My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Duelist925]

Reply eaten twice now... Once my own fault.

The science that gives a chance to try and slide supernatural reasoning into newfound gaps requires proof of claim, or a solid hypothetical basis to be able to investigate those claims.

The abrahamic religions, for example, have old tribal histories and generations of verbal history. That's not enough - nowhere near it. There's been enough admission by theists in this thread that parts of it are to be ignored or are corrupt.

To base an investigation as to the existence of what are currently believed to be supernatural beings - or phenomena - on that is not reasonable. It could be the truth, but I don't see enough of a logical basis to assume there is any real potential there.

I think your missing the point tho--these studies aren't being done to 'prove god" or any such thing, but, as gk said, to pretty much unravel the nature of the universe, peer into the abyss, etc, etc, etc. And the shit scientists are finding is the kinda crazy shit that the concept of a creator or afterlife isn't that far fetched compared to some of it.

He's not saying we have proof--but keeping an open mind might be a good idea.

[Panacea]

Many of the things I listed apply to other religions, as well. Christianity is not the only religion with pedophile priests - even Buddhists have them. Almost every religion has "holy men" who are given respect they haven't earned. Faith healers are found in almost every religion (and outside of religion, too).

Your argument presupposes that pedophilia is a consequence of religious belief. Please provide evidence for this conclusion.

The reason these things persist in religion, when they could be eradicated from a non-religious situation, is the belief in the supernatural.

The belief in a divine being is, by definition, a belief in the supernatural, yes.

ANYTHING can be justified by supernatural beliefs. All you have to say is, "it's God's will" and suddenly abuse, torture, genocide, and a whole host of other evils can be rationalized. Since the supernatural has no measurable effect on the real world, there's no way for anyone to verify what is claimed about it.

False. People who use "God's Will" to justify their own prejudices are twisting the precepts of their religion. It is not the religion itself that is the problem, but a person unable or unwilling to do their own thinking, or who uses religion as an excuse for actions or positions they would take anyway.

We cannot measure the supernatural, no. That's why I've said repeatedly that science does not involve itself with questions of the supernatural . . . because it cannot be measured. Science and faith are not the same thing, and persons of faith who try to use the rules of science to justify their religious views are just as wrong as atheists who rely on science to disprove the divine. Science cannot disprove the divine because it never addresses the question in the first place.

But, as I've also said, there is a considerable body of medical evidence that shows that people with strong religious faith do better in coping with medical crises than those who lack such faith.

Here's a sampling of recent articles on the subject from PubMed, though these relationships have long been known:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20624507
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16781528

In general, I don't have a problem with the things the relgious members of this board advocate. But I do have a problem with religion in general, as I described above.

This is puzzling to me. You don't have a problem with the religious members, such as myself, but you have a problem with religion.

If you are willing to agree that the religious members of this board are people of good character, why do you insist in painting all religion with the broad brush of harm and evil?

People are drifting away from religion. This is good. Although I don't always agree with spiritual, unchurched, or unaffiliated individuals, they're not the ones calling for all the horrible things that religions advocate. So I generally don't have a problem with them.

People are drifting away from religion, not faith. Many people, as I do, practice their faith privately because they dislike large organizations, or don't want to support the position of large organizations they disagree with.

You keep starting from a result and cherry-picking reports to support your result. The true scientist would start from a hypothesis and go from there with an open mind.

Quoted for Truth.

Because it's wrong. Most supernatural claims have no effect on the real world. And those that are claimed to have an effect on the real world have, time and time again, been shown to be false.

It depends on what kinds of claims we're talking about here.

I do not believe that God manifests himself in a pancake. Some gullible people do. I feel sad for them, because they do not understand their own faith and what it really means to have a relationship with God.

Faith healing, for example, has no verifiable source, but its results have been shown to be false. Prayer has been shown to have no positive effect (and in some cases a negative effect, probably due to performance anxiety) on healing after surgeries. No verifiable evidence has been found for an afterlife, and insufficient evidence to support reincarnation. Same for ghosts, demons, and angels.

Faith healing is often a con. In instances where it has some "effect" it is most likely the placebo effect. Conceded. Most Christian faiths do not support faith healing, and would urge their members to take a sick person to a doctor. Again, you paint with a broad brush.

Prayer is another matter. Intercessory prayer, where one is asked to pray for another person not present cannot be measured for effect. The religious faith of the sick person has already been shown to have positive outcomes on health, as I've already noted.

