in the minds of the producers of the Learning Channel
(now there's an ironical name if I've ever seen one) and of the landlords of
the old British castles that are for rent.
> But which came first -- the fervent religious belief, and THEN claims
> of ghosts and devils, or the other way around?
> Throughout all of Europe for the past 2000 years, people were drilled
> into believing made-up supernatural things from the time they were
> born.
> So, naturally, these people made things up.
Not necessarily made them up. When they saw their cow die and the neighbor
had looked at it funny the day before, the evil eye theory was born. Same
thing with the UFOs in this technology age. After all, no one ever heard of
a flying saucer until the aviation really made a boom, but the real UFO
craze developed in conjunction with the crap flowing out of Hollywood.
>>Actually, by far the largest similarity lies in the fact that there is
>>absolutely no physical evidence of the phenomenon,
>
> For those with mental delusions government documents
> and videotape do not count as "no evidence at all".
You keep harping about the so-called government documents as if you are in
possession of an authentic paper clearly stating that aliens are here. What
can usually be found in those "government documents" is that someone
somewhere observed a flying object he couldn't identify. That, my friend,
proves nothing. Video-tapes can and have been faked and prove nothing. Ditto
photographs. Crop circles prove only the artistic skills of the human
perpetrators. Chemical analyses prove that somehow some banally Earthly
substances were found where they normally don't belong and thus prove
nothing. Abduction stories prove mental illness, overdeveloped imagination,
substance abuse and a need for 15 minutes of fame. Conspiracy theories prove
nothing, other than the human need for such exciting stories.
> The evidence is what it is. I am not claiming it constitute 100% proof
> that aliens exist. But "aliens exist and interact with earth" is
> the most REASONABLE explanation fitting ALL the observations.
No, it isn't. How that can be the most reasonable explanation is beyond me,
and obviously beyond the entire scientific, academic, governmental,
political and military establishment. Oh, wait, I forget, they're all in on
a huge conspiracy, not just the US military and government, but also every
other country's military and government. Why? Oh, well, we just don't know,
just like we don't know why aliens travel from galaxies apparently millions
of light years away and make no attempt to contact us for at least 50 years
(and maybe even thousands of years, according to some), but are content to
play sophomoric pranks instead.
> Why else does a panel of French scientists and high-ranking
> military people put out the Cometa Report (1997? or 1999?)
> in which they claim the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis MAY be the
> MOST reasonable explanation to fit all the data?
Oh, you mean this:
http://216.128.67.116/pdf/cometa_commentary.pdf
>>You'd think that at least the alleged repeated abductees would smuggle a
>>video camera on board a UFO once in a while. But let me guess: aliens are
>>camera-shy or are having a constant bad hair day?
>
> Irrelevant -- you are making wild and mentally disturbed assumptions
> about what the aliens' motives are.
No, I'm just making fun of the professional abductees who would have us
believe they're being abducted on a regular basis without anyone witnessing
this ever and without at least once concealing a video camera so the alleged
abduction can be taped.
I think I'm done with this discussion. Have fun with your UFO religion there
and let me know when the final stage of the alien invasion is in place.
exploratory
"what you got". There IS no absolutely clear distinction between
"an observation" and "the interpretation of an observation".
There is some fuzziness at the edge. However, it is impractical for
me or anyone else to repeatedly say, "claims of seeing an
intelligently
controlled spaceship are 90% observation 10% interpretation".
A United Nations worker/reporter looking for evidence of mass killing
can stumble upon an area in some woods where at first they say,
"I see military men with big boots shooting little babies and women
with bullets and this is causing the babies and women to die"
But the reporter is later captured by the military police and
starts backtracking their story:
"I do not know if those were military men. That is an interpretation
on my part. All I saw is guys wearing green suits and medals shooting
babies and women. And I do not know if the bullets going through the
babies and women had anything to do with the deaths of those babies
and women, since that would be an interpretation on my part,
and I am not a doctor."
So, the reporter retracts even further and says,
"I saw a bunch of atoms moving around."
Do you see the continuous gradation one can make,
from interpreting an observed
event as one with great meaning and social impact
to one with no such impact?
Now -- if you wish to claim that all ufo reports are just
misinterpretations
of "atoms moving around", then don't complain if criminals deny any
sort
of police videotape evidence, since it is ANY statement less
reductionistic
than "seeing atoms move around" is, by YOUR standards, a deluded
misinterpretation of observation.
> That is precisely what people do in *every* superstition, UFOs included. Why
> is this so difficult for you to comprehend? A typical example is the UFO
> "sightings" where one idiot mistakes an aircraft for an alien spaceship,
> reports it to the media and all of a sudden the media is flooded with
> hundreds of "sightings". Remember crop circles?
So? Perhaps all those further
DIRECT OBSERVATIONS of ufos and crop circles are true.
Even if FURTHER claims of ufos sighting are false,
notice that people call in to report A DIFFERENT SIGHITING.
This is NOT just people calling into to report, say, the
same miracle (Jesus resurrected). Once in awhile you hear
reports of someone seeing the Virgin Mary in a cloud or something.
But, that is rare.
And I already said that reports of a ufo sighting DO get repeated
on the news and internet. So do reports of crime. It's call mass
media.
> The same can be claimed about religions. Also, no one is saying that
> everyone is lying - usually it is a misinterpretation of a natural
> occurrence, as well as delusions.
Which is just as bad and insulting as saying they are all lying.
> This is a post facto motive, i.e. no one starts believing in Allah after
> thinking that it'd be cool to pop some cherries after death.
>Don't be ridiculous. However, there are motives to believe in UFOs as
well, >and they fall into the usual: a moment of fame, being in the
center of >attention, monetary reasons,
>a need to believe due to the superstitious human nature
This is perhaps your STRONGEST case of a motive --
but you'd have to pick out those who were NOT religious whackos
BEFORE their first ufo sighting.
>repressing serious psychological problems, etc.
None of those motives make it false. Your argument is the same false
argument which the anti-evolution folks use against academicians.
The anti-evolution folk point out that academicians publish articles
on evolution for fame, promotion, continued academic money and job
security. And -- the anti-evolution people are correct! That does not
mean that evolution is wrong. Perhaps those professors DO deserve
money
and job security for their continued effort to add knowledge to
evolution.
Secondly, your claims of motives for fame and money
are for most ufo cases false.
The motive for coming forth with one's observations on ufos is
practically ZERO, PRECISELY because of people like you who ridicule.
And no one makes a lot of money publishing books on the subject of
ufos
and anomalous phenomena. Name one academic department devoted to ufos
in the United States. Note: I am NOT asking you if you think they
DESERVE it. I am simply demolishing your claim that people make a lot
of money on this -- compared to, well, practically ANYthing published,
especially loads of political crap and self-memoirs by politicians.
Again, this is very different from totally bullshit crap like
ASTROLOGY or the "psychic" John Edwards. THOSE people claim
SPECIAL POWERS, suggesting the rest of us have not developed
(they always give us false hope by claiming we all have the power,
too).
Therefore, they make money by claiming to help people with those
special
powers.
This is VERY different from having weird events happen TO you.
Ufology is where the theory of evolution was back in Darwin's time: it
was ridiculed, heckled by the establishment, and told it was wrong
simply because it
could not predict EVERYthing. In contrast, ufology is not a "theory".
