Great article. The parallel with the Earthquake of Lisbon on All Saints Day 1755 and the subsequent transformation of Voltaire from a theodicist to atheist is compelling.

However I did enjoy the irony of Google's Adsense placing religious adverts in the adspace. :-)

There is wisdom in Christianity. Hate the sin but love the sinner. One can hate the sin of Christianity but still love the sinners.

Or, as Clive Hodges, St Lucia, Qld, has been reported saying:

“Those people who prayed for rain have a lot to answer”

Look at Toowoomba

Whose Christian prayers for

Rain were answered!

Brian fails to tell his full story here. Sin often leads to unbelief. Without going into the reasons Brian 'resigned' from ministry you really don't get the full picture.

"I am convinced that when anyone is inside “the Christian bubble of faith” it is almost impossible for them to see outside that bubble."

And there you have it. The great impasse in any faith based debate.

According to some religious leaders, flood, fire and drought are caused by God to punish innocent humans for the acts of others (sinners).

Praying for rain would seem akin to positive thinking being able to change patterns (such as in the dubious book 'The Secret').

There are as many sinners within the various Churches as there are outside, there are as many good as bad in both. It seems madness that a disbelief in a manufactured deity is considered a sin, which holds that criminals might get a free pass as long as they have faith (the mafia was good at that), while agnostics and atheists will be cast out as sinners no matter their good works.

One's 'goodness' is not measured by one's level of faith but by one's actions.

Still those who pray for rain might be wasting their time but they are not harming anyone or themselves. Humans are good at self-delusion - we all do it at times and it can be difficult to move beyond the 'bubble' of any ideology.

Pelican writes

'According to some religious leaders, flood, fire and drought are caused by God to punish innocent humans for the acts of others (sinners).'

The next thing you will be telling me Pelican is that you deserve to have been given the food, clothing and good things you received in this life. The shaking of puny fists who are recipients of grace day after day just confirms how arrogant and presumptuous the adamic nature leads a person to be. The non acceptance that their is no goodness outside of God leads to such self righteousness.

....as opposed to the "all-knowing" self-righteousness regularly articulated by some Christians, eh, runner?

There is but one God (Yahweh,God, Allah or Ilah), surrounded by her profit.
The Hindu, Shinto, Athiest, etc. are woefully bereft, but hardly to the extent of her chosen race upon which so much destitution has historically fallen.

"I am convinced that when anyone is inside “the Christian bubble of faith” it is almost impossible for them to see outside that bubble."

It's not that bad. According to census figures there are about 1500 less religious believers in Australia than there were last week; and that has been going on for a decade.

Just imagine for a moment what would happen if a religious cult was acquiring members at that rate. They would be triumphantly trumpeting their success across every newspaper, television and radio outlet they could find.

Aren't you glad that we're just quiet achievers?

The floods are not punishment for anything, nor was the drought. God doesn’t overturn the laws of nature if we ask earnestly enough, or ignore human suffering until we draw it to his attention. You'll rarely hear this kind of nonsense preached in mainstream churches (Catholic, Anglican, Uniting), only the literalist fringes such as the church Brian attended. It’s a shame no-one introduced him to less literalist theology when he started to become disillusioned. Faith and reason don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Hi Brian,

The title of your book caught my eye: "From Faith to Reason"

I was raised in an atheist household and ended up a Muslim. I look upon the Qur'aan as a 'book' of faith AND reason.

You'll understand what i mean if you read Chapter 19, entitled Maryam (or Mary), versus 16 to 36. These recount the birth of Jesus, her birth pangs, the reaction of her community (accusing her of adulatory) and the response of Jesus (or Isa), who spoke as a baby and with the most profound reasoning:

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it "Be", and it is. (35) Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. (36)"

http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/?Sura=19&FromVerse=30&Translation=Eng-Dr. Mohsin&Script=Usmani

Also I invite you to use the opportunity to listen to the recitation of the versus. Something many people do not realise is that the Qur'aan really is not a book, but a recitation.

salaams

Great article from Brian Baker, whose book: From Faith to Reason, I have read and enjoyed. Let's face reality: all civilisations have invented their gods as attempts to explain everything that happens. Thus humans have invented notions of souls, prayer, an afterlife, and so on. Why? Because these irrational beliefs are comforting. Humans WANT it to be that way: forgiveness of so-called sins, etc. Only with the dawn of rational thinking and scientific testing has the God delusion been shattered. There are no gods, no afterlife, no answers to prayers. Religious beliefs are an escape from the realities of life. But worse than that, religious beliefs produce nasty effects: people kill each other in the name of their religion. Most religions treat women as second class citizens, and in some cases, as mere chattels (the property of men). They also just cannot accept the reality of homosexuality. They inevitably oppose pre-marital sex, voluntary euthanasia, abortion, same sex marriage, stem-cell research ... the list goes on. They spread hatred, indeed they even murder people, such as stoning women to death for committing adultery. Religion does three things very effectively: it divides people, it deludes people, and it controls people. Brian Baker's article and his book are to be applauded.

Jon J,

“It's not that bad. According to census figures there are about 1500 less religious believers in Australia than there were last week; and that has been going on for a decade.”

Losses to religion in Australia are on a steep increase. And this is demonstrated in the Census results even with a loaded question. The question is, “What is the person’s religion?”

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has just initiated a campaign suggesting that people answer truthfully and not with their religion of baptism if they are no longer religious. The problem is of course that the leading question on religion can elicit a false answer by respondents.

Then, we have children under the age of 14 years. They make up 20% of the population. Parents put them down as the religion they themselves follow. Children have no idea to what they are ascribing. Parents should really mark them as 'No religion' but considering that is unlikely to happen we will have to live with that stat and factor it in when necessary.

And of course, parents may fill in the Census for adolescents and young adults, who have the highest proportion of godlessness of all demographics.

It is well nigh the time that Australia has an accurate count on how many are and how many are not religious.

The AFA Census web site is not up and running yet but our Media Release concerning the campaign is here.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/media-releases/mark-no-religion-campaign-begins-2011-census

Brittain and Ireland are running similar campaigns for the same reasons.

David

There are not 1500 less religious believers in Australia than there were last week. There are 1500 fewer religious believers in Australia than there were last week. Fewer refers to number, and less refers to quantity. If you lose five pounds you weigh five less pounds. If you lose 1500 believers you have 1500 fewer believers, and I am glad of it.

Seeking to reduce 'prayer' to a formula which 'works' or does not is really missing the whole picture of the Sovereignty of God.

Let's remind ourselves that Paul.. used by God to do spectacular healings etc.. himself was denied a 'yes' answer to his request to remove whatever it was he described as a thorn in his side.

Folks.. don't look for forumula's..look for faithfulness in your own hearts.

I asked God to heal my cancer stricken mum once.. the answer (audible in my mind) was "Tonight you must lose a loved one"..and I did.

Make of that what you will... but probably best kept in your heart it- won't effect me.

I would be very hesitant to use national situations as evidence either for or against prayer's efficacy

Dear me , we are again afflicted.
There is another contributor has not been influenced by any of the great writings of intelligent men and women and the findings of science over nearly two millennia.

Get used to it runner and grateful, evolution is now as well proven as the theories of gravity or thermodynamics. Medical and disease research uses the certainties of evolution every day. That research is the reason our life expectancy in the last 100 years improved by about 25 years.

As for prayer, open your eyes and say your prayers in front of a mirror; it may then be obvious that you are talking to yourself.

I once saw a woman wearing a head scarf saying her prayers in a train. The contrast was amazing. When the prayers were finished she used her very technical, science based phone, to call a friend!

Foyle you write

'I once saw a woman wearing a head scarf saying her prayers in a train. The contrast was amazing. When the prayers were finished she used her very technical, science based phone, to call a friend!'

Of course she was not dumb enough to think that her phone came about by accident. Some clever designer actually had a part to play in the design and building of the phone. Don't let what is obvious be blinded by your chance god or pseudo science.

runner,

Hate to rain on your parade, but the phone actually is the result of billions of years of evolution. Humans evolved with greater sophistication as time went by. Eventually a phone was one of the results.

And I know you will say that your god doesn’t follow that same rules of evolving, but apart from even knowing if your particular god exists, let’s leave that aside as you really haven’t a clue if it does, how do you know that it is eternal, unchanging and has always been?

Can you supply the evidence for that? Now, I mean universally accepted evidence not the guessing of so-called theologians who can’t agree within religions let alone with other religions.

This is really kiddies make believe stuff and you want to have control of the planet.

Sorry, but we wont let you. You have had your chance for thousands of years and you really have muffed it.

David

Foyle you write

"Get used to it runner and grateful, evolution is now as well proven as the theories of gravity or thermodynamics. Medical and disease research uses the certainties of evolution every day. That research is the reason our life expectancy in the last 100 years improved by about 25 years."

There is nothing in Islam that contradicts the theory of evolution, except as it applies to human beings. Please consider the following essay by Shaykh Nuh Ha Min Keller which begins
"Dear Suleman 'Ali:

Thank you for your fax of 27 June 1995 which said, in part:

"Recently a pamphlet has been circulated around Oxford saying that evolution is synonymous with kufr and shirk. I myself am a biologist and am convinced by the evidence which supports the theory of evolution. I am writing to ask whether the Quranic account of Creation is incompatible with man having evolved. Are there any books which you would recommend on the subject?"
During my "logic of scientific explanation" period at the University of Chicago, I used to think that scientific theories had to have coherence, logicality, applicability, and adequacy, and I was accustomed to examine theory statements by looking at these things in turn. Perhaps they furnish a reasonable point of departure to give your question an answer which, if cursory and somewhat personal, may yet shed some light on the issues you are asking about. "
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

Foyle, you also state:
"I once saw a woman wearing a head scarf saying her prayers in a train. The contrast was amazing. When the prayers were finished she used her very technical, science based phone, to call a friend!"

Did i used to think like this! Foyle you were privileged to be so close to this sister, so don't let the opportunity for deeper reflection and reason pass you by.

salaams

Congratulations,another person has achieved enlightenment.

I can understand people abandoning their once cherished beliefs,why they ever believed at all is just incomprehensible.

These days I do wish to be guided on what I feel is right for me and me only, therefore I am a "Free Thinker", I do not want to be known as a Religious person or an Atheist person, promotion of either tends to draw myself away from what is being told by either side, I am sure there are many people who feel as I do.

Ojnab

Grateful and runner,
You both dispute in one way or another evolution claiming it is not a proven theory or that it doesn't apply to humans.
You need to read the evidence. Man is classified in science as homo, the toolmaker, to distinguish our line form earlier descendants from our common ancestors for whom the term is australopithecine.
In the middle of the last century an Australian in South Africa, Raymond Dart, was the first to claim that an australopithecine haunted for a living using tools (weapons). A few years later Robert Ardrey assembled 24 parallel lines of evidence to show that A. africus hunted using bones as weapons or other tools some 2-3 million years ago. A. africanus in probably entitled to be reclassified as Homo (africanus).

Sean M Carroll recently stated, "Disagreements between materialist atheists and believers in a theological God are as much matters of personality and psychology as they are about logic and evidence.
'If, for whatever reason, a person is ready (or eager) to believe in God, an abstract and philosophically remote conception of the divine can be a comfortable compromise between the implausibilities of an interventionist biblical God and the impersonal machinery of a purely materialist cosmos.
But to many of us, there is nothing discomfiting about that impersonal machinery. The universe is, and part of our job is to discover exactly what it is. Another part of our job is to live in it, and construct meaning and depth from the shape of our lives. Once we adopt that point of view, the arguments for God seem like little more than excess baggage, to be discarded without regret.
It's a big, cold, pointless universe. And we wouldn't have it any other way."

Dear Ojnab,

Religious person is not the opposite of atheist person. One can be a religious person and an atheist person. A Buddhist is a religious person who may also be an atheist.

Drought and floods: did prayer completely fail? Or was it an overwhelming success?......Now I get the Noahs ark thing:)

BLUE

Foyle you write:
"Grateful and runner,
You both dispute in one way or another evolution claiming it is not a proven theory or that it doesn't apply to humans. "

In the case of evolutionary theory i do not have the expertise and so i defer to Sheikh Nuh for his guidance (author of the article cited in my last post). He has presented an argument against evolutionary theory as it applies to human beings, so if you'd like to undermine my position then focus on finding fault with his position. I'd be happy to respond as best i can, so please do your best to demonstrate where his argument is flawed. Here is the article once more: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

Shaykh Nuh examined the theory from 4 perspectives: "coherence, logicality, applicability, and adequacy". Perhap we can begin with the first.

His argument relating to the theory's "coherance" is as follows:

<<It seems to me that the very absoluteness of the theory's conclusions tends to compromise its "objective" character. It is all very well to speak of the "evidence of evolution," but if the theory is thorough- going, then human consciousness itself is also governed by evolution. This means that the categories that allow observation statements to arise as "facts", categories such as number, space, time, event, measurement, logic, causality, and so forth are mere physiological accidents of random mutation and natural selection in a particular species, Homo sapiens. They have not come from any scientific considerations, but rather have arbitrarily arisen in man by blind and fortuitous evolution for the purpose of preserving the species. They need not reflect external reality, "the way nature is", objectively, but only to the degree useful in preserving the species. .....cont

cont...

That is, nothing guarantees the primacy, the objectivity, of these categories over others that would have presumably have arisen had our consciousness evolved along different lines, such as those of more distant, say, aquatic or subterranean species. The cognitive basis of every statement within the theory thus proceeds from the unreflective, unexamined historical forces that produced "consciousness" in one species, a cognitive basis that the theory nevertheless generalizes to the whole universe of theory statements (the explanation of the origin of species) without explaining what permits this generalization. The pretences of the theory to correspond to an objective order of reality, applicable in an absolute sense to all species, are simply not compatible with the consequences of a thoroughly evolutionary viewpoint, which entails that the human cognitive categories that underpin the theory are purely relative and species-specific. The absolutism of random mutation and natural selection as explanative principles ends in eating the theory. With all its statements simultaneously absolute and relative, objective and subjective, generalizable and ungeneralizable, scientific and species-specific, the theory runs up on a reef of methodological incoherence. >>

How would you respond to this argument?

salaams

Foyle you write

'You need to read the evidence.'