Belief in an afterlife prevents people from enjoying the life that they have. Belief in some supernatural agent of justice prevents people from seeking to improve their own situations in life. Belief in possession prevents diagnosis of real, treatable mental illnesses.

This statement just leaves me flabbergasted. Ghel, you've just told me that my belief in an afterlife is preventing me from enjoying the life I am currently living.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As proof, I offer the evidence of the considerable body of posts on CS in which I display the pride and love of my profession, and share stories of my enjoyment of a multitude of other activities. I live a very full life. Problem free? Of course not. But full, rich, and varied.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the afterlife. I believe God wants me to live a good life in the here and now.

While I do believe evildoers will face God's justice, that doesn't stop me from wanting justice on this earth.

And of course, I certainly do not believe mental illness has anything to do with a belief in the supernatural. Patients who become mentally ill often turn to God for answers, but it is not their faith that leads to mental illness, it is a chemical or physical problem with the brain. However, faith does provide tools and coping mechanisms for people with mental problems. Even with those tools, the severely mentally ill still need medication, and only those fringe groups who don't believe in medicine at all would deny this.

The Catholic Church is very skeptical of claims of demonic possession. They will not perform an exorcism without an extensive examination, including a diagnostic workup and treatment for mental illness which is usually at fault in such claims.

I don't take the same tack as Ghel, but from an atheist standpoint we're not the ones making claims about the supernatural. The burden of proof is not on us.

If you say the supernatural as far as we know the concept exists, it's not on us to disprove it - it's up to you to prove it.

What happens with many claims of the supernatural seems to be along the lines of:

"Fairies exist at the bottom of the garden."

"Prove it?"

"Can't be proven because they keep hiding, but they're there."

A simplification, sure, but that's how it is perceived. Please back your claims up. If it's not your claim and you want to defend it, please back their claims up.

Rapscallion

Because I make no effort to justify my faith, I have no claim to defend. What I believe is what I believe. I'm not asking you to believe it.

However, that belief has positive benefits for social good in many respects is another issue altogether, and we've already discussed many examples of why belief can have positive effects: on literature, on science, on health, on ethics.

The claim that I am defending is that faith is good for people and society. Nothing more.

I get the feeling this is like the joke/viewpoint on alternative medicine.

Q: What do you call alternative medicine that has been proved to work?
A: Medicine.

If the supernatural can be proved to be real and exist, then it's natural. I don't think it unreasonable to ask for claims of such to be backed up or sufficiently tested.

The problem is, we can't. Science does not investigate the supernatural. You can't prove it's real . . . that's why it is called the supernatural in the first place. Supernatural claims are not testable, therefore are not a fit topic for scientific inquiry.

This is why parapsychology is no longer a scientific field.

My approach on this is to ask those claiming that there's a divinity to prove it. If they're unable or unwilling, then it falls in the purview of Dawkins - that which can be claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Rapscallion

I thought it was Hitchens who said that. Either way, it's a logical fallacy. I can claim the sky is blue, but be unable to prove it (say by opening a window). That doesn't make my claim false if my listener is too lazy assed to get out of a chair and open the door. The sky is still blue. His laziness nor my inability do not change the facts. The fallacy I'm describing, btw, is the fallacy of incredulity, as well as the fallacy of argument from silence.

All Hitchens (or Dawkins) is really saying is, "You're full of shit, but I'm not going to do anything to show you are actually full of shit."

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indisguishable from magic"?

The natural world is crazy ass. I mean we have evidence that the universe itself would kick us in the balls if we attempted time travel. It literally would avoid the creation of paradox making it impossible to alter the timeline. If you went back in time to shoot your own grandfather, the gun would misfire.
<snip>

In all of this lunancy, you can't tell me there's no room for something like a state of afterlife or a mechanism like reincarnation or an intelligence that exists on a plane different from our own where the laws of time and space are hilariously different and matter itself is no obstacle. We could all be a quantum simulation running on a computer far beyond our comprehension that was created by a civilization that's trapped at the omega point of the collapse of the last universe.

Its completely possible with our current understanding of science and no less fanciful.

Ah, Gravekeeper. Now you're indulging in a logical fallacy. There's nothing to show that ever increasing understanding of science and the universe will lead to an understanding of the divine.

This is why I keep saying science does not investigate the supernatural. The two are, and should be, kept separate. That does not exclude belief in the divine by scientists.