It is just the beginnings of collecting and collating observations
of anomalous events and trying to make some sense out of them
*I* am NOT making a claim
for a UNIFIED theory of ANY of the anomalous observations people
report
(crop circles, ufos, losses of time). Yes, there certainly ARE idiots
and shitheads (I prefer THOSE terms to "kooks") who post their fully
explained predictive theory of the motives of aliens and anomalous
forces
on the internet. But, people who totally deny the existence of these
observations are equally guilty of making a unified predictive theory
of
alien's, poltergeist's motives.
> Of course there is. If this happened to someone of inferior mind or
> suffering from delirium tremens, mental disorders or delusions, it is much,
> much easier to blame it on the external factors than on themselves.
>So when in the past people were seeing witches, ghosts and devils en
masse,
> today they see little green (or is it gray?) men.
But which came first -- the fervent religious belief, and THEN claims
of ghosts and devils, or the other way around?
Throughout all of Europe for the past 2000 years, people were drilled
into believing made-up supernatural things from the time they were
born.
So, naturally, these people made things up.
Today, some of those religious holdover still exist (unfortunately).
But MOST people are NOT brought up believing in supernatural events.
They can watch lots of fantasy, sci-fi movies and yet
still be able to make a distinction between those movies and
their everyday experiences. With almost 99.9999% certainty,
those fictional things do NOT make people spontaneously believe
they see lights in the sky which move in very fast coordinated
patterns.
> Actually, by far the largest similarity lies in the fact that there is
> absolutely no physical evidence of the phenomenon,
For those with mental delusions government documents
and videotape do not count as "no evidence at all".
> You gotta be kidding! Do you actually know the history of religious strife?
> But, what the hell, prove us wrong: provide some real, undisputed, physical
> evidence of a visiting alien race, not the usual crappy videos, phony
> pictures, broken twigs, anal bleeding
The evidence is what it is. I am not claiming it constitute 100% proof
that aliens exist. But "aliens exist and interact with earth" is
the most REASONABLE explanation fitting ALL the observations.
Why else does a panel of French scientists and high-ranking
military people put out the Cometa Report (1997? or 1999?)
in which they claim the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis MAY be the
MOST reasonable explanation to fit all the data?
In the same way, there is no 100% proof that OJ Simpson killed anyone.
One possibility is that OJ Simpson ran into a stalker attacking his
ex-wife
and struggled with them, cutting OJ in the process and murdering his
ex-wife and Goldman. The stalker wore Kevlar so he never got cut.
This scenario is ALSO consistent with the physical evidence of the
crime scene. However, MANY people seem to believe OJ Simpson killing
two people is the most REASONABLE explanation. However, until we have
a time machine and videotape, we cannot prove with 100% certainty.
Justin_Martyr2000
You don't seem to get it, do you, Mr. Morbert?
Listen, it is understood and needs not be mentioned that in an
ATHEIST NEWSGROUP the atheist believes that there is no God (or
variations on that theme) while the Theist who ventures in for
conversation with him believes that there is. I would have thought
THAT was obvious to YOU.
Our respective biases are NOT the issue in this particular thread.
But, since it is obvious that you are not going to deal with the
salient point of the thread and insist on hijacking it to suit your
own purposes, and since I generally will continue conversing with
anyone in this newsgroup who exhibits even a modicum of genuineness,
despite their prejudices, I will allow you to change the subject and
we shall now discuss the differing bases for our respective
conclusions on the basis of life, ok?
> Also, Maybe you can answer my Question.... WHy do you believe in
God?
Your question is a valid one.
Now, you start off by stating that the 'atheists believe the world
is natural because of the rational character of the Physical laws' and
from that you conclude that the world is STRICTLY natural. Now to me
that represents at least two errors.
The first is that it exhibits a leap of faith, not scientific
method. The second is that this unsubstantiated conclusion precludes
further study on the subject which might lead to further
understanding, since you admit that there may actually BE other
aspects of the universe, although you conclude that you
cannot understand them. How you have arrived at THAT conclusion is
unclear at this point.
But to the point of your question.
Mr. Morbert, it is precisely BECAUSE of the 'rational character of
the Physical laws' that I believe that there is a God. Understand that
I am making NO claims as to the nature, identity, or intentions of
this God, merely this God's EXISTENCE, ok? Understood?
Allow me to illustrate what I mean by an analogy which I am sure you
have heard before.
My father had a watch that was made in Switzerland. It contained
many intricate parts which, if any of them were absent or did not
function in a previously designed and engineered fashion, the watch
would not work. It did not take a leap of faith to look at that marvel
of engineering and precision and conclude that, somewhere in the world
there existed a human being who had the intelligence and capacity to
both design and build this apparatus which performed a particular
function.
Yet, atheists look at the wrist this watch sat upon, which dwarfs
the watch in its complexity, intricacy, and precision, and conclude
that 'it just happened'. Now, THAT, to me, is blind faith.
The fact that the laws of physics work as well as they do should, at
the very least, raise ADDITIONAL questions, not lead us to conlude
that there is no answer to the question of "why?", which the atheist
avoids.
There are six ways in which we 'know' anything. These are the
principles of what is called 'epistemology'.
1) Perception; Using our five senses.
2) Intuition; gut sense, e.g. a mother 'knows' to take care of the
baby.
3) Introspection; no one but myself can look inside of myself and
tell me what I am thinking and feeling.
4) Testimony; If a person's character is reliable, a good chance
that what they say is true. (Think Josephus and Herodotus)
5) Memory
6) Inference; e.g. when we have two things that we know, it helps to
establish a third thing. If I see you come in the house drenched with
water and it is cloudy outside I can infer that it is raining.
Yet, in the matter of the existence of God we are going to conclude
there is none? On the basis that the laws of nature work effectively
to support life?
Please.
Hope that answers your question. In other words, the more I
understand about the universe the more self-evident it is TO ME that,
not only does God exists, but that our existence has a purpose.
It is my responsibility to search out what that purpose is and not
allow myself to be sidetracked into living a materialistic existence
which ends in death and the loss of all that I deem precious. That is
vanity and a striving after wind.
Justin
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
The problem is that it is not obvious to YOu, FROM YOUR OWN POSTINGS.
If you had any common sense or courtesy you would respect that and not
talk as though it actually did.
Which is why you get the responses you do, pointing out that we don't
believe in your pretend friend (or some variation), that you are so
stupid you follow up with talking about religious bigotry.
It's not rocket science, but then you're no rocket scientist either:
you've been doing it ever since you've been here.
> Our respective biases are NOT the issue in this particular thread.
What "biases", liar?
>But, since it is obvious that you are not going to deal with the
>salient point of the thread and insist on hijacking it to suit your
>own purposes, and since I generally will continue conversing with
>anyone in this newsgroup who exhibits even a modicum of genuineness,
>despite their prejudices, I will allow you to change the subject and
>we shall now discuss the differing bases for our respective
>conclusions on the basis of life, ok?
Why do you lie?
Have the intelligence (do you understand what that word means?) not to
talk about your space-pixie, pretend friend, etc as though it actually
existed outside your deluded imagination.
> > Also, Maybe you can answer my Question.... WHy do you believe in
>God?
>
>Your question is a valid one.
>
> Now, you start off by stating that the 'atheists believe the world
>is natural because of the rational character of the Physical laws' and
>from that you conclude that the world is STRICTLY natural. Now to me
>that represents at least two errors.
It's also dumbed-down overly simplistic language that idiots like you
take at face value, to try to pound into your thick skull just how
stupid it is to talk about your doctrines where they aren't granted.