The evidence is greatly lacking after millions and millions of fossils and many fraudulent claims by evolutionist. Sorry to disappoint you but the 'missing link' just does not exist. Keep claiming your chance god is science but the obvious stares you in the face (a Creator). No amount of unproven theories such as the hopelessly inept evolution theory will change that.

Oh runner...tis,tis,tis.....i thought you were a person of worldly understandings:)
Here,s a little help for you.

http://tinyurl.com/4uh3mfl

http://tinyurl.com/4e6k8l7

http://tinyurl.com/4cow9gf

http://tinyurl.com/4n73jyn

The power, or not, of prayer......simple! If you think it is, then it will be.

All in your head that is:)

BLUE

I think there needs be a distinguishing mark drawn between a personal religion and organised religion for the sake of debate. Organised religion has a lot to answer for on many fronts, but not all fronts by any means.

“Grateful” is obviously grateful of his/her newfound faith and advertises a personal gain by it: That’s how the world should be.

Runner feels the need to defend the faith; I find the perceived need for that stand interesting, since what is to be gained and for whom. I feel compelled to ask though, what peace does runner derive from a religious belief, to feel the need to defend the cause so constantly?

Myself, I have a favourite explanation to explain the fall of bad events; IE “We dwell not in the garden of Eden”, so it is about expectation.
But to dwell on the negatives of life is depressing, which turns attention to the positives; when one reflects on the good times “surprise” , good times are in the majority, judged over the long run:
Conclusion? On average, there is more in life to be thankful for than not, so who do we thank, ourselves or God? Personally, I’ll choose God! And there it is; religious faith is more a question of gratitude not want!

runner, if you're going to accuse Brian of some unspecified 'sin', at least have the cojones to come out and say it.

david f,

"One can be a religious person and an atheist person", yes, if we use the simple dictionary definition.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia defines atheism as "The acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god,gods or the supernatural".

So, by this definition, one cannot be a religious person and an atheist.

I wonder how all

Those "millions of fossils"

Happened to form?

grateful,

I'm afraid the Sheik is rather incoherent himself, I have to say I don't see where he's refuted evolutionary theory, based on the text you provided.
He seems to be attempting some philosophical approach, which really is quite pointless, where is the scientific evidence for any experiment that has invalidated the hypothesis?

He has employed a straw man argument in characterising evolutionary theory as 'absolute', it is nothing of the sort. He has totally misconstrued or misrepresented a scientific theory as a philosophical or religious doctrine and then tried, unsuccessfully, to undermine it.
If you can find, amongst all the verbiage, evidence for the invalidation of evolution I'd be very amazed.

Dear mac,

Definitions of words should reflect common usage not ideology. Although I am an atheist I think the definition of atheist by the Atheist Foundation of Australia reflects their ideology rather than common usage.

In common usage an atheist is one who doesn't think there is a God.

davidf,

Definitions are not absolutes. When they are no longer useful, they change, as has the AFA definition. It has nothing to do with ideology as you suggest. Maybe you can expand on that.

And as you have mentioned it, why would an Atheist think there is no god? Can you expand on that also? Thanks

David

Grateful,
You and Sheikh Nuh both string a lot of words together but they do not make much sense.

I start with facts and have examined how the evidence builds up.

A basic fact is that humans live on a 4.5 billion year old planet which includes debris from an earlier supernova event so our solar system is young in a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Microscopic life probably existed well before hard shelled animals started to leave fossils but the marine fossil record is virtually complete and the land based fossil record is gradually becoming so. The land environment is not nearly as friendly to fossil formation as ocean sediments.

Nuh’s argument seems to claim that we are unique for our consciousness. We are not! Every farmer knows that his livestock are conscious, particularly his cattle. Make a noise like a calf in trouble and every cow within hearing will race to the scene in panic.

The human line shares a common ancestor with all primates the early versions of which survived as small mammals in the age of the dinosaurs which became extinct some 65 million years ago (apart from the birds).

That 1.1-1.2 metre tall australopithecines started walking upright 5-6 million years ago is now widely accepted in science. Walking upright freed the hands so that an opposable grip became feasible and the tools and weapons then possible made a meat eating diet available.

There is substantial evidence that we owe the progressive development of our forefathers’ larger brain to the fats that hunting fed us
.
Evolution is not a fixed theory in much the same way as Newtonian physics had to be varied slightly to accommodate Einstein’s Relativity but the basic science of evolution is now far beyond well reasoned or even sensible argument.

There are plenty of Christian and Muslim creationist websites which show that the thinking of many people is archaic.

Dear David,

I think the definition of atheist by the Atheist Foundation of Australia is defining atheism as they would like it to be rather than what it is. It is as the philosophers say, confusing an ought with an is. My philosophical stance is to accept no form of supernatural. Buddhists who do accept a supernatural but not a a deity have the right to call themselves atheists.

To the best of my knowledge there is no commonly accepted word in the English language to define a person who does not accept a supernatural. To determine the common usage of the word, atheist, ask people what it means to them. I doubt that anyone outside of AFA accepts the AFA definition. Please let me know if you find such a person.

Clownfish

'runner, if you're going to accuse Brian of some unspecified 'sin', at least have the cojones to come out and say it.'

Lets just say that Brian chose a lifestyle contrary to that which he preached to others. His attempts now to justify that lifestyle of unbelief by what he calls 'reason' defies all logic. Repentance would be my advice to him rather than denial of the obvious.

davidf,

You haven’t explained your ideological comment nor have you explained why Atheists do not accept a god exists.

I believe pure Buddhism doesn’t have a supernatural component. It became a supernatural religion because that is what humans do. There are 34,000 examples to back me up on this.

Atheists outside of the AFA do accept the definition but it is not compulsory to do so.

Now enough sidelining, can you answer the two questions I posed. Posting is limited in number so I expect you not to vacillate over this. Thanks

David

Clownfish, I think what runner is alluding to, in a rather nasty and oblique way, is Brian’s homosexuality. There may be some grain of truth in the contention that Brian’s sexuality was a factor in his rejection of religion, in that the literalist brand of fundamentalism he used to subscribe sees homosexuality as a sin. If my religion said my sexuality was as sin I might start to question it too. But in my opinion the problem lies with literalist fundamentalism, not God.

Mac, I’m regular churchgoer and self-described Christian (runner might disagree) but I’m quite comfortable with the proposition that “there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural”, so I guess that makes me an “atheist” too

david f,

I'll accept your argument that there are different definitions of 'atheism'. However, it seems logically inconsistent to me that, by your definition, atheists would agree that there's no evidence for one class of supernatural being(God) and still maintain the reality of spirits, demons and other non-material entities and forces.

As to atheism being an ideology, you should refer to the AFA's definition.
Religious people often represent atheism falsely, as an ideology, either because they are incapable of thinking outside the constraints of doctrine or, in an attempt to create a straw man. I'm surprised that you, as an atheist have taken that position.Or are you saying that the AFA itself has an ideological position?

Rhian,

You've made an interesting and very significant point. Many people are just 'religious' or 'believers' and find meaning in life from their faith. The notion,that some atheists have, that belief can be 'cured' by more education or is the result of higher IQs is probably mistaken.
I'm a born atheist,despite a religious education, I'm probably psychologically incapable of anything other than a materialist view of the universe.

Dear David,

I cannot explain in general why atheists do not accept that a god exists as I cannot know all their reasons.

I can only speak for myself and others who I know share my reason. I do not accept that a god exists since I know of no reasonable evidence for such an entity and therefore do not believe in something for which there is no evidence. I know of no reasonable evidence for any kind of supernatural.

We deal with religions as we deal with words. The meaning of words change through usage. So do the meanings of religions. As Buddhism exists many if not most Buddhists have given the religion a supernatural component therefore it has a supernatural component. I don’t think early Christianity had the notion of a trinity. We define Christianity as it exists, and it has invented a trinity.

You are free to define any word any way you like. However, you can only communicate successfully with those who agree with that definition.

Ideology is defined as the body of beliefs of a nation, group, political movement etc. AFA has defined atheism in a definition consistent with their body of beliefs. Although I also do not accept the existence of a supernatural I will continue to use the word, atheism, as a lack of belief in God because I want to be understood by those who talk with me, and I think most people I talk to do not define atheism in the same way that AFA defines it.

If atheism means something other than a lack of belief in god we will now need a new word to define a lack of belief in god.

I do not appreciate your peremptory demand that I not vacillate. You sound quite authoritarian. I am 85 and enjoy a good round of vacillation before breakfast.

I am 85 and enjoy a good round of vacillation before breakfast.
Posted by david f,
Commendably flexible for the age. Perhaps it is in the genes - obviously not too tight.
Personally, I also have no belief whatever in the supernatural. I have thought that this would be sufficient to acquire the label of atheist. However, at half a decade less senior than david f I too have retained flexibility - at least in regard to whatever other people are pleased to label my attitude.

Rhian your assertion that I was nasty is absurd.The simple fact is that many who choose an immoral lifestyle use pseudo science' as a way of excusing themselves. I to am comfortable that belief in God is based on faith and not sceince. The simple fact is that unbelief in God is based on greater faith especially when you look at the idiotic belief in evolution. It certainly is not scientifically based.

davidf,

I asked you why you think a god doesn’t exist and you have answered according to the definition by the AFA. Good, we agree.

“I do not accept that a god exists since I know of no reasonable evidence for such an entity and therefore do not believe in something for which there is no evidence. I know of no reasonable evidence for any kind of supernatural.”

The AFA definition; ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

“You are free to define any word any way you like. However, you can only communicate successfully with those who agree with that definition.” Sorry, but you do.

You agree as shown above and so do most other Atheists. And really, my observation is that pedantic worry over the definitions of Atheism (As there are quiet a few definitions) is way down the negligible scale as to not affect the way most people see the AFA. It is so popularly accepted amongst our Public Relations Team and Management Committee that there would be a revolution if I tried to change it.

And David, I don’t mind one little bit if you disagree with the AFA’s definition. I guess you belong to another Atheist group with a definition more suited to your way of thinking. Goodonya.

I’m sorry but you have lost me on your explanation of ideology and the AFA definition. Keep it simple; if it is somehow bad, explain the bad.

Rhian,

The AFA definition suits you as a Christian. So, where do you get the notion a) of a god and b) the notion that that god is Yahweh/Jesus? Read the AFA definition before answering. Thanks.

David

runner
The only one that is "shaking their fist" is you. At those who do not share your world views. I don't think I deserve anything. It appears that by contrast you believe that your faith makes you deserving of all that you receive.

Lost me on that one I am afraid.

AFA,

Imagine a world in anyone who said “God does not exist” dropped dead. Within a matter of days the churches would be full, the censuses would report 0% of the population as unbelievers - and human life would be utterly changed, for the worse. A God whose existence is provable in a scientific sense or through coercive logic would leave no space for human autonomy or development, nor for freely-chosen communion with God.

However, I don’t think that belief in God is irrational. It is supported by an accumulation of circumstantial evidence. This lies in subjective human experience, in the interchange between human intelligence and the intelligibility of the world, in the sense of transcendence that human community or the mysteries of the universe can inspire in us (that the religious call spiritual or mystical, though it may be sensed and named differently by atheists). It is in our strong, (largely) shared ethical sense and its connection to our capacity for transcendence. It lies in the power of scripture to provide meaningful and coherent explanations of human existence. Scripture uses metaphor, myth and symbol to convey its message, and can appear absurd when take too literally (by believers or non-believers). But there are some truths that cannot be demonstrated in an equation or laboratory experiment, and biblical stories can be particularly effective at conveying these.

Perhaps the anthropic congeniality of the universe may point to purposeful design, though I do not share runner’s denial of evolution and the sciences of cosmology and biology (nor do the great majority of Christians I know).

I believe in God because this is consistent with my subjective experience and because it provides a coherent framework to engage with the world and society and to explore what it means to be human. I believe Jesus was and is a uniquely human expression of the divine, in part because of the way his life and teaching contribute to that meta-narrative. But I accept that Buddhists, Moslems, Jews and even atheists have other stories and other frameworks which provide the same coherence for them

AFA-David, Rhian and others:

The Atheist Foundation of Australia uses this definition: “Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”

Like Rhian, I agree. Yet the Divine – or Sacred Other, or God or whatever we choose as a name – is real. God is not supernatural and God is not an entity. God is not to be sensed through empirical means but through what I understand as its polar opposite perceptual modality, intuition. This perception uses symbols and analogue rather than the empirical data apprehended through what we usually label “the five senses”.

Thus, while science is invaluable in the exploration of empirical reality, it is foolish to use scientific methods to test spiritual reality. And, in the never-ending human quest for wholeness, we need to attend to both.

Rian,

You have to admit you threw in everything without answering the question where it can be analysed by a reasoning mind.

Your little story of the world where everybody dropped dead who did not believe in a god meant very little. I’m not sure of what you are suggesting.

Here is what you said, “It is supported by an accumulation of circumstantial evidence.” And then you go on to say, “It is in our strong, (largely) shared ethical sense and its connection to our capacity for transcendence.”

Does that mean that those without a belief in some kind of transcendence do not have ethical values? That is harsh and unsupportable by the facts.

You then go on to scripture. Ah, evidence from ancient writings. Those writings are not evidence for anything except that someone or many people wrote them. There is no supportable ex biblical evidence even though some say there is.

“The anthropic congeniality of the universe may point to purposeful design,”

Mmmmmm, I would question the validity of that when 26,000 children die each day from malnutrition and disease and all other sentient animals kill and eat other species, sometime horrifically in the billions.

“I believe Jesus was and is a uniquely human expression of the divine, in part because of the way his life and teaching contribute to that meta-narrative.”