[Andara Bledin]

He's not saying we have proof--but keeping an open mind might be a good idea.

This.

The side of belief is not claiming proof, just claiming that the possibility of God or even just a creator is still very much possible.

Unlike the people we're rebutting, who claim to know that God doesn't exist, despite there being no evidence to that effect, either.

^-.-^

[Duelist925]

*snip*


Ah, Gravekeeper. Now you're indulging in a logical fallacy. There's nothing to show that ever increasing understanding of science and the universe will lead to an understanding of the divine.

This is why I keep saying science does not investigate the supernatural. The two are, and should be, kept separate. That does not exclude belief in the divine by scientists.

Which logical fallacy? I'm curious, as his stance seems to be fairly defensible. Its not a fallacy, as far as I can see--yes the supernatural cannot truly be measured by the scientific, but that relies on god being the supernatural--perhaps its not. Science is increasingly showing some crazyass shite might be true, which could make the possibility of a scientifically viable god possible.

(please note, I'm not arguing whether or not god/religion/afterlife/whatever is supernatural or not, simply stating either could be the case.)

[Rapscallion]

I think your missing the point tho--these studies aren't being done to 'prove god" or any such thing, but, as gk said, to pretty much unravel the nature of the universe, peer into the abyss, etc, etc, etc. And the shit scientists are finding is the kinda crazy shit that the concept of a creator or afterlife isn't that far fetched compared to some of it.

I don't believe I did miss the point. I admitted that there is potential room for it, but I pointed out that though there is that room there's no reason to think that it is there.

The problem is, we can't.

Sure we can. The christian god was capable of plagues, smiting the first born, raining food for the starving, shitting on his people, and all manner of such things. His son was capable of walking on water, feeding many thousands of people, turning water into wine, and raising the dead. Let's not forget the occasional healing.

Reproduce those and you can prove it.

Science does not investigate the supernatural.

Dunno - ghost hunters have made many attempts to prove the existence of ghosts in allegedly haunted areas. Nothing's ever been proved or confirmed conclusively that I've heard of, but it's investigated.

James Randi has investigated many people with alleged psychic abilities.

It happens.

You can't prove it's real . . . that's why it is called the supernatural in the first place. Supernatural claims are not testable, therefore are not a fit topic for scientific inquiry.

I disagree. As above, people have claimed to have supernatural abilities and failed to demonstrate them when challenged, or exposed as charlatans.

This is why parapsychology is no longer a scientific field.

I suspect that if it is it's because it was tested and ... didn't work.

I thought it was Hitchens who said that.

My bad - I was thinking of something else, but yes - it was Hitchens.

Either way, it's a logical fallacy. I can claim the sky is blue, but be unable to prove it (say by opening a window). That doesn't make my claim false if my listener is too lazy assed to get out of a chair and open the door. The sky is still blue. His laziness nor my inability do not change the facts. The fallacy I'm describing, btw, is the fallacy of incredulity, as well as the fallacy of argument from silence.

Incorrect - the allegory falls apart because it is easily proveable. There's plenty of evidence. The whole 'god exists' thing isn't easily proveable. It's not like anyone can prove it, and a lack of ability to prove it isn't proof.

All Hitchens (or Dawkins) is really saying is, "You're full of shit, but I'm not going to do anything to show you are actually full of shit."

As stated above, he's not the one making the claim.

This is why I keep saying science does not investigate the supernatural. The two are, and should be, kept separate. That does not exclude belief in the divine by scientists.

As above, it is tested and has been tested. Randi has a million dollars for someone who can prove supernatural abilities. Part of me hopes someone can claim the money honestly as I'd love there to be more to the world. Grizzled old fart that I am, I don't hold my breathe waiting for the result.

Why should claims in the supernatural not have to prove themselves?

"My magic can make this pen levitate."

"Go on then. Do it."

"I don't have to prove it, but you have to accept my word!"

That doesn't work for me. Can't claim immunity.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

Incorrect - the allegory falls apart because it is easily proveable. There's plenty of evidence. The whole 'god exists' thing isn't easily proveable. It's not like anyone can prove it, and a lack of ability to prove it isn't proof.

But we are not claiming that we have proof. We are not making a positive claim. "I believe" is not a positive claim. You and Ghel are making positive claims. The only theist in this thread who's made a positive claim along those lines is Panacea, and even s/he said that it doesn't matter what you think. Panacea is not trying to convince you that religion is right. I'm not trying to. Andy's not trying to. Duelist isn't trying to.