Because you still, after all time you have infested this newsgroup,
fail to understand that you have to talk from common shared
understanding, AND on an atheist newsgroup have to tacitly grant their
position, not yours.
Atheists do NOT actually "believe" that.
> The first is that it exhibits a leap of faith, not scientific
>method. The second is that this unsubstantiated conclusion precludes
>further study on the subject which might lead to further
>understanding, since you admit that there may actually BE other
>aspects of the universe, although you conclude that you
>cannot understand them. How you have arrived at THAT conclusion is
>unclear at this point.
And they're both dumbed-down overly simplistic explanations that you
STILL don't understand.
There is zero, zip, zilch, nada reason to believe in your deity. Or
its miracles. Or its supernatural.
Just leave it at that.
And if you can't, then YOU have to demonstrate its existence using
outside-your-religion evidences etc.
Until you do that there is still no reason to take your ridiculous
claims seriously.
The shorthand for this is "no it doesn't".
But you're too stupid to realise this and imagine it's some kind of
counter claim. Which it isn't.
> But to the point of your question.
>
> Mr. Morbert, it is precisely BECAUSE of the 'rational character of
>the Physical laws' that I believe that there is a God. Understand that
It does not follow.
There is no way to conclude that. The only reason you think that is
because of your pre-exiasting god-belief.
You'll have to do better than that.
Like telling us the real reason you believe in it: something like
being taught it in your formative years so it became hard-wired.
>I am making NO claims as to the nature, identity, or intentions of
>this God, merely this God's EXISTENCE, ok? Understood?
Then prove it does.
> Allow me to illustrate what I mean by an analogy which I am sure you
>have heard before.
>
> My father had a watch that was made in Switzerland. It contained
>many intricate parts which, if any of them were absent or did not
>function in a previously designed and engineered fashion, the watch
>would not work. It did not take a leap of faith to look at that marvel
>of engineering and precision and conclude that, somewhere in the world
>there existed a human being who had the intelligence and capacity to
>both design and build this apparatus which performed a particular
>function.
This has been refuted so many times it's no longer funny. Including to
you several times.
If that's the best you can do you might as well go home, and don't let
the door hit you on the way out.
You recognise design precisely because the is something non-designed
for comparison, AND we know how WE design things, from knowledge about
ourselves.
But if EVERYTHING was supposed to have been designed by a god there is
nothing it didn't design so there is nothing non-designed for
comparison. So PHHHRRRRRPPPP.
And the only remaining way to determine what it designed would be from
pre-existing knowledge of it and how it designs things. Which is
invalid because you're trying to use design that you can't determine,
in order to demonstrate this as yet imaginary designer.
Don't ignore what you're told this time.
> Yet, atheists look at the wrist this watch sat upon, which dwarfs
>the watch in its complexity, intricacy, and precision, and conclude
>that 'it just happened'. Now, THAT, to me, is blind faith.
Stop lying.
Your watchmaker analogy has been refuted TO YOU plenty of times.
And even if it hadn't it's still a dishonest straw man.
> The fact that the laws of physics work as well as they do should, at
>the very least, raise ADDITIONAL questions, not lead us to conlude
>that there is no answer to the question of "why?", which the atheist
>avoids.
Stop lying.
The atheist isn't avoiding anything.
Your religion has told you that there is a "why" that it has answered.
But there is no real-world reason to ask that metaphysical "why?".
> There are six ways in which we 'know' anything. These are the
>principles of what is called 'epistemology'.
>
> 1) Perception; Using our five senses.
>
> 2) Intuition; gut sense, e.g. a mother 'knows' to take care of the
>baby.
Which occasionally comes up with the right answer. But it still has to
be justified before telling everybody else.
> 3) Introspection; no one but myself can look inside of myself and
>tell me what I am thinking and feeling.
If only you had the courtesy to apply this to those outside your
religion instead of lying about what they think.
> 4) Testimony; If a person's character is reliable, a good chance
>that what they say is true. (Think Josephus and Herodotus)
Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha....
You don't even know that what Josephus actually said what is
attributed to him.
> 5) Memory
Which in your case is faulty otherwise you we would not have to keep
repeating ourselves to you.
> 6) Inference; e.g. when we have two things that we know, it helps to
>establish a third thing. If I see you come in the house drenched with
>water and it is cloudy outside I can infer that it is raining.
Or that the neighbour's kid is wielding a hose.
>Yet, in the matter of the existence of God we are going to conclude
>there is none? On the basis that the laws of nature work effectively
>to support life?
You are supposed to be demonstrating its existence. Not presuming it.
>Please.
>
> Hope that answers your question. In other words, the more I
>understand about the universe the more self-evident it is TO ME that,
>not only does God exists, but that our existence has a purpose.
Address people's objections.
You're starting from the presumption that it exists and interpreting
the universe's existence in that light.
Start from the universe without any pre-existing mention of the word
"God". How would you derive "God".
> It is my responsibility to search out what that purpose is and not
>allow myself to be sidetracked into living a materialistic existence
>which ends in death and the loss of all that I deem precious. That is
>vanity and a striving after wind.
In your dreams.
HERE it is your responsibility to demonstrate that it actually exists
outside your overworked imagination before talking about it as though
it did.
> Justin
Dan Barker
O.K... While I still maintain the sense was clear, you apparently know far
more about grammatical structure than most of us mortals, so how about:
"What each of has to establish in our minds is if it is possible for
something to be real which cannot be proven to be real using only the strict
constraints of 'natural scientific method.'"
Is that better?
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Justin_Martyr2000
Christopher,
A little friendly advice:
Turn the computer off, throw out all the pornography, go
outside, take a walk, talk to people, make some friends, meet a girl,
fall in love.
Seriously.
Josef Balluch
...
> O.K... While I still maintain the sense was clear, you apparently know far
> more about grammatical structure than most of us mortals, ...
< chuckle >
The information is out there.
Google is your friend.
> ... so how about:
>
> "What each of has to establish in our minds is if it is possible for
> something to be real which cannot be proven to be real using only the strict
> constraints of 'natural scientific method.'"
>
> Is that better?
Yup.
Thanx.
Josef
I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.
-- Wilson Mizner
Justin_Martyr2000
> In a message sent 'round the world, Justin_Martyr2000 poured fuel on the
> fire with the following:
>
>
> > Josef Balluch <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.19dcc0f7...@206.172.150.13>...
>
>
> > > It is quite an improvement on your previous position. My mention of
> > > Dan's bias was not for the purpose of making it the issue, but rather to
> > > caution that it was colouring his approach.
> >
> >
> > My previous position? I would be curious to see what exactly you
> > think my previous position was?
>
>
> Well, I THOUGHT your previous position was:
>
>
> "YOU, however, have taken it upon yourself to assert a hypothesis (the
> existence of strictly naturalistic explanations) without showing a
> warrant for your hypothesis and insisting that your position is the
> correct one on that basis alone."
>
> "Your statement, however, contains the assumption that only through
> naturalistic explanations do we know anything."
>
Are you objecting to my content or my delivery in your
statement that "it was quite an improvement"?
> > Beware of the cynic who masquerades as a skeptic
> >
> > -- Anonymous
>
>
>
>
> The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
> who have not got it.
>
> -- George Bernard Shaw
LOL, Talk about begging the question. Typical existentialistic
obsfucation.
We must now allow Mr. Bernard Shaw the priviledge of deciding what is
cynicism and what is accurate observation.