Why not admit it, you believe that because you were indoctrinated to believe that. You could be a member of one of the other religions you say are heading in the same direction. That is not something you really believe or otherwise you would drop the Jesus thing.

I’m only asking you to think, is that so bad?

Anyway, it all boils down to that you believe because of spurious evidence and emotion.

David

For runner: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-wrong-with-gay-sex.html

AFA

The point of the story was to show that, if we had no choice but to believe in God, we would be less than human.

I did not mean that only believers are ethical, but rather that the existence of a strong ethical sense is a common human characteristic and is often (not always) related to our sense of the transcendent. By transcendence I don’t necessarily mean a supernatural power. Transcendence can be linked to our capacity to for empathy and altruism and is experienced by both believers and non-believers.

Many of our leading scientists express awe and wonder at the beauty and coherence of the universe, and they will often borrow religious phraseology to express that sense even when they are not in fact religious. Einstein said:

“To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms— this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.”
http://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Einstein_fulltext_css.html

Perhaps I am indoctrinated to believe certain things about Jesus, though my parents were not religious and I became a Christian as an adult. If I lived in a different time or place I may well have interpreted my experience of transcendence and its interconnections with my values and worldview through the framework of a different faith, or none. The important thing about religion is the reality to which it points, not the form its signs take.

Like crabsy, I fully respect the authority of science in the realm of the material and empirical, but there is more to life than that. I gave you an explanation of why I think faith is reasonable though not logically coercive. I can give you less “scientific” support for the importance to me of music or art or the Australian bush than I can for my belief in God, but they are real, too.

ASA-David

If you haven’t read my earlier post (immediately prior to yours) you should do so before proceeding with this one.

You wrote: <<You have to admit you threw in everything without answering the question where it can be analysed by a reasoning mind.>> This reads like a demand that only arguments or testimony based on logic and empirical data are admissible. You’re denying the availability of other human cognitive functions. I described one – intuition – in my previous post. Another is feeling – not emotion – which can be treated as the opposite judgemental mode to logic. (Feeling is used to make value- judgements for example.) Both of these cognitive functions have an essential role in investigation of spiritual reality.

Then you write about scripture: << Ah, evidence from ancient writings. Those writings are not evidence for anything except that someone or many people wrote them. >> Your obsession with “evidence” – empirical data – once again is your liability. If we are talking about the Bible here, it should be treated as a collection of human writings in which materials like memories, metaphors and narratives are combined to present the evolving human experience of a relationship with God. There are elements of history and some specific geographical references, but the Bible is not meant to be a scientific compendium, and nor should it be treated as such.

Just as each person has a preference for left or right hand, so we vary in our ability to function on the logic-feeling dimension and the intuition-sensation dimension. I’ve always needed to work hard to develop my sensation function. You obviously need to put in a similar effort to develop your intuitive perception. You might then understand (maybe even appreciate) what people like Rhian perceive and think

Crabsy
You said, “Thus, while science is invaluable in the exploration of empirical reality, it is foolish to use scientific methods to test spiritual reality. And, in the never-ending human quest for wholeness, we need to attend to both."
Where did this other reality, this spiritual reality, suddenly come from? Reality is that which we can perceive to be real via our senses. Your mere use of the expression “spiritual reality” does not guarantee that there is such a thing. If it did, then all you would need to do to establish other non-empirical realities would be to name them. You could have musical reality, emotional reality, introspective reality, poetic reality, unreal reality …. Then, presumably, you could argue that “in the never-ending human quest for wholeness, you need to attend to the countless realities that I have asserted into existence.”
There are two tactics that the religious resort to when the arguing gets tough. First, they speak as if merely asserting something makes it true. Thus Runner is convinced that all he has to do is assert that evolution is idiotic and it becomes so, and AGiR need only talk about the Soverignity of God and lo, there exists such a thing. The second is to take the argument out of the empirical domain to protect it from the depredations of evidence. I suggest that in arguing that “it is foolish to use scientific methods to test spiritual reality”, you have employed both.

diver dan,... said...

"I think there needs be a distinguishing mark drawn between a personal religion and organized religion"............and that's the answer that's based on all this, which can not agree.

A little story perhaps.

Long befour humans had a conscious mind.....instinct was the higher function as we were among all others that was connected with-in the natural world. Then one day, a new born came into being, which was quite different in ways from the troop and clearly was not a custom too, however the instinct by natural laws was over-whelming.

As this new born grew, the others observed the skills that this one displayed, but un-knowns to the troop....the conscious mind was here in all its spender, and the next page began. Time when past....and the new man-child began to explore at an incredible rate, with the first open eyes that ever looked upon the heavens, and wonder filled the hearts and minds of this new creature as its when ahead, and changeling all that he could understand, and did.

Its not sure what was the first thing that was worshiped, but many gods came from the minds that the eyes saw.

More time when past, and now the top predator man was, with still not much clearness as to why this had happened, however....till this day.......man still looks up to the skies and asks.....why.

and so it should be.

until the next page.

BLUE

GlenC (and anyone else):

You write: <<Where did this other reality, this spiritual reality, suddenly come from? Reality is that which we can perceive to be real via our senses.>>

It didn’t appear suddenly through my use of the term: humans have perceived it for untold millennia. Your assertion that reality is perceived exclusively through the senses is only that – an assertion.

Then you say: <<Your mere use of the expression “spiritual reality” does not guarantee that there is such a thing.>>

It is real according to my experience and that of many others. I don’t expect you to accept that as a proposition. It needs to be experienced.

You wrote: <<You could have musical reality, emotional reality, introspective reality, poetic reality, unreal reality …. >>

Music, poetry, introspection are all viable and well-used gateways to spiritual reality. And “unreal reality”? Don’t be deliberately ridiculous!

Lastly you state: << There are two tactics that the religious resort to when the arguing gets tough. First, they speak as if merely asserting something makes it true.... The second is to take the argument out of the empirical domain to protect it from the depredations of evidence. ...you have employed both.>>

Don’t group me with runner and AGIR: I share none of their literalist fundamentalism and prejudice against human diversity. Like many of the anti-religious brigade, you use a common ply: bracketing all who do not bow to empiricism as the Lord of all perception, as if they are all of the same world-view.

Glen, devote time to trying non-empirical perception. You play recorders: so contemplate the sense of relationship to people and the natural world which you experience as you play in ensemble; once you enter the “flow” zone the sense of oneness can be profound. Or if you prefer, contemplate the poetry of T.S.Eliot, Judith Wright or John Shaw Neilson. Better perhaps than all of those: spend time meditating daily the way many Christians, Buddhists and Hindus do. These are just some of the things that may help you discover more to human being than empirical data reveals.

<<Grateful,
You and Sheikh Nuh both string a lot of words together but they do not make much sense.>>

Foyle,
I'm not sure whether the following will make sense to you but here goes:

If i were to do a course in evolutionary theory my null hypothesis would be: "Man did not evolve from another species". I would start with this hypothesis because this is what the Qur'aan states.

If you want to argue that this is akin to assuming "Fairies exists" on the basis of claims made by an unreliable source, then demonstrate that the Qur'aan is an unreliable source. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'aan does not make statements such as the world in 5000 yars old and i find in the Quraan good reason to consider it reliable.

With this null, I would put my faith to the test by asking whether the evidence allows me to conclude that the probability of falsely rejecting the null (and therefore the Qur'aan) is quite small. Otherwise i would retain the null.

You can ask why I do not follow atheists and assume the null "Man did evolve from another species".

I would answer that I'm not sure whether it is a refutable proposition. If I were to begin with the null that "man did evolve from another species", then the appropriate methodology should be to look for ways of refuting the hypothesis. But how would we go about refuting such a hypothesis? On the other hand, I don't think anyone would doubt the refutability of the proposition that "Man did not evolve from another species"?

So let me ask the experts:

Is the proposition that "man evolved from another species" refutable?

If so, how?

It is well nigh the time that Australia has an accurate count on how many are and how many are not religious.

The AFA Census web site is not up and running yet but our Media Release concerning the campaign is here.

David, how many 'religious Athiests' exist within Australia out of interest?

The term 'religion' to myself is defined as those who worship, have faith and belief in any system or organisation, not excluding Atheism or an Atheism Foundation, particularly a Foundation strongly opposing Christianity and Religion, exhibiting quite contradictory behaviour carrying out surveys or research into other Australian religions. Furthermore, what right does the Atheism Foundation have, to declare how other people should be raising their children regarding religion?

The same issues your Foundation members raise, could be raised by other religious' Australians, accusing Athiests of teaching and dictating to their offspring that they become Athiests throughout their childhood or dictating to their children the 'wrongs' and strong opposition to 'other' religions, ie. Baptist, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist etc.

In fact, one of my lovely neighbours, an Atheist, declared that her children and self were 'Atheists' during a morning tea 15 years ago, when religion and God had not been mentioned at all by any of her new neighbours or myself. It was an irrelevant topic at a morning tea and one in which was raised by a self declared Atheist.

A beautiful person although over the years my neighbour enjoyed spruiking to anyone she met "I am an Atheist, what religion are you"?On some occasions this neighbour enjoyed degrading religions. I could not have cared if she was an S.D.A. Hurri Krishna or Cult follower. She was a lovely person with her attitude towards my children and self, which was more important as opposed to her atheist religion.

However, each person to their own faith, if Australians live within the law and do not hurt or curtail the rights of others to live and follow their own beliefs.

My question posed to you is the point of my opinion David.

Upon reflection, for want of a more appropriate term 'Athiest Cult' or 'Athiest Cult Foundation's objectives'is the point I am raising in response to your religious comments David.

weareunique,
You stated, "Furthermore, what right does the Atheism Foundation have, to declare how other people should be raising their children regarding religion?"
That is easily answered; the right of the child to be educated to think clearly is one of the most important rights each child has. Indoctrination is child abuse.

Discussion of open ended questions in school for one hour per week from an early age will improve each child's cognitive ability (similar to IQ) by 6-7% and virtually eliminate bullying from the school environment. These are benefits which partly flow to children in the ethics classes to start now in NSW.

This is why the the archbishops, Pell and Jensen, are so opposed to the ethics classes; it will make indoctrination much more difficult. The archbishops would be happy for ethics to be "taught" to all children but they would then have authoritarian input through their representation in curriculum bodies. This would negate the benefits of the proposed discussion approach.

With a bit of luck the children will realise the inherent evil in the concepts of original sin and vicarious redemption.

Vicarious redemption is an underlying cause of the Roman Church's problems with its child abusing priests. The priests are granted the power of vicarious forgiveness and all power corrupts!

Grateful,
It makes no sense to state an hypothesis in the negative. Thinkers and science attempt to prove positives. Proof of negatives is considered impossible.

The proper hypothesis is; All existing flora and fauna descended with modification from earlier life forms. Thinking beings then ask, "What evidence supports the hypothesis and is there any testable evidence to show that the hypothesis is false?"

As Einstein commented it would take only one re-produceable contrary result to show that his relativity hypotheses were false. In over 100 years, and thousands of experiments and measurements, there has not been one contrary result!

I look at the ancient writings of all people "born of woman", the writers of ancient religious texts included, to see if modern thinkers, writers and scientists have produced evidence to support the hypotheses of the ancients, including those of your religious text. Overwhelmingly, they haven't.

In an earlier post I traced the descent of species as best I could in the word total allowed. All primates shared a common ancestor after the emergence of the mammal from even earlier forms of life. Humans share from 90 to 98+% of their genes with monkeys and apes which shows beyond reasonable or sensible doubt that somewhere in the last few hundred million years we shared a common ancestor.

There is no testable evidence that shows the hypothesis as I stated it is false.

Out of the mouths of babes...

Last night my nine year-old son asked me why the chimpanzee he was staring at on the computer had a "human hand".
To which I replied, that it had a chimpanzee's hand - but that out two species were closely related.

Indoctrination is child abuse - Foyle.

Some indoctrination from cults and within some certain churches yes I agree Foyle, a little inaccurate to sweep all teachings under a label of child abuse, nevertheless, indoctrination affecting children exists within organisations and cults, in addition to Churches; Athiest groupings/organisations undoubtedly included.

Discussion of open ended questions in school for one hour per week from an early age will improve each child's cognitive ability (similar to IQ) by 6-7% and virtually eliminate bullying from the school environment. These are benefits which partly flow to children in the ethics classes to start now in NSW.

Excellent concept. These sessions have already existed within private schools across many Australian states for 30 years within a subject for .30 mins daily entitled 'Tutor Class', 'Home Class' and others.

It is wonderful that the public system are now introducing the strategy Foyle.

Intelligent conversation will rarely be achieved in an environment where most of the contributors share the shame dogmatic presuppositions. For that reason it is a shame that OLO remains an echo chamber of unbelievers.

Some discussion has been based around David Nicholl's philosophically naive version of atheism. The AFA's definition of atheism is, of course, nonsense. And the reason we know it's nonsense is that it DOESN'T even preclude theism! In other words, LOGICALLY one COULD accept that there is no credible scientific evidence for God and yet still believe in God on the basis of subjective personal experience (and readily accept that others will not consider that evidence to be credible), or on the basis of pragmatic type considerations and believe simply because faith in God works for them and they thus don't see any reason not to believe. Therefore, since it's possible to agree with the AFA definition and yet still believe in God, we know that it's an absurd definition of atheism.

There is much disagreement about exactly how to define atheism, but I am certain that we won't get anywhere if we adopt such an irrational definition suggested by these so called rationalists. Their definition is based on a faulty epistemology, and it implies that all evidence has to be be somehow objective. That's nonsense- evidence can be anything which makes a belief more likely to be true to an individual person. Evidence does not need to be of a scientific nature, as the AFA like to think.

We need to give some consideration to what evidence we would expect to see if God did, in fact, exist. A fairly basic principle is that "Absence of evidence for X is only evidence of X's absence if we would expect THAT evidence to exist in the case that X did exist". I doubt anyone would disagree with this principle. It is a very important principle to consider when arguing about God- which is what we're all doing here- and yet I find few people ever discussing it

Many atheists seem to write with the expectation that God, if he exists, would be like a magician who pulls rabbits out of hats on request, or that his existence would be heavily supported by evidence from the hard sciences which points specifically and obviously to his existence. Yet I see little reason to believe that either of those scenarios would be the case if God did, in fact exist.