We're just trying to prove it's not EVIL. Which is an entirely different argument. It could be true and evil. It can be false and not evil.

[Peppergirl]

We're just trying to prove it's not EVIL. Which is an entirely different argument. It could be true and evil. It can be false and not evil.

This.

There are factions within each side that take things to extremes.

Thankfully, the vast majority of us do not generalize and think that the few assholes on either side speak for or represent the entirety of that particular belief. This is my whole problem with what these particular threads always seem evolve into.

I am thankful that the vast majority of atheists that I know aren't judgmental assholes who think that every Christian is a bible-thumping, finger-pointing, gay bashing, bigoted idiot. Sure, there's quite a few of them out there, and trust me, I probably hate them as much (if not more) than atheists seem to. But, don't sit here and tell me that because I choose to believe, that I'm just like them. I'd like to know where they sell brushes that big that allow all believers to be painted with it.

[Rapscallion]

But we are not claiming that we have proof. We are not making a positive claim. "I believe" is not a positive claim. You and Ghel are making positive claims. The only theist in this thread who's made a positive claim along those lines is Panacea, and even s/he said that it doesn't matter what you think. Panacea is not trying to convince you that religion is right. I'm not trying to. Andy's not trying to. Duelist isn't trying to.

We're just trying to prove it's not EVIL. Which is an entirely different argument. It could be true and evil. It can be false and not evil.

The claim is that something exists. Please prove it.

However, the thread is about what arseholes evangelical atheists are.

Well, it started like that, anyway.

Rapscallion

[Panacea]

Which logical fallacy? I'm curious, as his stance seems to be fairly defensible. Its not a fallacy, as far as I can see--yes the supernatural cannot truly be measured by the scientific, but that relies on god being the supernatural--perhaps its not. Science is increasingly showing some crazyass shite might be true, which could make the possibility of a scientifically viable god possible.

I beg your pardon. I thought I'd specified it; I didn't.

Appeal to probability. Gravekeeper is suggesting that because we are still learning and evolving we could eventually reach to the level of the divine.

From a Buddhist standpoint, his position makes perfect sense; this is at the core of the quest for Enlightenment.

From a scientific standpoint, it just ain't so. Science only investigates the natural world. For Science to understand the divine, the divine would have to become a part of the natural world. By definition, it cannot.

Sure we can. The christian god was capable of plagues, smiting the first born, raining food for the starving, shitting on his people, and all manner of such things. His son was capable of walking on water, feeding many thousands of people, turning water into wine, and raising the dead. Let's not forget the occasional healing.

Reproduce those and you can prove it.

No, I can't. For it to be proof, I would have to explain 1) the process by which it is done, and 2) be able to reproduce it every time, and 3) others would also have to be able to reproduce it.

This reduces what is meant to be a miracle to the everyday. While walking on water, feeding the multitudes, turning water to wine, and raising the dead along with making lame men walk, blind men see, and curing leprosy would all be fantastic things in of themselves if everyone could do them, the point of the miracle would be lost.

The stories told in religious texts of all sorts aren't meant to be taken literally. They're meant to teach and instruct.

Dunno - ghost hunters have made many attempts to prove the existence of ghosts in allegedly haunted areas. Nothing's ever been proved or confirmed conclusively that I've heard of, but it's investigated.

What those clowns are doing isn't science. It's entertainment for the masses. I've got a cousin who believes wholeheartedly that what they are doing is science. So I asked her once, "do they ever find ghosts?" She assured me they did.

So we watched an episode together, about this hotel in Brazil I think it was. The "ghost hunters" did all kinds of "measurements" and "ruled out" things like radio interference, a hoax, etc, etc, after of course much dramatic heavy breathing in dark rooms we view through night vision lenses. They then proceeded to tell the owners that since they'd ruled out every possible natural or man made cause, that it then had to be a ghost. My cousin nodded sagely through the whole thing.

What utter nonsense! All they proved was that it wasn't a radio signal, a natural phenom, or some other easily identifiable cause (they still could have been hoaxed for all I know). Science doesn't operate by the Holmesian principle of deductive reasoning: if when all other explanations have been excluded, conclusion X must be the truth. Science operates under the principle one states a hypothesis and tests it. The tests either confirm or reject the hypothesis, or are inconclusive.

I know of no serious scientist who investigates ghosts. Ghosts are in the realm of the supernatural.