That's what happens when we rely on bumper sticker mentality to
formulate our philosophy and don't engage in the real discipline of
critical thinking.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You ignored everything I wrote, and instead appended this piece of
deliberate nastiness at the end:
"Christopher,
"A little friendly advice:
"Turn the computer off, throw out all the pornography, go
outside, take a walk, talk to people, make some friends, meet a girl,
fall in love.
"Seriously."
Justin, you are a dishonest, stupid, nasty, person.
But all too typically Christian.
Either address what you are told or admit you can't, instead of just
being nasty
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<adabnvoag2sgb516r...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>
>> > Listen, it is understood and needs not be mentioned that in an
>> >ATHEIST NEWSGROUP the atheist believes that there is no God (or
>> >variations on that theme) while the Theist who ventures in for
>> >conversation with him believes that there is. I would have thought
>> >THAT was obvious to YOU.
>>
>> The problem is that it is not obvious to YOu, FROM YOUR OWN POSTINGS.
Why didn't you answer this?
You may at some level understand that atheists don't believe in any
deity, yet you still talk at them as though your deity really existed.
>> If you had any common sense or courtesy you would respect that and not
>> talk as though it actually did.
>>
>> Which is why you get the responses you do, pointing out that we don't
>> believe in your pretend friend (or some variation), that you are so
>> stupid you follow up with talking about religious bigotry.
Why didn't you answer this?
And you'll continue to get these responses until you stop doing that.
>> It's not rocket science, but then you're no rocket scientist either:
>> you've been doing it ever since you've been here.
>>
>> > Our respective biases are NOT the issue in this particular thread.
>>
>> What "biases", liar?
Why didn't you answer this?
Again,WHAT "BIASES", LIAR?
It's stupid remarks that, which give the lie to your claims of
understanding what your deity means to atheists.
And why people like the previous poster have to keep reminding you.
>> >But, since it is obvious that you are not going to deal with the
>> >salient point of the thread and insist on hijacking it to suit your
>> >own purposes, and since I generally will continue conversing with
>> >anyone in this newsgroup who exhibits even a modicum of genuineness,
>> >despite their prejudices, I will allow you to change the subject and
>> >we shall now discuss the differing bases for our respective
>> >conclusions on the basis of life, ok?
>>
>> Why do you lie?
>
Again, why do you lie?
Listen to what people take the time and trouble to explain to you, try
to understand it and address what they say, instead of repeating
yourself.
They might have been honest mistakes originally, but once you have
been corrected, your repetition makes them something else.
>> Have the intelligence (do you understand what that word means?) not to
>> talk about your space-pixie, pretend friend, etc as though it actually
>> existed outside your deluded imagination.
Why didn't you address this?
>> > > Also, Maybe you can answer my Question.... WHy do you believe in
>> >God?
>> >
>> >Your question is a valid one.
>> >
>> > Now, you start off by stating that the 'atheists believe the world
>> >is natural because of the rational character of the Physical laws' and
>> >from that you conclude that the world is STRICTLY natural. Now to me
>> >that represents at least two errors.
>>
>> It's also dumbed-down overly simplistic language that idiots like you
>> take at face value, to try to pound into your thick skull just how
>> stupid it is to talk about your doctrines where they aren't granted.
Why didn't you address this?
You have been told several times that tyhe ill-defined word "God"
doesn't mean the same thing to atheists that it does to theists.
Yet you keep ignoring this, while at the same time claiming you
iunderstand what the atheist position is.
But every single post you make demonstrateds otherwise.
>> Because you still, after all time you have infested this newsgroup,
>> fail to understand that you have to talk from common shared
>> understanding, AND on an atheist newsgroup have to tacitly grant their
>> position, not yours.
Which you still don't do.
>> Atheists do NOT actually "believe" that.
Please address this.
>> > The first is that it exhibits a leap of faith, not scientific
>> >method. The second is that this unsubstantiated conclusion precludes
>> >further study on the subject which might lead to further
>> >understanding, since you admit that there may actually BE other
>> >aspects of the universe, although you conclude that you
>> >cannot understand them. How you have arrived at THAT conclusion is
>> >unclear at this point.
>>
>> And they're both dumbed-down overly simplistic explanations that you
>> STILL don't understand.
Please address this.
>> There is zero, zip, zilch, nada reason to believe in your deity. Or
>> its miracles. Or its supernatural.
Please acknowledge this.
>> Just leave it at that.
Why don't you?
>> And if you can't, then YOU have to demonstrate its existence using
>> outside-your-religion evidences etc.
Why don't you?
>> Until you do that there is still no reason to take your ridiculous
>> claims seriously.
What is so difficult to understand about this?
>> The shorthand for this is "no it doesn't".
Now, do you understand?
>> But you're too stupid to realise this and imagine it's some kind of
>> counter claim. Which it isn't.
Why don't you acknowledge this?
>> > But to the point of your question.
>> >
>> > Mr. Morbert, it is precisely BECAUSE of the 'rational character of
>> >the Physical laws' that I believe that there is a God. Understand that
>>
>> It does not follow.
You didn't address this.
>> There is no way to conclude that. The only reason you think that is
>> because of your pre-exiasting god-belief.
You didn't address this.
>> You'll have to do better than that.
>>
>> Like telling us the real reason you believe in it: something like
>> being taught it in your formative years so it became hard-wired.
Presumably you agree with this.
>> >I am making NO claims as to the nature, identity, or intentions of
>> >this God, merely this God's EXISTENCE, ok? Understood?
>>
>> Then prove it does.
Why didn't you? Because realised you couldn't and therefore would have
had to shut up instead?
>> > Allow me to illustrate what I mean by an analogy which I am sure you
>> >have heard before.
>> >
>> > My father had a watch that was made in Switzerland. It contained
>> >many intricate parts which, if any of them were absent or did not
>> >function in a previously designed and engineered fashion, the watch
>> >would not work. It did not take a leap of faith to look at that marvel
>> >of engineering and precision and conclude that, somewhere in the world
>> >there existed a human being who had the intelligence and capacity to
>> >both design and build this apparatus which performed a particular
>> >function.
>>
>> This has been refuted so many times it's no longer funny. Including to
>> you several times.
>>
>> If that's the best you can do you might as well go home, and don't let
>> the door hit you on the way out.
>>
>> You recognise design precisely because the is something non-designed
>> for comparison, AND we know how WE design things, from knowledge about
>> ourselves.
You didn't address this.
>> But if EVERYTHING was supposed to have been designed by a god there is
>> nothing it didn't design so there is nothing non-designed for
>> comparison. So PHHHRRRRRPPPP.
You didn't address this.
>> And the only remaining way to determine what it designed would be from
>> pre-existing knowledge of it and how it designs things. Which is
>> invalid because you're trying to use design that you can't determine,
>> in order to demonstrate this as yet imaginary designer.
You didn't address this.
>> Don't ignore what you're told this time.
And you ignored it yet again.
>> > Yet, atheists look at the wrist this watch sat upon, which dwarfs
>> >the watch in its complexity, intricacy, and precision, and conclude
>> >that 'it just happened'. Now, THAT, to me, is blind faith.
>>
>> Stop lying.
Were you lying as well when you said right at the top that you
understood what an atheist was?
>> Your watchmaker analogy has been refuted TO YOU plenty of times.
>>
>> And even if it hadn't it's still a dishonest straw man.
You didn't acknowledge this.
>> > The fact that the laws of physics work as well as they do should, at
>> >the very least, raise ADDITIONAL questions, not lead us to conlude
>> >that there is no answer to the question of "why?", which the atheist
>> >avoids.