I hope I've thrown some good food for thought out there and I'd love to hear your thoughts on my two points, namely 1. The absurdity of the AFA's definition of atheism and 2. The extra consideration God-debaters need to be giving to their presuppositions and epistemology, that is examining how they know about God's existence and the evidende we would expect to form knowledge of his existence.

Atheism:
- from the Greek atheos, without God.
(a~not + theos~God)

Without a belief in the the existence of a God.

Trav,

Is the AFA definition as ‘absurd’ as some of those in dictionaries using the ‘belief’ word and its derivatives? I notice you have made a point to have a shot at the AFA and not them. That you say the AFA definition is ‘absurd’ does not make is so especially as you go on to miss some vital factors. I’ll assume it was not intentional.

The vast mass of religious folk believe in their particular god because of writings, (Bible, Koran, Vedas etc) tradition and culture. The proof of this is that each culture has a variation on the god theme with some god/gods or supernatural themes not believed in other cultures.

The AFA has two parts to its definition and you failed to state in context the second. People mentioned above are covered by the AFA definition with no “factually reliable evidence”.

Yahweh/Jesus does not spring to mind by revelation. That is a nonsense to suggest.

A person on an island with no contact with the outside world and poor understanding of science and the natural world, may believe in a supernatural part to life but if that person was on an island where education levels were very high and religious indoctrination, very low, they would be less inclined to believe in the god of their culture or the supernatural.

The AFA definition is one that not all have to follow. It is only the AFA definition and it is there for a purpose.

Is it too much to expect proper reasoning to not accept the AFA definition and really, who cares how the AFA defines Atheism?

David

weareunique
When any information not supported by empirical evidence is presented to children that information probably involves indoctrination. At least it is authoritarian.

Non-theists, a term which makes more sense that 'atheist', because the prefix "a" means against, tend to encourage their children to be questioning and to answer a child's question with adequately supported accepted wisdom or with what the choices are on a particular matter. In effect they are not dogmatic.

In view of your comments on the ethics classes concept you may be interested in reading the report on the Clackmannanshire Trial now available at
http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/Clackmannan.doc

David, people may believe that the words of the Bible are true, but this does not mean that they believe in God purely because of the words of the Bible. Belief is a complex thing, and belief is formed because of many different factors. Many of the things which help form people's beliefs cannot necessarily be categorised or debated in terms of "factually reliable" evidence or "scientific evidence".

Anyway, you're welcome to use any definition of atheism you like- I'm not telling you what definition to use. I'm saying that if you use a definition for atheism which is compatible with someone believing in theism then it's a poor definition.

Regarding your comment that "It is only the AFA definition and it is there for a purpose", well it may serve your purposes and that's fine, but it is not a rational definition, and if you believe it is then I'd invite you to show how, by showing how it's incompatible with theism.

Furthermore if you are interested in pursuing truth rather than serving your purposes, then why don't you use a definition which makes more sense? Am I to take your comment as an implicit admission that the AFA is more interested in persuading people than pursuing the truth through rationality? If so, that's fine but I'd find it a very interesting admission in light of your belief that atheism is the rational position and that theism is irrational.

Trav,

I’m finding it difficult to believe you actually wrote that post. Did you read it before pressing to upload?

I have explained the point to you but I’ll do it again.

“ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural”

Religions depend on historical stories to support the god hypothesis, which is contained in the historical stories. It is called a circular argument

The AFA definition says no such evidence, scientific or historical is accepted as credible evidence universally. Or, there would be one religion or none.

The god hypothesis does not spring into peoples mind without historical books and cultural indoctrination etc.

This is very simple stuff and I’m finding it difficult to believe you are trying to make a genuine case.

Anyhow, how about you give a definition of Atheism and I will let the AFA Committee of Management have a look at it to see if it is suitable for our use.

Don’t direct me to dictionaries, I want you to supply a definition that all Atheists would accept. Now, how hard could that be?

David

David, there have been studies which have shown that children automatically attribute teleogical explanations for things. That is, they see design and a designer in everything. Developmental psychologists have interpreted this as evidence that supernatural belief is in some way innate and that it's been a part of our evolution. A plausible explanation from a religious point of view is that God has planted a natural belief mechanism in us. But regardless of your interpretation, the evidence shows that children do see design before being told about religion and before being culturally indoctrinated to believe that the world's designed.

Also, there have been cases of people who have been culturally indoctrinated against Christianity, for example, but who have had dreams and visions with Christian themes and then become Christians.

The philosophy of scientific naturalism doesn't usually spring into people's minds without having someone tell them about the idea and without books and study. Does this mean that no-one should believe in scientific naturalism?

Regarding the definition, look at a few philosophy of religion books, or articles and websites from people in that field (ie: Books written by experts who debate the definitions of atheism and theism) and I doubt you'd find any definitions similar to yours. A definition should define what people believe, not what evidence there is for their belief.

My proposal is one that most atheists don't accept- I believe the clearest method of defining people's beliefs is as follows- God exists (theism), God might exist (agnosticism) and God doesn't exist (atheism). So atheism would be "The belief that God does not exist". I've seen objections to this categorisation but I believe it's better because it avoids unnecessary confusion. Plenty of atheists prefer to simply be defined as "lacking a belief in God", which would include agnosticism under my three-way system. This, in my view is too open ended because it would include people with vastly different beliefs, thus a clearer categorisation includes all three I mentioned earlier. However I do think it's still clearer and better than the AFA's as it avoids irrelevant discussions about evidence etc.

ASA-David:

As a representative of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, through your style of communication you are portraying your membership as sadly deficient in interpersonal abilities. Your responses to Trav show that either you are deliberately ignoring my two previous posts in reply to yours or you tacitly concede defeat. Which is it: arrogant rudeness or surly surrender?

Your continued assertion that empiricism is the only channel for investigation of human life is simply plain wrong. And so is your assertion that something called “the god hypothesis” relies solely on “historical stories”.

I really don’t care whether you accept this or not. Just don’t continue in this forum pretending to be the model of reason if you won’t even consider other people’s viewpoints without prejudice and refuse to question the validity of your own.

If you don’t respond to this post, that’s fine. But if you do, don’t write a word until you have read and considered my earlier ones. I took the time and pains to compose succinct explanations of my point of view and with the limitation on posts per 24-hours the least you could do is to respect other people’s efforts to engage in reasoned discussion with you.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc:

<The AFA definition; ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.>

Would you agree then that this puts you with the empiricist-positivist faith?
Why is scientific or "factual" (whatever that is) evidence more acceptable?
Do you see this scientistic stance as aloof from ruling ideologies--are you politically/ideologically free?
Do you think it "necessarily" correct to disparage humanity's "highly evolved" propensity to confabulate, or idealise phenomena?
How do you account for the human preoccupation with ideology/metaphysics?
Is it a cultural accident? Are we simply an eccentric species, and if so how do we account for that?
Alternatively, couldn't we see the (re)emergence of (human) ideology as evidence of meaning in the universe?

I realise these are virtually imponderables, but they amount to human experience/delusion and shouldn't be dismissed.
I agree they shouldn't be turned into articles of faith, but then neither should the evidence of our physical senses?

If you feel like tackling any of these big questions, that would be great.

I'm a big fan of Theravada Buddhism btw.

Squeers,

What relevance does 'faith' or ideology have to the AFA's definition of atheism? Or any of your questions?

There is some evidence that the human tendency to believe has an evolutionary explanation,so, what significance does that have for the existence of supernational phenomena? Absolutely no significance whatsoever.

Now, I'll ask all the theologians and philosophers posting on this site,to read the AFA's definition and then to answer the following question, "Is there any credible evidence"?

crabsy,

I am involved on a number of forums, personal contacts etc on a daily basis. That I have not responded to you is that I am busy.

I guess you are promoting that your god comes to you by revelation. Fine. Then this is very simple, as no one knows, not even you if this is not just a product of your own imagination, so don’t indoctrinate children with it or use it in politics as others have a variety of revelations. There is no way for anyone to work out whom, if anyone has a ‘real’ revelation or it is a delusion. Apparently, both are very similar but I am not convinced they are anything but delusion.

Only arguments or testimony based on logic and empirical data should be used to govern our society. Otherwise, we have a mishmash of subjective imperatives and the evidence is that that kind of thing is harmful for civilisation.

“”Your continued assertion that empiricism is the only channel for investigation of human life is simply plain wrong. Why is it wrong? Is guessing better?

I’m not pretending to be a model of reason. I require evidence that a plane won’t crash before I board one; so do you. Just because something is in your head, it should follow the same rule. Special pleading is erroneous-thinking.

I appreciate you taking the time but how about read what I am saying. I would appreciate that. I would also appreciate religious people taking the time to read beyond their own support base as I have. It is the height of arrogance to promote ideas, which have no other evidence than the words, not evidence, of various partisans.

Squeers, this answers your post as well, in a ballpark kind of way.

David

Mac and AF of A,

as it happens, I'm an atheist myself based on the same definition: I have no evidence of a God. So I'm playing devil's advocate. However, there are good philosophical reasons to doubt empiricism and human reason, period. Indeed empiricism is itself based on metaphysics, that is faith in the senses and a ludicrously tiny perspective. I agree that for practical purposes this is the only way we can experience the world--we'd be unwise not to flee from a predator--but that doesn't make it reliable, and no scientific method is verifiably untainted by human bias. Even less so is a scientific posture untainted by ideology.
Whether you like it or not, what you're unwittingly promoting is an ideology, with very definite political affiliations. Though it may be a superior ideology, it has much in common with religion: a priestly cast, a humble flock, heretics, and a cosy relationship with the incumbent power.
Scientism has been the instrument both of enhanced material life and its greatest threats. In this it has a distinct political bias: conservatism, or "liberal rationalism". Pure science takes no interest in ethical or existential questions, arrogantly presuming to dismiss these, or at least deeming them metaphysical, notwithstanding that they emanate from physical beings.
Being thus apolitical, science naturally finds itself the instrument of the prevailing power, whoever pays the research grants, however despicable.
Secularism is its religion and adherents celebrate its Saints and accomplishments, however dubious the methods or the merit of the product. Why is space travel so inspirational? Because such "transcendental" science is loaded with ideology, whether purists deign to confess it or not. However reasonable it is in its healthy scepticism, I'm concerned that liberal rationalism is capable of just as much atrocity as religion. It is certainly as sanctimonious and has just as much blood on its hands.
Techne is a powerful tool, but it's a dangerous ideology.

But back to God. I'm also an atheist due to want of evidence, but my mind is open, and not dogmatically limited to empiricism.

Sqeers
You state to the atheist foundation contributor, "Would you agree then that this puts you with the empiricist-positivist faith?"

Why is only accepting anything that is supported by adequately verified evidence classify anybody as a member of a faith?

No-one has ever been able to show that anything that is not supported by evidence has ever existed and we evaluate evidence by our senses, seeing, touching, smelling or by detecting instruments etc.

Read some of my earlier posts. Belief in the supernatural is faith but that faith is not supported by any measurable or testable evidence.

Trav,

“David, there have been studies which have shown that children automatically attribute teleogical explanations for things.”

Yes, children seek cause. I’m an adult, and I know sometimes there none available.

This is a disingenuous statement, “Developmental psychologists have interpreted this as evidence that supernatural belief is in some way innate and that it's been a part of our evolution.”

A small minority of religious developmental phycologist if you don’t mind. It’s to be expected.

I guess we are making a departure from science with this one, “Also, there have been cases of people who have been culturally indoctrinated against Christianity, for example, but who have had dreams and visions with Christian themes and then become Christians.”

Anecdote, especially when there are more prosaic explanations mean less than nothing does.

And this deceptive sentence, “The philosophy of scientific naturalism doesn't usually spring into people's minds without having someone tell them about the idea and without books and study.”

Such ideas are logical and are not the result of indoctrination as is religion.

Explain to me how people arrive at the idea of Yahweh/Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Ra and so on and so forth, without indoctrination using holy books and culture. If you don’t answer this satisfactorily, I am not going to waste anymore time on you except for the rest of this post waiting on the numbers limit for this site.

(Continued next post)

Most people get on

Planes and just hope they don't crash

What evidence there?

AFA-David:

<<Only arguments or testimony based on logic and empirical data should be used to govern our society. Otherwise, we have a mishmash of subjective imperatives and the evidence is that that kind of thing is harmful for civilisation.>>
First of all, I’m not trying to govern any society. My aim in explaining my world-view is to help you and others understand why I and people of similar world-views talk and act as we do. The belligerence of your statements shows that in your eyes we are enemies: maybe deeper understanding of different ways of some spiritual or religious mind-sets could lead you (and any in whatever “government” you have in mind) to a more constructive, peaceful engagement with the rest of humanity.

Secondly, good governance cannot occur without some essentially non-empirical and non-logical thought, discussion and decisions. Value-judgements must be made and explained, for instance, and these are not logically derived. Symbols must be developed, used, evaluated and abandoned, and this occurs primarily through the type of perception I earlier called “intuition” – the diametric opposite of the sensory perception which produces empirical data.

I wrote that “your continued assertion that empiricism is the only channel for investigation of human life is simply plain wrong.” Your response: <<Why is it wrong? Is guessing better?>>

“Guessing” is not the only other channel. I presented some others in earlier posts. Did you actually read and consider them?

Interpersonal relationships and artistic work or appreciation are two areas of human being in which success requires much more than logic and empirical data. Exploring spiritual life – the focus of this discussion – is another.