James Randi has investigated many people with alleged psychic abilities.

It happens.

James Randi is a fascinating fellow. However, he is not a scientist and does not claim to be one. He is a magician and a professional skeptic. He has investigated many people with alleged psychic abilities and has yet to find ONE genuine psychic. However, what he is doing is really not science. It's fraud exposure. He doesn't approach the topic with the frame of mind he might actually find a psychic (and I don't disapprove of his methods as they are rigourous and fair).

Now on to your response to my statement that supernatural topics are not a fit topic for scientific inquiry:

I disagree. As above, people have claimed to have supernatural abilities and failed to demonstrate them when challenged, or exposed as charlatans.

See my comments above. A real scientific inquiry would be, "is it possible to read a man's mind?" A scientist would then develop tests to try and answer this question. This is what the original field of parapsychology started out as. However, when a person claims to have a supernatural ability, the question becomes, "Is this person telling the truth?" People start looking for the wires or other natural explanation for what the "psychic" is allegedly doing . . . and inevitably finds it because these people are frauds and con artists every one.

I've followed the message boards associated with Skeptic magazine that involved setting up tests for people trying to claim Randi's 1 million dollar prize. In every occasion the "psychic" would back out at the last minute by wanting to change the conditions of the test.

Incorrect - the allegory falls apart because it is easily proveable. There's plenty of evidence. The whole 'god exists' thing isn't easily proveable. It's not like anyone can prove it, and a lack of ability to prove it isn't proof.

The lack of ability to prove isn't proof itself that the original claim is false.

Now, it IS true that I can't shift the BURDEN of proof to you as in regards to whether the sky is blue or God exists. If I make the claim of either one, the burden of proof is on me.

But if I lack the scientific reasoning to explain how light refraction in the atmosphere works, then it is still a fallacy for you to dismiss my claim that the sky is blue . . . because it is in fact blue.

If I wanted to claim definitively God exists, I would have to be willing to at least try and prove it. Failing does not mean God does not exist. It means only I haven't proven my point. But if I at least try, I should not be dismissed out of hand as Hitchens would do.

If, on the other hand, I take the position that I DO take, that God is in the realm of the supernatural and not science, then my position is I stake no claim. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

But it is offensive at the very least to have an atheist such as Hitchens or Dawkins dismiss me out of hand as "delusional" because I carry a special faith in my heart. They in fact argue that God does NOT exist, and they are no more able to prove their claim that he does not, than I can prove my belief that He does.

They're hypocrites, in other words. And assholes to boot, because their militancy would diminish and eliminate a belief system that brings happiness and strength to millions of people simply because they are intellectual trolls who enjoy the attention they get from raining on the parades of other people.

Atheists have every right to belief whatever suits them, whether it is provable or not, as long as they don't impinge on the rights of other people. They even have the right to argue their points. But if they are going to use science as a basis for their arguments (and many do), they need to accept that they can no more scientifically prove the LACK of something than I can prove its reality.

Which just brings us back to why science does not investigate the supernatural; its an utter waste of time and resources to investigate these concerns because they are not testable, not reproducible, and not verifiable.

As above, it is tested and has been tested. Randi has a million dollars for someone who can prove supernatural abilities. Part of me hopes someone can claim the money honestly as I'd love there to be more to the world. Grizzled old fart that I am, I don't hold my breathe waiting for the result.

I think Randi has withdrawn the prize; it had a deadline and it passed a couple of years ago. A lot of people tried, and everyone either withdrew or was exposed as a fraud.

Why should claims in the supernatural not have to prove themselves?

"My magic can make this pen levitate."

"Go on then. Do it."

"I don't have to prove it, but you have to accept my word!"

That doesn't work for me. Can't claim immunity.

A claim of levitation is not the same thing as the supernatural per se. Theoretically, anti-gravity can work, it just would take so much power as to be fruitless. You can achieve a kind of levitation with magnets.

If I claim to be able to magically levitate a pen, then I should be able to prove it through demonstration. I also should have to submit to an examination to confirm I'm NOT using magnets, wires, or other trickery.

If I claim to be divine or to work miracles through the powers of the divine, then I should be held to the same standard.

However, you're using the wrong analogy when it comes to God. I can't devise a test to submit for examination on that issue, which is why I don't proselytize (try and convert other people) (Reminder; my only claim in this thread has been that religion has benefits for mankind).