>>
>> Stop lying.
>>
>> The atheist isn't avoiding anything.
>>
>> Your religion has told you that there is a "why" that it has answered.
>> But there is no real-world reason to ask that metaphysical "why?".
You didn't acknowledge this.
If you bothered to listen to what people tell you, you wouldn't keep
repeating such stupid falsehoods.
>> > There are six ways in which we 'know' anything. These are the
>> >principles of what is called 'epistemology'.
>> >
>> > 1) Perception; Using our five senses.
>> >
>> > 2) Intuition; gut sense, e.g. a mother 'knows' to take care of the
>> >baby.
>>
>> Which occasionally comes up with the right answer. But it still has to
>> be justified before telling everybody else.
You didn't address this.
>> > 3) Introspection; no one but myself can look inside of myself and
>> >tell me what I am thinking and feeling.
>>
>> If only you had the courtesy to apply this to those outside your
>> religion instead of lying about what they think.
You didn't address this either.
Your use of this as an example was especially ironic, and demonstrated
your own hypocrisy.
>> > 4) Testimony; If a person's character is reliable, a good chance
>> >that what they say is true. (Think Josephus and Herodotus)
>>
>> Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha....
>>
>> You don't even know that what Josephus actually said what is
>> attributed to him.
You didn't address this.
>> > 5) Memory
>>
>> Which in your case is faulty otherwise you we would not have to keep
>> repeating ourselves to you.
Or this.
>> > 6) Inference; e.g. when we have two things that we know, it helps to
>> >establish a third thing. If I see you come in the house drenched with
>> >water and it is cloudy outside I can infer that it is raining.
>>
>> Or that the neighbour's kid is wielding a hose.
Or this.
>> >Yet, in the matter of the existence of God we are going to conclude
>> >there is none? On the basis that the laws of nature work effectively
>> >to support life?
>>
>> You are supposed to be demonstrating its existence. Not presuming it.
Or this.
It is a perfect example of why people keep repeating what they do.
You pretend you have taken notice, but if you had, you wouldn't say
things like that.
Once again, it is merely something somebody else (you) believes out of
their (your) religion.
There is no "matter of its existence".
When YOU bring it up outside your religion, YOU have to use common
shared understanding. YOU have to start from either our position (not
a strawman of it) or common shared understanding. Either way you have
to tacitly accept our position.
Which you have been told ever since you arrived in this newsgroup.
And if you can't do that then you have nothing whatsoever to say about
it.
>> >Please.
>> >
>> > Hope that answers your question. In other words, the more I
>> >understand about the universe the more self-evident it is TO ME that,
>> >not only does God exists, but that our existence has a purpose.
>>
>> Address people's objections.
Why don't you?
>> You're starting from the presumption that it exists and interpreting
>> the universe's existence in that light.
You didn't acknowledge this.
>> Start from the universe without any pre-existing mention of the word
>> "God". How would you derive "God".
If you can't do this then you're wasting everybody's time.
>> > It is my responsibility to search out what that purpose is and not
>> >allow myself to be sidetracked into living a materialistic existence
>> >which ends in death and the loss of all that I deem precious. That is
>> >vanity and a striving after wind.
>>
>> In your dreams.
>>
>> HERE it is your responsibility to demonstrate that it actually exists
>> outside your overworked imagination before talking about it as though
>> it did.
Well?
>> > Justin
>
>
> Christopher,
>
> A little friendly advice:
>
> Turn the computer off, throw out all the pornography, go
>outside, take a walk, talk to people, make some friends, meet a girl,
>fall in love.
>
> Seriously.
Justin, you are a dishonest, nasty, person.
Dan Barker
"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
[...]
> > Unless you are referring to people
> > who not only don't believe in God, but who are absolutely 100% convinced
> > there could be a God ...
>
> An example of the careless way you throw sentences together.
Actually, an example of a typo [missing the word, "not"], which should have
been evident from the flow of the sentence. It should have read, "Unless you
are referring to people who not only don't believe in God, but who are
absolutely 100% convinced there could not be a God [and these are
individuals who should not be taken seriously as they obviously believe they
have perfect knowledge of all that can be known], what reasonable person
wouldn't agree that this statement is self-evident?
[...]
> > > > The very nature of the phenomena in virtually all cases is that they
are
> > > > only experienced by those who have entered a door that others have
not
> > > > entered.
> > >
> > > That should be an important clue to you.
> >
> > And to you also. Can you allow that these individuals have perhaps gone
> > somewhere that you know nothing about, a place that you assume is
> > necessarily invalid and unreal, yet you are in no position to comment on
> > with absolute assurance because you haven't been there? Are you
open-minded
> > enough to do that?
>
>
> Sure.
>
> Actually, I've Been There. Done That.
Been where? Done what? If you mean inside the door that I am referring to,
then you would have an entirely different viewpoint on this subject. I'm not
talking, however, about being inside the doors of a church, as I trust you
know. I am talking about being inside the door of an initial experience that
leads to countless other experiences that leave one fully convinced of that
which they formerly had no solid concept of, and often virulently denied.
> Are you open minded enough to consider that their experience is a
> product of their brain processes?
If I did not have conclusive proof to the contrary, then yes, I would allow
for that. But at this point it's like me asking you if you are open minded
enough to consider that you might in fact be a dolphin.
> > > How can some parts of reality be dependent on one's beliefs?
> >
> > If you don't believe that something exists, you are going to be blind to
it
> > if its nature is such that it does not often reveal itself to those who
> > refuse to believe.
>
> And my point is: What philosophical justification is there for the claim
> that some things are only visible to a believer?
As you know, we are not always talking about "visible" as in the case of the
monitor in front of you right now. What we are dealing with is individuals
who have entered into a relationship with God to where they are experiencing
myriad events that form a pattern which clearly indicates that these events
are not merely constructs of their own minds. It begins in many cases with
immediate deliverance from addictive habits with no resultant craving or
struggling with a desire for the substance one was addicted to. In most
cases there is a profound sense of renewal, an awareness that in a moment of
time incredible amounts of garbage have been swept out of one's heart and
psyche, along with all sense of guilt for past actions, leaving the person
with the distinct awareness that they have been given a fresh start in life.
This auspicious beginning is soon followed by remarkable events and
circumstances that serve to increasingly solidify the reality that something
truly supernatural has happened, and is continuing to happen. The results of
this initial change and the subsequent growth are readily apparent to those
who know the individual well [thus not, "only visible to a believer"].
Depending on who the person was in the past, the extent of this difference
can be profound, to where it is quite startling to former associates. I am
not referring merely to surface conversation, rather to substantial changes
in one's character, habits, attitudes, bearing, etc. For example, angry,
hateful, depressed, malicious, abusive, and/or self-destructive individuals
have suddenly been changed into people who are completely free of even a
hint of such behavior(s), and indeed have become the very antithesis of who
they were previously.
Those looking on at such changes in another person, who do not wish to allow
the possibility that what has happened was the result of having entered into
a vibrant relationship with God, will work hard to come up with all kinds of
explanations for what they have observed. The point is that in most cases
they cannot deny that something remarkable has occurred, but they choose to
interpret the cause differently. The problem with this is that these changes
are demonstratably repeatable when individuals take the same step of
deciding to truly enter into this relationship, and, even more problematic
for the detractors, it is exceedingly rare to observe profound and enduring
changes of this nature in a person who cannot point to the same cause.