Common to all these relationships and to every moment of human life is the unceasing and inevitable activity of the unconscious mind. To further understanding of human life we must explore the unconscious through its manifestations and effects. Your strenuous scientistic emphasis on logic and empirical perception suggest to me that you devote your life to a defence against your unconscious mind. In fact, I would not be surprised if you deny the reality of the unconscious

Crabsy
You wrote, “Glen, devote time to trying non-empirical perception. You play recorders: so contemplate the sense of relationship to people and the natural world which you experience as you play in ensemble; once you enter the “flow” zone the sense of oneness can be profound.”

I’d love to have time to engage properly with you but don’t at the moment. That’s my loss, not yours. Let me just say that in a recent desperate attempt to get some understanding of what people mean by spirituality, I enrolled in a spirituality class. One of our exercises required us to talk about a spiritual experience we’d had. I apologized for having nothing to report. The best I could come up with was a heightened emotional response I’d experienced on hearing and seeing the Australian Chamber Orchestra play Beethoven’s 7th like I’d never heard before. The brilliance of their performance excited me into having the most emotionally rewarding musical experience I’d had in recent years.

Then the others in the spirituality class, most of whom were deeply into meditation and exploring “spiritual reality”, began to recount their spiritual experiences. Without exception, they were no more than experiences of heightened emotional response to sensory stimulation, just as mine was. One woman’s “spiritual reality” experience was enjoying driving around Australia in a motor home! I went to the class hoping to gain some understanding of a reality beyond the empirical. I left let down by the realisation that every spiritual believer there was merely mistaking a perfectly normal and mundane empirical event as a glimpse of a “spiritual reality”. They were merely convincing themselves of a “truth” that they wished for so much that they allowed their faith to drive out their rationality. And of course I’m familiar with the feeling that you might call a profound sense of oneness that you experience when everyone is in synch and the performance is working as you’d hoped and dreamed, but I’m not so naïve as to think that that feeling indicates that you have departed real reality and entered into an unreal, spiritual one.

"One of our exercises required us to talk about a spiritual experience we’d had... Without exception, they were no more than experiences of heightened emotional response to sensory stimulation, just as mine was."
-GlenC

I must dispute this from a younger man's perspective. For about half my life my parents dragged me to Roman Catholic Mass. I'm baptised and confirmed, and I've never had a spiritual experience in church. Even in the other churches I've been to - apparently in the Pentecostal churches folk speak in tongues and have visions and all sorts of cool sh1t (although I suspect if I worked out the math, the necessary tithing would prove more expensive than a good old fashioned crack habit). So I tried it, but the only impression I got from Pentecostals was that they were a pack of highly impressionable retards with a chronic inability to discern beautiful hymms from sh1tty Christian pumice (like rock, but still not quite proper rock).

I have had a spiritual experience, indeed more than one... and without exception, they were no more than experiences of heightened emotional response to the ingestion of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). At the time they were very profound and very real. Once the drugs wear off and reality and logic re-assert themselves, you realise you've just had a very pleasant trip away from conventional reality... and that the spiritual reality you perceived whilst hallucinating was merely a drug induced fanstasy.

Shintaro,

The evidence is produced by inductive reasoning.

Squeers,

I'll accept that a philosophical approach is one way to consider the question and I'm not sneering at philosophy. However, as far as I know, 2500 years of philosophy have not produced a single fact or useful artifact. So my money's on the AFA's scientific approach to the problem.

As to ideology, I think you're conflating the AFA's stated position with its organizational characteristics.
Religious people often misrepresent atheism as a 'belief system', that's simply a crude strawman argument.

I'm a member of the AFA -- I'm simply expressing a personal opinion.

(Continued from last post)

Now, this is just rubbish, “A definition should define what people believe, not what evidence there is for their belief.”

There is no evidence for your particular god yet you define it and give it characteristics. Contradictory ones at that. But that’s another story.

Here is your take on things, “My proposal is one that most atheists don't accept- I believe the clearest method of defining people's beliefs is as follows- God exists (theism), God might exist (agnosticism) and God doesn't exist (atheism).”

Atheism is derived from the Greek ‘a’ ‘theos’ meaning without a deity. Atheists do not say a god does not exist just that there is no evidence to suggest one of the 3 or 4,000 purported to have existed does indeed exist.

Your attempt at a definition of Atheism is from a theist viewpoint, "lacking a belief in God",

Atheists do not lack belief in a god. Belief implies there is something to believe in, in the first place. Ridiculous of course. And you still haven’t supplied a definitive definition that all Atheists would accept. It wasn’t easy as you thought, now, was it.

Just to let other folk know what is going on here, Trav has been shaken by the Atheist Foundation of Australia’s definition of Atheism as it has brought the reasons why he is religious out in the open for inspection and those ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny. He therefore has to attack it from his emotional side, not from any rational evaluation, which is patently obvious.

Trav, because you can write words does not automatically give them credence. You seem to have a very weak hold on concepts, which threaten your induced view. Maybe some thought in that area would be wise.

David

crabsy,

At some stage, apples and oranges cannot communicate with each other. We are at that stage. I really do not care what you believe or how you come to believe it. It is your life and you can use it how you wish. But I would add, you do not have enough evidence to indoctrinate children with it and be very careful about making political decision that do not have a bases in empirical evidence.

Peace

David

Hello mac,

“I'm a member of the AFA -- I'm simply expressing a personal opinion.”

Good to see you are a member of the AFA. Those very simple words are the protectionism offered society by those who are Atheists. Atheists do not follow any strict doctrinal rules but rather they are people with individual views with the only real commonality that they are Atheists.

David

Hi again David,

I’m glad you’ve stuck around! It seems we disagree about a lot, and we probably don’t even adequately understand each other’s views- which makes it impossible to respond in a fruitful way. Hopefully we can move past the lack of understanding and actually engage each other’s ideas.

<This is a disingenuous statement, “Developmental psychologists have interpreted this as evidence that supernatural belief is in some way innate and that it's been a part of our evolution.”

A small minority of religious developmental phycologist if you don’t mind. It’s to be expected.>

Actually, no, most child psychologists and evolutionary psychologists are not religious. They use this as evidence against religions being true, because they argue that supernatural beliefs are only the result of billions of years of evolution.

<“Such ideas are logical and are not the result of indoctrination as is religion >

<Explain to me how people arrive at the idea of Yahweh/Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Ra and so on and so forth, without indoctrination using holy books and culture. If you don’t answer this satisfactorily, I am not going to waste anymore time on you.... >

Are you arguing that because people arrive at the idea of Christianity through their parents or their surrounding culture that this implies that Christianity is not true? How do people arrive at ANY idea without hearing them from somewhere first? If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then we wouldn’t be able to believe anything!

And regarding indoctrination- what about all the very highly intelligent people who have come to the conclusion that Christianity is true at a late age? How about Vox Day, Christian video game designer, and member of Mensa? Or the great author CS Lewis? Or the geneticist Francis Collins? Or the philosophers Mortimer Adler and Peter Van Ingawen? Or Astronomer Allan Sandage?

All of those people are extremely well educated and intelligent, and all became Christians later in life. So how do you explain those cases with indoctrination? You can’t.

(to be continued).

The bottom line is that we can attribute beliefs to anything we want to, and we can psycho analyse each other all day every day, and we can talk about indoctrination and culture and whatever else. But if that’s all we do then we’ll miss the point of whether or not a belief is actually true. I understand that the majority of religious people were brought up in religious backgrounds and that many people believe things without truly considering what they actually believe, but at the end of the day all anyone can do is try to be fair minded and unbiased when considering their own views and everyone else’s.

I also would like to point out that plenty of atheists are influenced by non-rational factors, as are many theists, simply because humans in general are not totally rational creatures all the time- that’s been proven beyond any doubt in my view.

So, why do you believe that naturalism is “logical”?

Now, onto our ongoing argument about the definition of atheism!

<Now, this is just rubbish, “A definition should define what people believe, not what evidence there is for their belief.”

There is no evidence for your particular god yet you define it and give it characteristics>

Perhaps I’m not making myself clear so I apologise, because you don’t seem to be confronting the point I’m making. Evidence has nothing to do with it. Theism and atheism are terms that describe people’s beliefs, not what evidence there is for those beliefs.

<Atheists do not say a god does not exist just that there is no evidence to suggest one of the 3 or 4,000 purported to have existed does indeed exist>

Incorrect- the vast majority of confirmed atheists would agree with the statement that “God does not exist”. Are you really going to deny that?

Plenty of agnostics totally disagree with you about the nature of evidence, and whether we can know God exists, etc, and yet under your definition they are simply atheists. It would be much clearer to utilise the three tier system

<Belief implies there is something to believe in, in the first place>

Belief implies that someone thinks that something exists.

<And you still haven’t supplied a definitive definition that all Atheists would accept >

Neither have you, David.....

<Trav has been shaken by the Atheist Foundation of Australia’s definition of Atheism>

I’m trying to help you by providing some clarity. If the Atheist foundation doesn’t understand what an atheist is, why would anyone listen to anything else they say? But that’s fine- if you don’t want my help you can continue along your jolly way in your muddled confusion.

<He therefore has to attack it from his emotional side, not from any rational evaluation, which is patently obvious.>

I’ve explained the flaws with your definition. You haven’t confronted my arguments, much less successfully refuted them.

To summarise 1. Your definition involves a category mistake- a describing word for someone’s belief and the level of evidence for one’s belief are two different things, and 2. Under your definition it is possible to be both a theist and an atheist. This is impossible and absurd, thus your definition is incorrect.

Mac has asked what credible evidence exists. Before discussing that further I want someone to answer these two questions together: 1. What credible evidence actually is and 2. Follow it up by arguing that their definition is the definition of evidence that we would expect to see if God exists, or some religion were true. Until someone answers both of those questions, we will get nowhere as those foundational ideas inform everything else in the discussion.

Cheers.

In his last post David, representing the Atheist Foundation of Australia, has declared that he and I are each a piece of fruit and cannot communicate with each other.

<<At some stage, apples and oranges cannot communicate with each other. We are at that stage.>>

Fascinatingly, inter-fruit communication has not always been impossible; it apparently fails only at a certain “stage”.

That is eminently logical and no doubt based on a lot of careful empirical research. Furthermore, he is extraordinarily generous too boot: he has granted me leave to use my life as I wish. His membership has obviously chosen their spokesperson wisely.

And I deeply appreciate that stern warning he issued: “You do not have enough evidence to indoctrinate children with it (sic) and be very careful about making political decision that do not have a bases in empirical evidence.”

In the light of that admonishment, perhaps I should campaign for all governments to withdraw from any agreements about human rights. After all, there is no evidence that such rights are real; belief in human rights must be the result of indoctrination.

Trav,

Most child psychologists and evolutionary psychologists would possibly agree that the basis for humans being superstitious (Not spiritual) stems from the survival technique of assuming if one sees a lion’s footprint, a lion could be present. A god did not put this in the mind, survival did and those who didn’t get the message didn’t pass on their genes as sometimes the lion might have been present.

No one arrives at any religion independent of a culture.

I agree (As I continually state) that children should be taught about all religions and none and let them make a decision when they are mature enough to do so. How fairer can it be?

Very few people are brought up in a religion-free vacuum. Some swap around and find a religion that suits them better or drop religion altogether. This happens with all religions. Because you can name a handful of people, who take up Christianity is irrelevant.

Most Atheists are from religious cultures and there are lots of us. The most numerous swappers.

The fastest growing demographic in Australia is no religion. Does that make religion true or untrue? It is extraneous because argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument. If it was and there are more people in the Islamic faith than Christians, you would therefore have to be a Muslim. The same as you would be, statistically speaking, if you were raised in an Islamic culture.

“… vast majority of confirmed atheists would agree with the statement that “God does not exist”. Are you really going to deny that?”

Yes. And your posts suffer considerably because of this mistaken idea.

Agnostics make an erroneously equal claim for and against the god hypothesis. Atheists say there is no credible evidence for the god hypothesis. Big difference.

David

David,

This medium of communication is proving intensely frustrating for me!

Despite my best efforts to engage you, it still seems that you aren't actively confronting the best and most important points I'm making. There could be many reasons for this and the 4-post limit might be playing a major part as well. Perhaps it is lack of understanding. I'm not sure of the reason but I am definitely frustrated, because our discussion has not resulted in us understanding each other and engaging each other's views in a meaningful way.

So, let's keep it simple. I will talk about one point per post only. In this post I want to talk about evidence. Since the concept of evidence is so crucial to your definition of atheism, I expect that this will be interesting to you.

Earlier, you asked another poster if they had "universally accepted evidence" and you contrasted this with "guessing of so-called theologians".

Following on from this, I have three simple questions for you.

1. Do you agree with my earlier comment that lack of evidence for X is only evidence of X's absence if we would expect that the evidence did exist in the case that X existed?

2. What kind of evidence would you expect to see if a God existed?

3. What "universally accepted evidence" would convince you that there is a God?

Crabsy and Trav
Your arguments are nonsense. It is generally accepted that it is not possible to prove a negative.

Atheists hypothesis that there is a god. They then try to find evidence to support the hypothesis. They have found none so like Richard Dawkins they arrive at or very near the god does not exist end of the continuum. Dawkins states that he is at least at 6.5 out of seven.

The evidence that would satisfy me that a god exists would be if the evidence showed that the Epicurus long aphorism is wrong . In case you do not know it it is,
If god is willing to prevent evil but unable
Then he is not omnipotent
If he is able but not willing he is malevolent
If he is both able and willing
Whence cometh evil
If neither able nor willing
Why call him god.

As to ideology, I think you're conflating the AFA's stated position with its organizational characteristics.
Religious people often misrepresent atheism as a 'belief system', that's simply a crude strawman argument.

I'm a member of the AFA -- I'm simply expressing a personal opinion

Mac, why feel the need to be a member of a cult type organisation if you hold your own personal views on issues on all issues? One man or woman is able to move mountains without the support of an 'organisation' and their views.

Trav,

You have selectively skirted around that which I have made comment on and picked on irrelevancies that will not help with understanding any point of view.

You are not Jesus in the Temple with the Pharisees; you are a person supposedly with a case for theism conversing with another human being who only wants evidence. Don’t ask what kind of evidence, just the same kind of evidence that has convinced you this particular god exists.