But consider this through a Scriptural eye, if you will (not usually the tack I like to take on this issue). Very often people would ask God or the angels for proof they could show to doubters. This often made God angry . . . because requiring proof means a lack of faith.

Now, I'm not a simpleton. In this modern age, a stick turning into a snake, or water turning to wine would be met with skepticism by me. I don't expect God to show me a miracle in the kinds of terms people tend to associate them.

[Hyena Dandy]

The claim is that something exists. Please prove it.

No-one here is making that claim (except maybe Panacea?) The claim we are making is that we BELIEVE something exists. In addition, we are claiming that this belief is not harming us, or anyone else. And we are claiming that religion is not evil. You are asking us to prove something we aren't making a statement on. The only positive claim we have made on it's existence is that we are of the opinion that it exists. It's pretty easy to prove that I'm of the opinion of something. If you want me to prove that, I will.

I believe that it exists.

There. Proven. I'm not trying to convince you that it exists. I'm trying to convince you that believing it doesn't hurt anyone.

Well, it started like that, anyway.

And it's ended up like every other thread on this forum. >_>

[Andara Bledin]

The claim is that something exists.

No. No it's not. It's that we believe that something exists.

Which is true and as provable as any statement of personal opinion ever could be.

Stop trying to make us argue a position we're not declaring just because it's easy to defeat.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

No, I can't. For it to be proof, I would have to explain 1) the process by which it is done, and 2) be able to reproduce it every time, and 3) others would also have to be able to reproduce it.

With regards to proof of the divine, or supernatural, you wouldn't necessarily have to understand the process by which it happens. Also, considering a divinity is supposed to be beyond mortals, I'm not sure I'd fully accept point three as well.

What those clowns are doing isn't science. It's entertainment for the masses. I've got a cousin who believes wholeheartedly that what they are doing is science. So I asked her once, "do they ever find ghosts?" She assured me they did.

I'll admit up front that I've never seen an episode, but I'm pretty sure they aren't the only ghost hunters. I'd also say that to make something that gains ratings they're going in with an end conclusion that they're more than happy to guide the viewer towards. I have to admit that what you specify here isn't good science, though there are other hunters out there. Powerboy, for one.

James Randi is a fascinating fellow. However, he is not a scientist and does not claim to be one. He is a magician and a professional skeptic. He has investigated many people with alleged psychic abilities and has yet to find ONE genuine psychic. However, what he is doing is really not science. It's fraud exposure. He doesn't approach the topic with the frame of mind he might actually find a psychic (and I don't disapprove of his methods as they are rigourous and fair).

I have actually seen some of his tests - at a friend's house, since I don't have a TV. I've also seen youtube footage. He's actually pretty scientific in his methods, though he doesn't actually need anything overly complicated to defeat most frauds.

The lack of ability to prove isn't proof itself that the original claim is false.

True, but it's also the fact that it's certainly not evidence that something is true.

But if I lack the scientific reasoning to explain how light refraction in the atmosphere works, then it is still a fallacy for you to dismiss my claim that the sky is blue . . . because it is in fact blue.

I have to admit that I'd struggle with the light refraction part of it myself. However, I think the example is still flawed as it doesn't take much proving. Proving a religious viewpoint is far different - instead of walking to a window, the investigator is taken through a path of explanation and eventually - in the case of the christian god at least - expected to believe.

But if I at least try, I should not be dismissed out of hand as Hitchens would do.

For me, he'd fail at the main test of Fratching - respect the person even if you don't respect their opinion.

If, on the other hand, I take the position that I DO take, that God is in the realm of the supernatural and not science, then my position is I stake no claim. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

This is where I have to think hard about the nature of supernature versus everything else. I'm not sure that there is an easy answer to that. However, by claiming that there's a god at all is a claim that I would prefer to be backed by substance.

But it is offensive at the very least to have an atheist such as Hitchens or Dawkins dismiss me out of hand as "delusional" because I carry a special faith in my heart. They in fact argue that God does NOT exist, and they are no more able to prove their claim that he does not, than I can prove my belief that He does.

I maintain the same position as them. I'm just not as big an arse about it.

They're hypocrites, in other words.

They're true to their convictions.

And assholes to boot, because their militancy would diminish and eliminate a belief system that brings happiness and strength to millions of people simply because they are intellectual trolls who enjoy the attention they get from raining on the parades of other people.

Well, there's book sales as well...