> > > I'm not sure of the purpose of this dissertation, since this point is
> > > not in dispute. I don't doubt that your experiences are different from
> > > mine. I don't doubt that I cannot re-create your experiences. I want
you
> > > to explain HOW your beliefs can influence the reality you experience.
> >
> > Again, if you refuse to allow that something could be real, then you
have
> > closed a door. Others have been more open-minded, and they have opened
that
> > door so as to find out if the claims were true. Intelligent, sentient,
sane,
> > reasoning atheists have done this by the countless thousands, and never
come
> > back.
>
> Nevertheless, one can pass through the "door" in either direction, as
> many millions of former theists have discovered.
Keep in mind that not every person that who once considered themselves to be
a Christian, but no longer does, ever actually entered into that
supernatural relationship. In the same manner, it doesn't take too much
discernment to quickly see that a significant number of people who currently
consider themselves to be Christians have also never entered into this
relationship. Thus it is not surprising that individuals in both cases
either find such a life to be less than satisfactory.
I am convinced that no one who has actually touched the core of this can
ever truly get away from what he or she has seen and known to be real. Yes,
they will in some cases walk away, and they may work extremely hard to deny
what they know is true, but it is never completely successful. So why do
they walk away? One reason is that once discovering just how revolutionary
this life is, and what the price is of going deeper, some refuse to pay the
price, and so die on the vine.
> There is only ONE reality. It should not be divided into two areas
> separated by a door. I contend that the door is an illusion, Dan,
> created by those dissatisfied with what they see in the ONE reality that
> exists.
I agree that there is only one reality in the sense of all that can be
experienced in this universe by you and I. The only illusion I see, however,
is to take the position that what one believes can be experienced is all
that can be experienced, or that what one believes is real, is all that is
real.
I also agree that dissatisfaction with what has up to that time appeared as
the whole of reality is often the catalyst for eventually discovering that
one had only been working with a subset of the whole of what is real.
> > > > Sorry, but if mutually-accepted criteria is developed and applied
then
> > > >the interpretations should be identical.
> > >
> > > The point is, they are NOT identical. Until such time, the issue
remains
> > > the interpretation.
> >
> > Hello? Did you catch the tense and the qualifiers in that sentence? You
> > cannot state that the results of experiments that have yet to be
performed
> > have results that "are NOT identical."
>
> Hello? Did you catch the tense and qualifier in my statement?
>
> "Until such time ..."
I was referring to your first sentence which stated that the results of
experiments which I am proposing should be done have already been shown to
be not identical, which is impossible, since again, they have not been
performed.
> Furthermore, you also appear to feel that the "experiments" have already
> been done, by yourself for example.
I never said any such thing. We have yet to agree on the "mutually-accepted
criteria," so how could I have proceeded with the experiments?
> > > What you are trying to do is skip over the problems in the fond hope
> > > that they will be magically dissolved by your "mutually accepted
> > > criteria".
> >
> > What problems am I attempting to "skip over"?
>
>
> The fact that the interpretations are not (yet) identical.
The interpretations of experiments that have yet to be performed? Of course
not. We need to get on the same page here. In numerous places in this
thread, as you know, I have proposed finding "mutually-acceptable criteria"
for use in performing these experiments, and so that is what I am referring
to. Thus I am not skipping over anything as there is nothing to skip over.
Whether the interpretations of the results are identical can only be found
once we have results to interpret.
[...]
> > > > > No, I am not categorically rejecting it.
> > > >
> > > > You wrote to Dan Still above, "I simply feel that the word cannot be
shown
> > > > to be meaningful." O.K., it's late and I'm very fatigued, but that
seems
> > > > awfully close to a categorical rejection to me.
> > >
> > > It is entirely possible to hold a POV and still maintain an open mind.
> > > Do you agree?
> >
> > And what is the difference in this case between an assumption and a POV?
>
>
> Well, there no doubt is a distinction, but that is not where I am going
> here.
>
> I simply need to know if you would agree or disagree with the statement.
Yes, I definitely agree that one can hold a given POV and still maintain an
open mind, and further, I believe that I am currently doing that.
[...]
> > > > See my response to Icarus earlier this evening and see if that lays
the
> > > > groundwork for us to further consider this subject.
> > >
> > > Well, it says you are arguing for the Christian god. From my
observation
> > > there are almost as many definitions of the Christian god as there are
> > > Christians.
> >
> > Is that really what you read there? Give me some examples to support
this.
>
>
> No, not in your statement.
Then don't say "it says" otherwise, O.K?
> This observation comes from several years of
> Usenet participation. I am not putting it forward as a point of
> contention. As stated, it's just an observation. It means that your
> "definition" doesn't actually narrow the field all that much for me.
I was not in any way attempting to define the Christian God in that message,
so it doesn't surprise me that it didn't help narrow the field for you.
> > > Beyond that it says your deity cannot be tested, but can be deduced
from
> > > observable effects.
> >
> > I did not say my deity cannot be tested, rather that new tests may be
> > necessary so as to satisfy both sides of the debate.
>
>
> ?????
>
> "First of all, we cannot expect God to jump through hoops for us. In
> other words, we have to find criteria that allows us to find Him where
> He is, not where some might wish He was"
Nothing said there indicates He cannot be tested, only that such tests must
be appropriate to the subject being tested. If I want to discover the
properties of sea water, I don't get my sample from my kitchen faucet. In
this case, we need to look for the proofs where they are found, and that is
in the lives of those where divine intervention demonstratably appears.
Josef, I want to express that the more I have conversed with you here, the
more I have come to appreciate your mind. You definitely have an ability to
pick up certain subtleties that many miss. The problem can be that your
probing can sometimes come across as nit-picking until one begins to see
that it goes deeper than that. Thanks for the continuing dialogue!
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
>news:MPG.19dec30af...@206.172.150.13...
>[...]
>> > Unless you are referring to people
>> > who not only don't believe in God, but who are absolutely 100% convinced
>> > there could be a God ...
>>
>> An example of the careless way you throw sentences together.
>
>Actually, an example of a typo [missing the word, "not"], which should have
>been evident from the flow of the sentence. It should have read, "Unless you
>are referring to people who not only don't believe in God, but who are
>absolutely 100% convinced there could not be a God [and these are
>individuals who should not be taken seriously as they obviously believe they
>have perfect knowledge of all that can be known], what reasonable person
>wouldn't agree that this statement is self-evident?
And those people are no different than those who are absolutely
convinced there is no Santa Claus.
Why is that unreasonable?
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Justin_Martyr2000 poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
> Josef Balluch <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.19de5e624...@206.172.150.13>...
...
> > Well, I THOUGHT your previous position was:
> >
> >
> > "YOU, however, have taken it upon yourself to assert a hypothesis (the
> > existence of strictly naturalistic explanations) without showing a
> > warrant for your hypothesis and insisting that your position is the
> > correct one on that basis alone."
> >
> > "Your statement, however, contains the assumption that only through
> > naturalistic explanations do we know anything."
> >
>
> And this was incorrect?
>
> Are you objecting to my content or my delivery in your
> statement that "it was quite an improvement"?
The content.
Josef
When I hear a man is religious I conclude that he is a rascal, although
I have known some instances of very good men being religious.
-- David Hume
Dan Barker
[...]
> >Actually, an example of a typo [missing the word, "not"], which should
have
> >been evident from the flow of the sentence. It should have read, "Unless
you
> >are referring to people who not only don't believe in God, but who are
> >absolutely 100% convinced there could not be a God [and these are
> >individuals who should not be taken seriously as they obviously believe
they
> >have perfect knowledge of all that can be known], what reasonable person
> >wouldn't agree that this statement is self-evident?