I think we should keep it as it is. You are postulating a god exists, no doubt, that god is Yahweh/Jesus, so then you have to supply evidence for its existence. I do not have to prove anything.

But not only that you have to supply evidence for the nexus between the assumed Yahweh/Jesus god of your assumptions showing it is the god that created everything.

There is no point going off into waffle-land about absence of evidence etc because that is only a defensive position, not an affirmative one.

Now, let’s have the evidence so the whole planet can accept that your particular god, amongst the thousands that have purportedly existed by your very same reasoning, actually exists.

Convince me Trav, and I will no longer be an Atheist.

These other diversions you bring up are a result of a closeted religious mind. That’s ok to think that way if you will, but don’t expect others to go down that road without evidence.

BTW, universally accepted evidence is somewhat similar to the law of gravity where every one on the planet who understands it has the same view.

Let’s hear your evidence. I wait patiently, ready to be convinced your particular god exists.

Oh, and you might add a sub note as to why the other 4,000 gods don’t exist.

David

Trav,

I noticed you dodged a question of David’s, so I’ll ask what I think David was getting at with slightly different wording:

How do you get from the philosophical concept of an ‘uncaused first cause’ to ‘therefore Jesus’, without indoctrination?

I’ve asked this before from a Christian who violated 1 Peter 3:15 by simply dodging the question with the suggestion that I wasn’t sophisticated to understand.

<<And regarding indoctrination...>>

Yes, regarding indoctrination, have you ever wondered why religious parents feel the need to start indoctrinating their children so early in life? Why, it’s almost as if they feel an urgency to get in there before the critical thinking skills kick in.

As for your list of intelligent theists - who cares? Religion is a purely emotional experience, not a considered/rational conclusion. Are you suggesting that it’s impossible for an intelligent person to be very right-brained? Do you not see any significance in the fact that they virtually always choose the predominant religion in their culture?

I witnessed a lot of conversions to Christianity in my church-going days and I can tell you now, they all result from some sort of non-rational/emotional need and we’ve all heard them before: wife beating, alcoholism, excessive gambling, etc.; anything from those to just a general feeling of emptiness.

It is actually possible for people believe things for bad reasons too, you know - regardless of their intelligence. Can you list any objective/rational reasons for the conversions of the people you listed? I can give you some irrational ones. Take C.S. Lewis for example. After reading the Bible he came up with his famous trilemma, which was actually a quadrilemma with the fourth (and most likely) ‘L’ being ‘legend’; yet he failed to mention that one.

I realise there are some less literal Christians on this thread who quite happily admit that there is no empirical evidence for god, but this doesn’t help their position as it only tell us that they don’t really care so much about the truth of their beliefs.

<<All of those people are extremely well educated and intelligent...>>

Continued...

...Continued

Well, if you want to play that game, studies show that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to be religious; far more impressive than a relatively small list of people that (given the world’s population) you’re inevitably going to find anyway.

<<So, why do you believe that naturalism is “logical”? >>

Because it doesn’t violate Occam’s razor; a reason why it’s also more rational too.

<<Incorrect- the vast majority of confirmed atheists would agree with the statement that “God does not exist”.>>

Atheists don’t NECESSARILY say that no gods exists. Technically babies are atheists too because they’re not theists.

<<Plenty of agnostics totally disagree with you about the nature of evidence, and whether we can know God exists...>>

The key word here being “know”.

I liked David’s response here, but I would say “self-proclaimed agnostics” rather than just “agnostics”, because atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism/theism go to what you believe, while gnosticism/agnosticism go to what you know.

Thus many self-proclaimed “agnostics” don’t even realise that they are also atheists and usually try to separate themselves because of some 1950’s communism stigma or because they mistakenly think that atheism is a claim to knowledge. So “agnostic” is a largely useless and unhelpful term as it tells us nothing of what a person actually believes, just that they don’t ‘know’ - as none of us really can anyway.

Anyone who genuinely doesn’t know what they believe here is a pretty fickle-minded person. Often “agnostics” are people on the far-right who are simply not comfortable with contradicting the worldview of such a large portion of those who they are politically aligned with.

As for your questions:

1. That depends on how you define “god”.

2. I think what you’re trying to say here is, “what evidence would one expect to see as proof of god?”, because we don’t get to re-define “evidence” according to what we’re trying to prove or disprove. Evidence, put simply, is just a reason to believe or disbelieve something. So this, again, depends on how you define “god”.

Over to you.

I agree (As I continually state) that children should be taught about all religions and none and let them make a decision when they are mature enough to do so. How fairer can it be? [AFA]

David, many of the private secondary schools do indeed teach about all religions via assignments students choose along with class work. 35 years ago to date. I was educated in the private system and learned about Buddhism, Hinduism, a wide range of religious beliefs during High School. My son is educated in the private system and during 2009/10 was asked to choose a religion as an assignment each term in addition to learning about peoples life philosophies and beliefs.

Your statement is totally wrong 'factually'.

I have the 'evidence' to dispute your above statement in addition to a couple of others you are spruiking about on behalf of your 'organisation', a group of people whom, draw their own conclusions on many issues surrounding Christianity, indoctrination and Spirituality ignoring the 'evidence' that exists.

Q: Have you ever visited private/religious secondary schools across Australia at all during your time spent with the AFA David?

At least stick to some facts demonstrating 'evidence' when making your claims David.

AJ Phillips et al:

I am not worried if people declare themselves atheist, agnostic, religious, or anything else. What does worry me is the sort of statement you have just made:

<<I realise there are some less literal Christians on this thread who quite happily admit that there is no empirical evidence for god, but this doesn’t help their position as it only tell us that they don’t really care so much about the truth of their beliefs.>>

And that, in my opinion, is the nub of the issue. You, Foyle, AFA-David and some others believe as an article of faith that logic and fact (empirical data) are the sole channels for valid investigation of human being or for testing truth.

If David’s statements represent your world view, you also demand that children be indoctrinated with that belief and that no political decisions should be based on anything but logic and empirical data.

This is pure scientism, a fundamentalist mind-set every bit as dangerous to humanity as that of the religious fundamentalist.

We must oppose any inclination to indoctrinate children and grand-children with these beliefs. For the sake of humanity and the ecosystem we must also ensure that we elect to parliaments individuals with a more balanced mind than displayed by you people.

<<You, Foyle, AFA-David and some others believe as an article of faith that logic and fact (empirical data) are the sole channels for valid investigation of human being or for testing truth.>>

Trying to argue against logic is hopeless. To do so you need either:
1) Base your argument on an attempt at logic. In which case you are refuting yourself.
2) Base your argument on randomness, in which case there is no correct answer and there is no truth.

An argument against logic is an argument for chaos and meaninglessness.

It’s not like you at all to be so emotive in your posts, Crabsy.

<<You, Foyle, AFA-David and some others believe as an article of faith that logic and fact (empirical data) are the sole channels for valid investigation of human being or for testing truth.>>

Well, they are the only channels that have so far proven themselves to be reliable. Applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth given what we currently KNOW.

Any other method is totally indistinguishable from pure imagination. Could you explain how one would test the reliability of any other proposed method for arriving at the truth?

<<If David’s statements represent your world view, you also demand that children be indoctrinated with that belief...>>

“Indoctrination” involves teaching to think uncritically, which doesn’t really gel well with what I’ve said above, yet it’s a key method used in childhood indoctrination. Religious parents will often stress to their children that it’s a sin to question god’s existence from a very young age.

<<...and that no political decisions should be based on anything but logic and empirical data.>>

I think David’s more suggesting that theists shouldn’t be forcing their standards on society if they are based on unprovable assertions.

In which case, I would agree.

You already knew this, but you disingenuously try to make it sound like David is suggesting that if it can’t be put in a test tube, then it can’t be legislated.

That being said though, we can at least demonstrate that depriving someone of a human right has negative effects on them; much better than, “Because god said so”.

<<This is pure scientism...>>

Oh goodie.

We get to be labelled with an ‘ism’ too now; just to make it sound like ‘fascism’ or ‘communism’.

And just how is it a “fundamentalist mind-set” and “every bit as dangerous to humanity (and the ecosystem for crying out loud!) as that of the religious fundamentalist”?

I would suggest that if everyone cared about the truth of their beliefs, we’d be living in a much better world.

'Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.' - Ethan Allen

I think the Epicurus aphorism sums it up...we can apply logic or reasoning to determine the existence or not of a God.

If a God can:

* allow endless suffering amongst the poor of the world where millions die from famine, war and disease

* can selectively answer the personal prayers for intervention by some of the contributors to this forum or respond only to special pleadings by Mary McKillop and other dubious worldly "saints" to "cure" the incurable or other inscrutable miracles

* inflict incurable cancers and disorders on innocent children all the while "suffering the little children to come unto me etc"

* generally act as a "god behaving badly" with a spate of disasters and the world's environment in decline

then this is a God with an evil streak that I have no real interest in worshiping.

Of course His Workings can not be known or understood by Man can they? Rather we assume it will all be great in the hereafter, never mind the present.

Ah an epiphany; perhaps God IS really Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub or The Devil!

Explains a lot.

Peter King,

Yes,exactly,the theodicy problem,in my opinion this is compelling evidence against the notion of an omnipotent,omniscient,benevolent deity.

weareunique,

I couldn't think of a less 'cult-like' organization than the AFA,there is no ideology involved,no sacred book,no priesthood,no hierarchy and no sanctions for blasphemy.

General comment,

There are a number of 'NewScientist' reports on the evolutionary basis of religious belief,however they're only available to subscribers. Religious belief is not just an intellectual position.

Philosopher Stephen Law has explored the Evil God hypothesis quite thoroughly, here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=7247672&jid=RES&volumeId=-1&issueId=-1&aid=7247664&fromPage=cupadmin&pdftype=6316268&repository=authInst

Mac,

Any organisation [a group of people]that have an agenda opposing other peoples' religious views and lifestyles in addition to degrading their belief systems, which are law abiding and positive, are behaving in a discriminatory way, one being, as a result of fear, another as a result of being a victim in some way, at some stage during their lives.

ie Fear [of the unknown] and/or a victim of a religious person at some stage.

New Scientist magazines along with scientific research I enjoy, however no Scientist will ever hit on the facts pertaining to God or Evolution.

A complete waste of time.

How do I know this as fact?

'my faith and life experiences'.

AJPhilips (et al):

<< I would suggest that if everyone cared about the truth of their beliefs, we’d be living in a much better world.>>

I whole-heartedly agree. So expect passion in the debate over “truth”. Don’t be surprised if I seem “emotive”, as you put it.

<< Oh goodie...We get to be labelled with an ‘ism’ too now; just to make it sound like ‘fascism’ or ‘communism’.>>

You continue to use words like “theism” and “atheism”, so don’t complain if your doctrine is labelled in the same way.

<<And just how is it a “fundamentalist mind-set” and “every bit as dangerous to humanity (and the ecosystem for crying out loud!) as that of the religious fundamentalist”? >>

Religious fundamentalists reduce truth to the literal statements in scripture: scientism demands that logical-empiricism the sole arbiter of truth and decisions of any importance. Scientism condescendingly brands any other cognitive function or way of dealing with the life as unacceptable or inconsequential.

But science, government and other authorities need to be guided by the right values if they are to operate in the best interests of the ecosystem and any particular species. Becoming aware of our values and evaluating them is far more than a logical-empirical endeavour.

Truth in relationships between individual persons and between groups of people is vital. We must be true to one another. This requires some introspective attention to one’s mind and some careful assessment of the inevitably conflicting urges and emotions operating therein. It requires empathy with the other person or group. It requires appreciation of symbols (as opposed to objects) that we encounter in our own and others’ minds. Logic and empirical observation do not have the major part in this. We need to develop other channels of understanding.

[See next post.]

...Continued.

You assert that “any other method [than logic] is totally indistinguishable from pure imagination.” You mean that imagination is of no value in searching for truth. Wrong! “Pure imagination” is necessary for empathising. “Pure imagination” is vital for bringing material from your unconscious into your conscious mind – an essential task if you wish to be authentic (i.e. true to yourself so that you can then be true to others).

And this is a large part of exploring the Sacred Other (or God or whatever name you prefer).

So children must not be taught that “pure imagination” is worthless or delusory. They must be helped to use it in all sorts of ways. The attitude you express is why the arts, for example, are persistently run down in schools.

Children must be encouraged to take their imaginings seriously. This is how they come to know their own minds. And they need to share these imaginings so they can come to understand others and in that light look at themselves more critically.

I have long advocated much more emphasis on the arts and the introduction of philosophy, as regular, sequential and developmental components of the standard curriculum. Logic and empirical observation are important, but they must not dominate equally important cognitive functions.

Clownfish,

Very interesting paper I read it last year, however it's useful to read it again. His last paragraph says it all, really.
I wouldn't bother with either hypothesis until the theists establish the existence of 'God'.


weareunique,

Well it's a free country,so people's belief systems are fair game,otherwise we would still be under the long night of Christian theocracy wouldn't we?

If only atheism didn't have a name,it's often pointed out that no one is 'a-Roman gods' or 'a-Greek gods' or 'a-scientology'.

Crabsy,

You are simply attacking strawman after strawman.

You wrongly attribute “Scientism” to me when I have made no absolutist statements; I have not demanded that logical-empiricism be the sole arbiter of truth and decisions of any importance.

All I have said is that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is [so far] the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth given what we currently know (“...given what we currently know”, being the operative words.) and that anyone who rejects this, or bases a belief so life changing and influential to how we perceive reality as a religious belief, has no respect for their beliefs being as close to the truth as possible.

You have not yet provided me with any reasoning as to why I am wrong.

You introduce red herrings such as “values”, “relationships” and “emotions” into the discussion as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, when you know we’re talking about the existence/non-existence of god.

God may be “values”, “relationships”, “emotions” or “imagination” to you, and if he is, then great, but we already have words for these things.