Atheists have every right to belief whatever suits them,

Technically, we don't believe

But if they are going to use science as a basis for their arguments (and many do), they need to accept that they can no more scientifically prove the LACK of something than I can prove its reality.

Following proper science, there's no need for them to prove anything.

Which just brings us back to why science does not investigate the supernatural; its an utter waste of time and resources to investigate these concerns because they are not testable, not reproducible, and not verifiable.

If the last three items are correct, have they actually occurred? Thinking about it, not reproducible is one thing I'd let the claim get away with, as it's easy to think of a ghost getting bored and wandering off. Slightly funny, actually. If it's not testable or verifiable, has anything actually happened?

I think Randi has withdrawn the prize; it had a deadline and it passed a couple of years ago. A lot of people tried, and everyone either withdrew or was exposed as a fraud.

Actually, I think you're right - I'd forgotten that one.

A claim of levitation is not the same thing as the supernatural per se. Theoretically, anti-gravity can work, it just would take so much power as to be fruitless. You can achieve a kind of levitation with magnets.

A fair point, though the intent of the example was levitation by magic or by the power of the claimant's mind.

However, you're using the wrong analogy when it comes to God. I can't devise a test to submit for examination on that issue, which is why I don't proselytize (try and convert other people) (Reminder; my only claim in this thread has been that religion has benefits for mankind).

Quite honestly, there's nothing that a believer could say that would change my mind as to the existence or otherwise of a deity. The deity themselves, though, could very easily change my mind by speaking to me.

But consider this through a Scriptural eye, if you will (not usually the tack I like to take on this issue). Very often people would ask God or the angels for proof they could show to doubters. This often made God angry . . . because requiring proof means a lack of faith.

I'd be pretty pissed off if I were wrong, but considering the number of people disagreeing with the existence of the christian deity, for example, I'd be quite impressed if a disease I contracted or a bolt of lightning that hit me could be proved to be from (a) god. I mean it - I'd like there to be more to the reality I experience.

Now, I'm not a simpleton. In this modern age, a stick turning into a snake, or water turning to wine would be met with skepticism by me. I don't expect God to show me a miracle in the kinds of terms people tend to associate them.

Miracles were usually there to convert non-believers, if memory serves. If so, I'd be more likely to see one. I don't think it beyond the power of an almight deity to parachute a score or so of female, human nymphomanics into my back garden, each one of whom has a birthmark reading, "A gift from jehovah" on their left bumcheek.

It would be nice, I have to admit, but I can't see it happening.

I believe that it exists.

To me, that's a claim of what you believe in existing. You are claiming the existence. I don't follow your train of thought on this.

And it's ended up like every other thread on this forum. >_>

What? Gun control?

Stop trying to make us argue a position we're not declaring just because it's easy to defeat.

Um, where did I do that? By saying you believe something exists, you are making a statement that something exists.

Rapscallion

[Peppergirl]

For me, he'd fail at the main test of Fratching - respect the person even if you don't respect their opinion.

To be fair, there are quite a few on Fratch that would also fail this particular test.

[Hyena Dandy]

To me, that's a claim of what you believe in existing. You are claiming the existence. I don't follow your train of thought on this.

We are not claiming it exists. We are only claiming that we believe it exists.

Here's how it looks from my perspective.

Let's say the claim is "I support Newt Gingrich."

And you're saying "Prove that Sharia law is a threat to the United States."

You could prove that Sharia Law is not a threat to the United States. That's not the claim I'm making. The only claim I'm making is that I support Newt Gingrich.



Likewise, I am claiming "I am a Christian."

And you are telling me "Prove God exists."

You could prove God doesn't exist. But that's not what I'm claiming. I'm only claiming that I am a Christian.



Of course, the metaphor is not perfect. If I supported Newt Gingrich, I would be trying to get other people to support Newt Gingrich too. But I'm sure you can understand the metaphor, and not get caught up in the technicalities of it. I think you get what I'm saying, yes?

[for the reference, I don't support Gingrich]

[Andara Bledin]

To be fair, there are quite a few on Fratch that would also fail this particular test.

Easily. This thread has been rather more cordial than most, but there have been a number where several people have specifically said that the other side are fools and worse for being on the other side of the debate.

Usually said by the athiests against the theists and religious types.

And no, Raps, merely professing a belief is not the same as declaring something exists. There is a subtle but vitally important distinction that those who don't have faith in anything appear to be incapable or unwilling to grasp, if the repeated debates on the matter are any indication.

^-.-^