>
> And those people are no different than those who are absolutely
> convinced there is no Santa Claus.
>
> Why is that unreasonable?
Please clarify, as there are two groups mentioned in that sentence. When you
say, "those people," are you referring to the first group [those who
"believe they have perfect knowledge of all that can be known"], or the
second group [everyone else in the world; comprising in excess of 99.999% of
the population]?
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
Why do you guys pretend that you don't understand that "God" is TO
ATHEISTS merely something some people believe, little different than
Santa Claus?
You're fooling nobody except yourselves.
Justin_Martyr2000
> On 28 Sep 2003 04:16:57 -0700, CSU...@Hotmail.com (Justin_Martyr2000)
> wrote:
>
> You ignored everything I wrote, and instead appended this piece of
> deliberate nastiness at the end:
>
>
> "Christopher,
>
> "A little friendly advice:
>
> "Turn the computer off, throw out all the pornography, go
> outside, take a walk, talk to people, make some friends, meet a girl,
> fall in love.
>
> "Seriously."
>
> Justin, you are a dishonest, stupid, nasty, person.
>
> But all too typically Christian.
>
> Either address what you are told or admit you can't, instead of just
> being nasty
Christopher,
I have repeatedly attempted to reason with you. I have tried
every tactic I know in order to get you to see that no learning takes
place when one side thinks that the other has nothing to say.
There is no point in my addressing your "points" if they are not
logically consistent with the context of the conversation. At first I
thought that you were simply toying with me for entertainment purposes
but as the months and multiple threads went on I came to realize that
this is not the case. I believe that what I see you posting is the
real you. I have nothing against you personally but if I were you I
would seriously consider leaving this newsgroup for a while and
seeking some other form of intellectual pursuit. It is not helping you
and I think that your bitterness towards the idea of God is having a
negative affect on your personality.
I say this in all seriousness. I don't know what else to say to
you. If I tried to give you the Gospel, you would not receive it, so
the best I can do for you is to urge you to get out in the real world
and experience life. Perhaps after some time you will see what I mean.
Find friends that will care about you. Leave off the issue of God's
existence or non-existence for a while.
Those steps I mentioned are not intended to hurt you but to
hopefully startle you into considering. I know from experience,
believe me. I was a lot like you a few years ago.
Best regards,
Justin
Christopher A. Lee
Yet again, the dishonest hypocrite snips my original remarks and
instead amateur psychologises the reaction to his nastiness,
dishonesty and stupidity.
I've restored the original remarks at the end, that you still haven't
addressed.
On 28 Sep 2003 17:21:06 -0700, CSU...@Hotmail.com (Justin_Martyr2000)
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<8mkdnvcl7b5l76m84...@4ax.com>...
>> On 28 Sep 2003 04:16:57 -0700, CSU...@Hotmail.com (Justin_Martyr2000)
>> wrote:
>>
>> You ignored everything I wrote, and instead appended this piece of
>> deliberate nastiness at the end:
>>
>> "Christopher,
>>
>> "A little friendly advice:
>>
>> "Turn the computer off, throw out all the pornography, go
>> outside, take a walk, talk to people, make some friends, meet a girl,
>> fall in love.
>>
>> "Seriously."
>>
>> Justin, you are a dishonest, stupid, nasty, person.
>>
>> But all too typically Christian.
>>
>> Either address what you are told or admit you can't, instead of just
>> being nasty
>
>
> Christopher,
>
> I have repeatedly attempted to reason with you. I have tried
>every tactic I know in order to get you to see that no learning takes
>place when one side thinks that the other has nothing to say.
You have done no such thing, liar. And you know it.
You know atheists don't believe what you do, yet you still talk at
them about it as though they did.
That is hardly "reasoning with me".
> There is no point in my addressing your "points" if they are not
>logically consistent with the context of the conversation. At first I
>thought that you were simply toying with me for entertainment purposes
>but as the months and multiple threads went on I came to realize that
>this is not the case. I believe that what I see you posting is the
>real you. I have nothing against you personally but if I were you I
>would seriously consider leaving this newsgroup for a while and
>seeking some other form of intellectual pursuit. It is not helping you
>and I think that your bitterness towards the idea of God is having a
>negative affect on your personality.
What a perfect example of dishonest Christian nastiness, falsehood and
hypocrisy.
You, Sir, are a deliberate, disgusting, lying piece of shit.
Was that clear enough even for you?
You don't even try to talk from common shared understanding.
You lie about why people tell you to do that.
You lie about why they don't share your delusion.
> I say this in all seriousness. I don't know what else to say to
>you. If I tried to give you the Gospel, you would not receive it, so
What an absolutely moronic thing to say.
You're an idiot.
You're too stupid to understand just how worthless, meaningless and
irrelevant your gospel is outside your religion.
And too stupid to realise that atheists are by definition outside your
religion.
As well as too stupid to realise that the rest of teh world does not
revolve around your religion.
>the best I can do for you is to urge you to get out in the real world
>and experience life.
I'm in the real world, moron. You're the one who is locked inside his
religion and is too stupid to to know its place in the real world.
If you're going to talk with atheists, don't pretend your religious
delusions reflect reality.
And don't lie about them when they explain what you've got to do to
talk to them.
Basically, don't be the insufferable, lying, just plain nasty jerk you
have been.
> Perhaps after some time you will see what I mean.
You don't mean anything, asshole.
>Find friends that will care about you.
Oh, the irony. Did I go looking for you in a Christian newsgroup? Or
did you come to looking for atheists to be an-in-the-face idiot?
> Leave off the issue of God's
>existence or non-existence for a while.
What fucking "issue of God's existence or non-existence", liar? You're
the one with the hangup about it, who is so dicourteous he talks at
(not with) us as though it actually existed outside his overworked
imagination.
Here's a clue, Greak Arkleseizure knows you need one: nobody would
give a shit about your religious beliefs if you kept them to yourself.
But you don't. And because you ignore our position and "discuss" a
strawman, we correct you. And instead of acknowledging your mistake
you lie about us. We tell you to either prove your ridiculous
assertions or shut up. Yet you do neither and lie about atheists
It is up to you to prove it BEFORE you talk as though it actually
existed.
I fail to see how explaining this to a brainwashed moron with a room
temperature IQ is an atheist "having the issue of God's existence of
non-existence".
> Those steps I mentioned are not intended to hurt you but to
>hopefully startle you into considering. I know from experience,
>believe me. I was a lot like you a few years ago.
You're a fucking liar.
> Best regards,
Hardly, hypocrite.
> Justin
Original restored below.
Either have the integrity to acknowledge the points in it, or crawl
back under your rock.
Again,WHAT "BIASES", LIAR?
Why don't you?
Or this.
/begin insert/
>> Start from the universe without any pre-existing mention of the word
>> "God". How would you derive "God".
If you can't do this then you're wasting everybody's time.
>> > It is my responsibility to search out what that purpose is and not
>> >allow myself to be sidetracked into living a materialistic existence
>> >which ends in death and the loss of all that I deem precious. That is
>> >vanity and a striving after wind.
>>
>> In your dreams.
>>
>> HERE it is your responsibility to demonstrate that it actually exists
>> outside your overworked imagination before talking about it as though
>> it did.
Well?