If you see these things as just a pathway to the truth, then sure, like a lucky guess, a suspicion or the toss of a coin, it may get you there. But these methods have not proven themselves to be the most reliable pathway.

Now of course, like anyone, there are going to be some beliefs I hold that are not based empirical observation and in most cases, these beliefs won’t have any great effect on me or distort how I view reality. But in any situation where I can exercise a choice as to whether or not I accept a claim - particularly claims that alter my perception of reality - then I will acknowledge the fact that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the most reliable pathway to making that decision.

You’re suggestion that Scientism could actually be capable of turning the world’s population into emotionless, unimaginative drones with no values, is pure hyperbole.

No amount of indoctrination could do that.

David,

<You are postulating a god exists>

Incorrect- I have not postulated that here.

<There is no point going off into waffle-land about absence of evidence etc because that is only a defensive position, not an affirmative one>

You are talking about evidence where it suits you and avoiding the discussion where it suits you. If you are not willing to consider what type of evidence you would expect to see in the case that God does exist, then that’s fine, the discussion will end there because that suggests to me that you aren’t willing to reflect deeply and thoughtfully about these issues. It suggests an unwillingness to critically think about the subject.

I am willing to talk about evidence but only after establishing what kind of evidence should be expected- that is the foundation on which the whole discussion takes place.

<These other diversions you bring up are a result of a closeted religious mind>

Baseless! I have a closeted mind? That’s a baseless assertion if ever I heard one! I have been listening, considering and responding to every point you’ve been making. Have you done the same?

<That’s ok to think that way if you will, but don’t expect others to go down that road without evidence>

That’s OK David, I am in the majority. The vast majority of humanity accepts the existence of a God or Gods and thus affirms that something supernatural exists. And may I suggest that it is arrogant of you to argue that none of them have any evidence for that?

(tbc)

<BTW, universally accepted evidence is somewhat similar to the law of gravity where every one on the planet who understands it has the same view>

But there is very little evidence about anything that everyone interprets in exactly the same way. If you chose to base your life on “universally accepted evidence”, using your definition then your life would become unliveable. There is no universally accepted evidence for which insurance policy you take out, there’s no universally accepted evidence for where you should take a holiday and there’s no universally accepted evidence which makes it clear who you should marry. Everyone on the planet who understands the evidences on these issues do not always agree about these things. Someone might see the same evidence and get a different insurance policy, or visit a different place, or someone might be in an almost identical relationship and choose not to get married because they are less willing to commit. So if most things in life come without universally accepted evidence, then why should worldviews and religious beliefs be any different?

In other words, it sounds to me like you want certainty, but uncertainty is an inevitable part of being human

Hi Peter King, thanks for joining the conversation.

One thing you said is particularly thought provoking to both myself and a lot of other people so I’d like to comment on it.

<If a God can:

* allow endless suffering amongst the poor of the world where millions die from famine, war and disease>

<then this is a God with an evil streak that I have no real interest in worshiping.>

I have a question for you- does God allow billions of people to be in poverty and famine in 3rd world countries, or do humans allow poverty and famine in 3rd world countries?

There are enough resources in the world that if we all acted with compassion towards the poorest of the poor as God commands us to do, then there would hardly be any poor at all.

I don’t mean to blow my own trumpet but this is relevant to my point so I’ll share it- I’ve been personally sponsoring 2 children for a number of years. Well, 1.5- one on my own for a long time and more recently another together with my partner. If everyone in Australia sponsored 1.5 children on average, there would be about 30 million less famined children in the world. If everyone in the United States sponsored 1.5 children on average there’d be 450 million less famined children in the world.

God has created a world where there are enough resources for everyone, so perhaps it’s human selfishness which is to blame. Is it really fair to blame God for poverty if God has endowed us with the ability to do something about it, and yet we refuse to do so?

(to be continued)

Regarding the more general issue of evil and natural disasters and the like, I do have some thoughts on the issue. I don’t claim to have a completely satisfactory response for you (I don’t claim to have slam dunk answers to each and every issue, I am simply an ordinary person who maintains that it is possible to be a rational, reflective person and reasonably believe in God and that there are people in this boat). My thoughts are- I’m skeptical of our ability to know God’s intentions and to completely understand God’s nature (as opposed to having knowledge of his existence), I’m comforted by the fact that God (The Christian one), if he exists which I believe he does, understands suffering more than anyone else because he suffered a humiliating and excruciating death on the cross, and I wonder whether the existence of evil actually shows us that there is a moral realm.

AJ Phillips, I just noticed your two posts today, after I’d already written my above two posts. Not sure how I missed them! You’ve raised some good points so I do think it likely you’ll hear from me shortly

Crabsy,

I wish I had time to comment on your comments as clearly we are the sceptics apropos the current scientific orthodoxy, the strongest critique of which is its elision of the structure of reality that is unconsciously imputed to it. I'm talking really about social reality, the paradigm within which scientism "objectively" differentiates phenomena. But having deposited that unseemly pile of words, I fear I can't spear the time. For now I'd observe that, God's aside, liberal rationalism seems to be both the disease and the putative cure.
There's gotta be a buck to be made in that!

The human race has passed through one Copernican revolution after another and I suspect we're not done with being humbled yet.

AJPhilips(et al):

Either I have expressed myself very poorly indeed, or you simply refuse to admit that I have written what I have written, or you just can’t comprehend what I have written. I discard the last possibility because you are obviously very intelligent. I prefer to reject the second possibility. So let’s assume that I need to express my view more clearly.

You write:
A. << I have not demanded that logical-empiricism be the sole arbiter of truth and decisions of any importance.>>
B. << All I have said is that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is [so far] the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth given what we currently know.>>
I again say that B is false.

“Truth” is not only of the scientific type. There is also the sort of “truth” that must be sought within one’s psyche, most of which is unconscious. This sort of truth is pivotal to effective relationships between individuals and groups, and between people and the rest of the ecosystem. To uncover this sort of “truth” takes much hard work, but it require us to use mainly means other than logic and empirical observation. I tried to outline some of these in the previous post, but imagination is the most crucial. This has been proven over countless generations of human experience and in my own. Depth psychologists have demonstrated the proof in more formal ways.

If B is false then A is false. You are making a lord of logical-empiricism.

Next, you write: <<You introduce red herrings such as “values”, “relationships” and “emotions” into the discussion as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, when you know we’re talking about the existence/non-existence of god.>>

I avoid red herrings diligently. I mentioned these things as examples of areas of life in which “truth” is buried and which are mainly not accessible to logical-empiricism. God is not supernatural, not an entity, not an object. The unconscious, and allowing it access to consciousness through imagination and relationship – these are essential for exploration of what the word “God” means to me

Trav,

Did God incite, induce, encourage you to sponsor children or was it your own inherent sense of morality derived from your upbringing and social environment?

Third world poverty is a direct result of human indifference but a "just God" might perhaps intervene!

We always return to the "God works in mysterious ways" to explain His casual disregard for His children...or we are all Free Spirits which is little comfort to an African or Asian peasant child.

If Johnnie Howard could have a northern intervention then why not Big G with a little divine intervention?

Third world poverty is a direct result of human indifference but a "just God" might perhaps intervene!

Peter King, this is where faith and praying comes in [for all third world children and generations to come] that no more poverty will exist. Without belief faith and prayer for situations, how is God able to intervene?

He can only assist those who open up to Him seeking assistance.

It would be interesting as to how many people over the next few days who do believe in God and pray for their families safety, remain safe. I realise that God does not target people, however those people who are in the firing line meeting the eye of the cyclone on Wednesday night, would feel a great deal more reassured if they could feel and know that God has sent someone to bathe them in love and protection.

Or that people had worked through their faith via other experiences with God and prayed or pray [for their family's safety]. I will be praying for a couple of girlfriends and their children tomorrow as I go about my work and business.

Start another thread on experiences and faith in God, I could list dozens evidenced by myself, however, not 'evidenced' by yourself or others.

Therein lies one of the situations regarding God, Christian debates and/or Spiritualism.

In other words, Peter, I could list dozens of experiences that may be interpreted differently by yourself and others, yet those experiences have reinforced my belief and faith in God.

@weareunique,

"Start another thread on experiences and faith in God, I could list dozens evidenced by myself, however, not 'evidenced' by yourself or others. "

YOU have had personal experience of some event that you attribute to God. However, the irony is that reinforces the concept of a God who only responds to a chosen few...not very fair is it?

I don't know the stats but in Third World Countries I bet the majority are Catholic. Does that mean that they don;t pray hard enough for intervention?

You can't claim that a few (in relative terms) inexplicable "cures" or wished for results is evidence of Divine intervention...if anything it proves God does not exists as why would He be so cruel as to help so few?

Some fascinating insights and constraints, from both sides.
I find 'David' of the atheist foundation to be a most peculiar atheist.
As has been pointed out by Trav and others, his definition of atheism not allows for the existence of God, but even a belief in God; yet he takes umbrage at David f's assertion that one can be an atheist and still believe in the spiritual.
Some other statements I have a problem with:
"Atheists do not lack belief in a god. Belief implies there is something to believe in, in the first place."
Yes, and atheists lack that belief. At least I do, and so does every other atheist I know of.
"No one arrives at any religion independent of a culture."
So who then started all these religions?
...
God?
I'm pretty sure the first bloke(ess) who had the bejaysus scared out of him by thunder or lightning or cyclone or volcanic eruption discovered religion long before she discovered culture.
But then there's this:
"He can only assist those who open up to Him seeking assistance."
Says who? Who makes rules for God?
I accept the argument that God (any god, or gods) is not to blame for 'Man's inhumanity to Man', but I still have trouble with other of his Mighty Works. For instance as David Attenborough pointed out, a parasite that bores it's way into an eyeball, causing not only blindness but incredible pain in the process makes the claim of a loving benevolent Creator a nonsense.
I would much prefer to believe in an uncaring evolution, than an uncaring Creator.

Grim

'would much prefer to believe in an uncaring evolution, than an uncaring Creator.'

You are a bit different from most fundie evolutionist. They prefer to worship mother nature but hate Father God. I give it to you for consistency.

After the 21/05/2011 Things will be better sorted we will know who is a believer and who is not. The true believers are going to walk with the, and the non believers will be left behind to carry on as normal.
So have a good look around, so you will know who is missing.

@579

Ahh we were having some sensible and comparatively polite debate (until Runner joined us of course with comments like "fundie evolutionist.").

Sadly the Loons have joined in now vis a vis 579, no doubt a Harold Camping fan! Please go here http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/harold_camping.htm to read all about this first class Loon's prophecies; it would be a great laugh if it wasn't for the fact that people like 579 believe!

Pity that and for your info 579, the most exciting thing to happen on 21/05/2011 is that Katie Melua is playing at the Falkoner Theatre in Copenhagen Denmark on that night...hope she doesn't have to stop for Jesus ;)

To put it simply,

No one I know would stand the company of runner.

If "god" wants him, he's welcome.

Any "god" that accepts runner, I would not regard as fit company.

Beings far more limited than the hypothetical "god" are both apalled and bored stiff by the sort of ignorant religious bigot runner parodies.

Keep it up runner, if every person met a christian like you pretend to be, christianity will die.

rusty.

The real problem for atheists is that they can't actually state what they really stand for, because it leaves them wide open to challenge. To state, as they would like to: "There is no God" immediately invites the question: "God who?". Can you give a name to something that does not exist?
And if there is no God, why do we need atheism? Since atheism exists solely as a reaction to another person's belief in God, it is reasonable to state there would be no atheism without belief in God.

AJ,

As it’s now the middle of a work week my responses will necessarily be more succinct. I hope the quality of dialogue doesn’t suffer as a result.

I hope I’m not coming across as dogmatic or overly argumentative- I’m only an everyday person who is reflective and likes considering these questions.

<How do you get from the philosophical concept of an ‘uncaused first cause’ to ‘therefore Jesus’, without indoctrination?>

1. Inner conviction.

Theological jargon may label this as “The Holy Spirit”. Like Dean Overman in his book A Case For The Existence of God, I believe there is one fundamental point that is often overlooked in discussions about God. God is meant to be a relational being. Inevitably, some of the way in which he reveals himself will, almost by definition, be subjective and very much personal. Most people don’t like this and think it a very poor argument, but that’s OK. As I said, God is a being and not a conclusion at the end of the argument (regardless of whether or not you believe there are any good arguments- I happen to think there might be some reasonable ones).

Also when people attack this view, they are obliged to construct another plausible method of knowing God that takes into account that he is meant to be a living being, not a concept

(tbc)

2. The solid historical evidences for Jesus Christ.

The “minimal facts” approach to the Resurrection persuades me. History doesn’t give us certainty, but as far as the evidence goes I believe it points towards the Resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps you may argue Ockham’s Razor, or that miracles are infinitesimally unlikely, but as far as the historical evidence around that event goes, it confirms all the things that we’d expect it to confirm if Jesus did in fact rise.

3. The specific Christian version of the nature of humanity and the human condition is very accurate, and Jesus provides the perfect answer- the only satisfactory answer to this that I’ve seen. There are suggestions to be found within humanity which point to the fact that we long for an answer.

<Religion is a purely emotional experience, not a considered/rational conclusion.>

But- and this was my point- you can only say that once you’ve proven it to be the case. You can’t say it if you simply rave on about psychology.

<Do you not see any significance in the fact that they virtually always choose the predominant religion in their culture?>

Is it also significant that many atheists are caught in the young university group-think bubble? Peter Hitchens and A N Wilson have said they used to be caught in that hype.

I can talk about the psychology study which suggested many atheists dislike the idea of a father.

I can talk about the fact that although God is deemed to be a loving God, he is also a judge. There is a strong current of the idea of judgement running through the whole Bible. God holds people morally accountable for their actions. Many people are disturbed, emotionally, by this idea.

(tbc)

Many don’t like the idea that God, if he exists, is more powerful than you or I, and sovereign. Depending on definitions of sovereignty this can be disturbing to people- think Christopher Hitchens and his “celestial North Korea” issue.