>> > Justin
>
>
> Christopher,
>
> A little friendly advice:
>
> Turn the computer off, throw out all the pornography, go
>outside, take a walk, talk to people, make some friends, meet a girl,
>fall in love.
>
> Seriously.
Justin, you are a dishonest, nasty, person.
Dan Barker
> >> >Actually, an example of a typo [missing the word, "not"], which should
have
> >> >been evident from the flow of the sentence. It should have read,
"Unless you
> >> >are referring to people who not only don't believe in God, but who are
> >> >absolutely 100% convinced there could not be a God [and these are
> >> >individuals who should not be taken seriously as they obviously
believe they
> >> >have perfect knowledge of all that can be known], what reasonable
person
> >> >wouldn't agree that this statement is self-evident?
> >>
> >> And those people are no different than those who are absolutely
> >> convinced there is no Santa Claus.
> >>
> >> Why is that unreasonable?
> >
> >Please clarify, as there are two groups mentioned in that sentence. When
you
> >say, "those people," are you referring to the first group [those who
> >"believe they have perfect knowledge of all that can be known"], or the
> >second group [everyone else in the world; comprising in excess of 99.999%
of
> >the population]?
>
> Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
Christopher, you asked me a question and I responded simply to first clarify
which group of people you were referring to, as it wasn't clear from your
post. Why then did you respond with these insensitive and disrespectful
comments? Treating others in this unfair manner does nothing to foster
intelligent debate.
> Why do you guys pretend that you don't understand that "God" is TO
> ATHEISTS merely something some people believe, little different than
> Santa Claus?
I'm not pretending anything of the sort, nor did I write anything that would
give you any justification for assuming that I don't understand that
atheists view belief in God as tantamount to belief in Santa Claus.
> You're fooling nobody except yourselves.
I'm not trying to fool anybody. I am just a fellow traveler like you trying
to make sense of life and the world around us. Lighten up a little. You just
might find that we have something to offer one another.
Dan Barker
http://www.findhim.org
Icarus
> > > However, if a person is open-minded enough to allow for the
> > > possibility that proof of the supernatural, and of God, requires
> > > different [although equally sound] criteria than what is
> > > appropriate for the natural world, then that person stands a
> > > good chance of observing an entirely new world...
> >
> > So what kind of proof do you envisage and on what sound criteria
> > is it based?
>
> First of all, we cannot expect God to jump through hoops for us.
Why not? How do you know? Did he say so? If the latter, isn't that
pre-supposing your god's existence? We're having a debate about how
to ascertain whether he exists or not, and you're already off
describing his characteristics - kind of jumping the gun, if you see
what I mean. :-) Anyway why shouldn't he just be there and be
blindingly obvious when I want to know if he does or doesn't exist?
What advantage would there be to us or him for him being elusive and
not in evidence?
...
> This means that we are going to have to work with cause and effect,
> attempting to determine if the effects of His actions in human lives
> are consistent with who He says that He is, and how He deals with
> us, and most importantly, that these effects show a very high
> likelihood of having no other plausible cause than God.
...
> In working through such proofs, we should also take into account
> any pattern(s) that appear, as the level of likelihood that we might
> assign to a given proof should in some cases be raised to a higher
> level of assurance if we begin to find indentifiable patterns that
> point to His working on a broad scale that is consistent with "who
> He says that He is, and how He deals with us." Do you agree with
> this
Well.. it seems to me you're presupposing that this god exists, and
that whatever text you believe to be "the word of god" actually is so,
and that the characteristics you ascribe to him are true ("...who He
says that He is..." etc.). How can I test observations on the basis
of what *you say* constitutes evidence of your god? This would be a
seriously flawed approach. I could just as easily claim "well my god
XYZ says in his holy book that he decided that one particular law of
motion would be F=MA and By Golly this is exactly what we find, hence
XYZ must exist!"... In other words, if you're allowed to define your
god yourself then anything at all can be claimed to constitute proof
of his existence! :-)
> Since the data we must work with must come from individuals and
> their personal accounts of the effects that we wish to determine the
> source of, much background information should be gathered on each
> individual to determine the level of credibility that can be
assigned
> to their testimony. Those that fall below perhaps the 90th
percentile
> of a mutually agreed upon scale should be removed from
consideration...
> [the scale would have to combine the nature of the particular effect
> with specific background related to that effect, as well as general
> information]. Now I am assuming that if you are still with me, I may
> be losing you here as you may not be able to imagine yourself
> crediting anyone who relates such causes. I hope this is not the
> case, but if it is, ask yourself, "Where else you can possibly
expect
> to find evidence of these effects except in those who have
experienced
> them?"
I've no doubt that there are people who genuinely believe that they
have had a supernatural or religious experience, but then there are
also people who genuinely believe they have been abducted by aliens or
impregnated by demons or have visited other stars in their dreams...
Do all these peoples' accounts constitute 'evidence' of what they
claim to have experienced? How are we to distinguish between fantasy
and reality, if not by getting independent, objective, verifiable
evidence? You seem to be saying that this kind of evidence is simply
not available in supernatural or religious claims. So, it seems to me
that not only are you arguing for *different* criteria for
supernatural claims than you would require for natural causes, you are
actually arguing for a *lower* standard of proof. I don't really see
how you can justify that. If we insist on objective evidence for
natural phenomena then I don't see how we can accept anything less for
supernatural phenomena.
> Once the hopefully pure data is collected, then the arduous process
> of looking for possible primary causes other than God must begin.
> At times these possible causes will have to be honestly viewed as
> extremely unlikely and noted as such, as well as times when it is a
> stretch to come up with any other viable explanation other than God.
Look at it from my point of view: We don't know that any gods exist,
and we certainly don't know that anyone's claims of what a god might
be like are valid, nor that anyone's account of what their god has
said to them has any basis in fact. So, if we have some data
(whatever that might be) and say "well at the moment we can't account
for this with any known natural cause", that's not at all the same as
saying "we can't find a natural cause and therefore it must be down to
a god". The absence of a known natural cause simply means that we
don't know the cause, not that the cause has to be supernatural.
I'd be interested to hear what sort of accounts you think might
constitute evidence of a god.
Cheers...
John.
Icarus
> All that science can do is identify and quantify the natural
> mechanisms at work around us. To jump to the next level
> and say *why* they work is not warranted.
On the face of it I tend to agree... but it may also be that when we
understand enough about the universe, we'll also understand *why* it
has to be the way it is. Certainly positing a god doesn't provide
these sort of answers, it just raises more questions (i.e. about the
origin of the god).
> No one ever challenges the resurrection or the Virgin
> birth on the grounds that "we just don't understand it yet,
> but it was natural"; rather, the argument is always that
> the event is ahistorical.
Think of all the other very mundane possible explanations that *don't*
require the existence of 'the supernatural' (e.g. that the Bible is
entirely fictional, or that Mary had a secret torrid affair with the
postman before her 'virgin' birth, or that the disciples pinched
Jesus's body to make it look like he came back to life, or.... etc.).
I think you'd have to allow that there are more plausible explanations
to an honest independent observer than the idea that there is a whole
new supernatural realm of existence. The argument that "... the event
is ahistorical" is therefore quite a reasonable one, I think!
> The problem in the discourse comes in when skeptics presuppose
> that the events are ahistorical on the grounds that they are not
> naturalistic.
Fair comment... but then surely it's up to the believers to provide
satisfactory proof to the contrary, not for skeptics to accept the
possibility of 'the supernatural' when a perfectly plausible mundane
natural explanation exists? Occam's Razor and all that...
Cheers!
John.