None of this confronts the arguments against theism and for atheism, though. And neither do your talk about indoctrination and culture. Check out dangerousidea.blogspot.com and skim the months of November and December- Victor Reppert has spent a lot of time discussing these issues recently.

<I witnessed a lot of conversions to Christianity in my church-going days>

They don’t all result from the above- there are plenty for whom intellectual considerations play a part.

Also, it isn’t implausible that God could use the above situations to draw people to him.

Finally, plenty of atheists are rather emotional about it all, are they not? Plenty give emotional reasons, certainly not strong intellectual ones, for their atheism.

<After reading the Bible he came up with his famous trilemma, which was actually a quadrilemma with the fourth (and most likely) ‘L’ being ‘legend’; yet he failed to mention that one.>

That depends what you mean by legend- his existence or the exact words he spoke?

Have you seen how bad the arguments from the Jesus mythers are? They put the flat earthers to shame in the “I have a silly argument, come listen to me” stakes!

<Because it doesn’t violate Occam’s razor; a reason why it’s also more rational too.>

Theism’s advantage, in my view, lies mainly in its explanatory power and it’s advantage in the area of epistemology. Also, I doubt that God is as complex as many atheists imagine. Richard Dawkins, for example.

(tbc)

<Atheists don’t NECESSARILY say that no gods exists. >

Agreed but MOST do- which was my counter point to David- who suggested that most DON’T. It is clear that many atheists consider David’s definition is bunk- that’s even been shown in this discussion alone.

<Atheism/theism go to what you believe, while gnosticism/agnosticism go to what you know>

I understand this but I believe that further clarity is brought to the issue by having three categories.

<Anyone who genuinely doesn’t know what they believe here is a pretty fickle-minded person>

Nonsense! Complete and utter nonsense!

As for your questions:

<1. That depends on how you define “god”.>

Here is a Christian version I’ll propose. It may be too narrow for some Christians and too broad for others, but I think it strikes a good balance for philosophical discussions and contains some basic theological ideas. God is an all powerful, all knowing being who created and sustains the universe and who cares about humans and intends on showing them the truth which is mostly and primarily found in Jesus.

<Evidence, put simply, is just a reason to believe or disbelieve something>

Agree.

Background beliefs and presuppositions play a huge part in this. Life experiences can be evidence, arguments can be evidence, facts can be evidence. Strong intuitions can even be evidence if we see little reason to doubt them. Faith isn’t opposed to evidence- it can go beyond evidence (that is, there are some places evidence can’t take you, by definition) or it can be informed by evidence

Peter D makes an interesting point. If people stopped believing in God we could dispense with atheism altogether.

HuH,

So Peter D is saying that if I say I don't believe in ET then I really believe that ET is real?! Me thinks he is playing semantics, just because atheists might say "there is no God" is merely a courtesy to those who believe. The subtext is there is NO supreme being!

Trav please provide some information that supports your claim "History doesn’t give us certainty, but as far as the evidence goes I believe it points towards the Resurrection of Jesus".

I don't believe there is anything that I am aware of that would substantiate your claim but would be happy to consider.

YOU have had personal experience of some event that you attribute to God. However, the irony is that reinforces the concept of a God who only responds to a chosen few...not very fair is it? Peter King.

It is fair Peter.

How is God able to feature in a 'non-believer's' life and/or if one shuts God and entourage out completely and/or if a person ridicules God and God's very existence as the ALL Creator having or not bothering to try faith [in God].

The reason 'being' that any person who opens up their heart and soul to God and has faith in God will receive the love and answers that God and only God is able to give.

Whether one seeks assistance through prayer, good deeds and believes at the same time in God, taking time out in their busy lives to think about all God created, following Commandments to the best of ones ability, via individual personal avenues; most people who believe in God, will receive the assistance they have requested in God's own time and using God's best judgement for all concerned.

My own personal belief for the end of 2010 and 2011 spiritually, is that we as Australians are all going to be tested and brought back down to earth in practical terms materialistically to stamp out egomania, gross selfishness, corruption, superficiality, to allow people to experience a more in depth love for others, particularly people who have not learned how to be 'there' for others or 'feel' for others, apart from their own families and cliquiness/groups.

God would have known this fact a long time ago.

Without the intervention of faith/belief and prayer, lives will be sacrificed in order for people to learn or FEEL love for others, and I pray its not any more innocent childrens lives taken/sacrificed within these devastating lessons

weareunique -

"The reason 'being' that any person who opens up their heart and soul to God and has faith in God will receive the love and answers that God and only God is able to give. "

I will restate my previous comment; at any given time night or day world wide there is probably 30 million "faithful", God fearing, believers praying for a miracle or intervention on behalf of their brothers, sisters, mothers, best friends etc who are dying from cancer, malnutrition or would just like to win the lottery.

None of them will get a response (from God) so how can you possibly say "most people who believe in God, will receive the assistance they have requested in God's own time and using God's best judgement for all concerned." with any sense of sincerity or credibility.

Just the usual cop-out...oh well God didn't respond but rest assured He will "in his own time and of course, his best judgement".

It is sad if you truly believe your own words.

At the end of the day, each person to their own beliefs, as I hold my faith and love in God Peter.

Kindest wishes.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens appear to create a punch bag of what they perceive as a deity, and take great pleasure in knocking it about. Similarly, Brian Baker appears to wrestle with his own interpretation of what a prayer is. In his own belief, he is winning.

Many words, such as "freedom", "health", "society", "deity", and "prayer" needs redefining by each generation.

Let us concentrate, briefly, on the word "prayer".

Prayer is akin to contemplating, or concentrating one's mind of how things are, and what one can do about it. It is certainly not asking whoever to do something. It is not asking to win the lottery.

Brian Baker is making the usual mistake of equating his own perception with that of everyone else. That may be true to a very limited extent. It does not tally with the fundamental, enduring view of things.

Hi Pelican, to be pedantic it would only be the word "atheism" that would not exist; it would be as unnecessary as the word 'Shlompok".The state of not believing in the Flying Spaghetti exists for most, I would think, whether they have heard of the Ineffable Being or not -in which case they would be in a state of "Shlompik".
Belief in the Flying Spaghetti monster would of course be described as being in a state of Shlomploop.
Shlomploop - the sound of an Angel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster hitting a wall at moderate speed, and sliding to the floor.
As has been pointed out by several well known atheists, somewhere in the region of 4,000 gods have been proposed over the aeons; christians are atheistic to all but one (or three?) of them.

Those with no belief in prayer should perhaps be looking at this.

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ60801/IDQ60801.94299.shtml

Willis Island finished transmitting 30 miniutes ago with 100 knt gusts (115mph), and they now appear to be directly in the eye of the cyclone.

Give your prayers to the people on Willis Island and those on the mainland.

Istvan, you said, “Prayer is akin to contemplating, or concentrating one's mind of how things are, and what one can do about it. It is certainly not asking whoever to do something. It is not asking to win the lottery.”

I can assure you from twelve years of intensive religious education in a religious school and an embarrassingly large number of years of faithful attendance at church before I saw the light that asking someone to do something is a perfect definition of prayer. Watch any high stakes soccer match. Most of the replacements cross themselves as they run onto the ground, asking their god to grant them a good performance. Many, maybe most winners of large sporting events thank god for responding to their request to grant them the gift of playing well. Even the “miracles” claimed by the Catholic Church for its saints typically see the church ruling that prayers to the candidate asking for something (a cure) were granted.

How can you even begin to think that prayer is not asking someone to do something?

“Give your prayers to the people on Willis Island and those on the mainland.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 9:30:09 AM”

There is no-one on Willis Island. The couple of folk doing a stint of duty there have been evacuated; And if they hadn’t been, they would be evacuated by now - one way or another.

As for the mainland - anyone anywhere between Cooktown and Brisbane would have reason to have thoughts of the devil, rather than their personal God, about to confront them; Cairns and Innisfail people especially.

The owners of property built on the sand dunes of the Gold Coast might be giving some prayers to their favourite sea-god when the cyclonic surge rolls in on the southern skirts of Yasi.

If there is a God - of any persuasion - he sure has the ability to get grumpy, even with little children, too.

Yes, and what a good question. Who is responsible for this hell that's coming? ( natural/man-helped...cyclone or gods will )

I cant wait for the religious points of view concerning this one:).....and the AWG anti-its all good.......people that are soooo sure;)

BLUE

colinsett,

It appears that there is a belief that prayer is just for oneself. Prayer can also be for others.

Cyclones are a natural event, and quite important in transfering energy from the equator to lower latitudes. People have to live with them, but anyone who has an arrogant or flippant attitude towards cyclones has obviously never been in one of any size.

They can be teriffying and very dangerous, and prayer can go to those people who are caught in them.

If people facing a cyclone were offered a choice of a church full of believers praying for their deliverance or a platoon of tradesmen able to shore up their shelters, which would they choose?

Then again,after the danger had been survived, the believers would probably claim that it was only their prayers that caused the tradesmen to arrive on time, and, as is often the case with the claims of the faithful, that is a claim that cannot be disproved and so must be true.

Trav, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 9:21:10 PM

I haven’t had time to keep up with this Forum but I think you have Para quoted me or someone else as saying this, ‘Atheists don’t NECESSARILY say that no gods exists’. To which you answered, “Agreed but MOST do” (Your emphasis in both cases)

What I actually said was this, “Atheists do not say a god does not exist just that there is no evidence to suggest one of the 3 or 4,000 purported to have existed does indeed exist.”

Most Atheists do not make a blanket statement that a god does not exist.

Have you a study, which shows that ‘most’ Atheists say in blanket terms that a god does not exist?

And then you added, “It is clear that many atheists consider David’s definition is bunk”

Yes, some might but pedants exist in all fields of endeavour. Maybe you should have a read of a piece by PZ Myers about the definitions of Atheism. It is quite a mirror for the pedants and those stuck in dictionary definitions, to look at themselves in.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/why_are_you_an_atheist.php

Enjoy

David

Thanks for an interesting read, David, but it's still only the -rather strident- opinion of one man.
"If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing: asking why you are a person who does not believe in god is not answered when you reply, "Because I am a person who does not believe in god." And if you protest when I say that there is more to the practice of atheism than that, insisting that there isn't just makes you dogmatic and blind."
The last sentence could of course be rewritten:
"And if you protest when I insist that there is more to the practice of atheism than that, saying that there isn't just makes me dogmatic and blind."

Grim,

Worry over the definition is fine if folks want to. I have more important things to do and whatever is the definition of Atheism people want to accept, my work and Atheism itself, has not, is not, and will not suffer a smidgeon because of it.

I’ll leave the pedants to wring their hair in dismay. They generally are of little use to Atheism anyway.

David

There's another problem with the AFA's definition that I haven't yet pointed out (in addition to the other major problems I and others identified that David hasn't yet responded to...):

It confuses atheism with naturalism. Plenty of atheists believe in something supernatural.

Maybe when the president of the atheist foundation learns what atheism is, people might start taking him seriously.

I'm a charitable bloke but I have to say, this is such incompetent, irrational philosophy from the president of an association that is supposedly founded on a highly rational, purely intellectual position.

Makes you wonder, yes?

And David, your work might not suffer because of it in your view, but I can assure you your credibility does.

Any atheist with a smidgeon of philosophical self respect should avoid your organisation. If someone were to join the liberal party, they'd expect the president to have some kind of idea what liberal ideals are, for example. Thus, why should someone join the atheist foundation if the pres and his board have no idea what atheism is?

But also big thanks to everyone- this was an interesting, broad, generally respectful discussion.

Trav,

You have already categorised yourself as I have pointed out and now you dig yourself deeper into that group.

“Plenty of atheists believe in something supernatural.”

Really, I suppose you are right, just that “plenty” should be replaced with “a few”

I conclude that from my fifty years experience as an Atheist and near thirty years in the Atheist Foundation of Australia.

Sort of place me in a position of probably knowing what I am talking about, doncha think?

And as I often say, Atheism is not an automatic inoculation against stupidity. It’s just better than anything else.

David

GlenC
Anyone who hasn’t said a prayer for themselves or others really hasn’t lived.

As for a platoon of tradesmen, there was a 2 story house built on a ridge at Shute Harbour in the Whitsundays some years ago. It was in an exposed position, so the very rich owner had the house built to be as strong as possible.

In fact, it was believed to be one of the strongest houses built in Australia at the time, with stainless steel cyclone bolts, almost bullet proof glass and stainless steel lintels around the windows.

During cyclone Ada, it not only blew off the roof, but the entire second story. Luckily the owners had previously emptied their concrete ground level water tank, and survived by hiding in the water tank.

I suppose the building could have been built stronger, depending on how many millions of dollars someone had available to spend.

Money helps provide safety, but not everyone has sufficient money to maximize their safety.

Finally the Truth

The rich pay for false safety

Poor must pray for theirs

Crabsy,

It sounds like you’re referring to something along the lines of ‘religious truth’ which, when you break it down, is actually just ‘belief' - not truth.

Regardless of whether or not you are, I think my point still stands and I’ll explain why.

You can arrive at the truth using the imagination and the unconscious, just as you can with guesses. But like I asked before, how do you test the reliability and the accuracy of those methods of arriving at the truth?

You can’t.

Which brings me to my point that theists, who admit there is no empirical evidence for god (or any theists for that matter), don’t really care much about the truth of their beliefs, or whether or not they accurately reflect reality, since they don’t have a demonstrably reliable method for arriving at it.

That being said I don’t know how you could disagree with what you’ve labelled ‘B’. Would you also disagree that it is at least the MOST reliable method of arriving at the truth, and if not - again - how would you determine the reliability and accuracy of the other methods?

Trav,

Sorry I wasted your time asking for an answer to how one gets from the philosophical concept of an ‘uncaused first cause’ to ‘therefore Jesus’, without indoctrination. I later realised that I answered my own question when I pointed out the fact that those who later take up religion, do so due to emotional need or as a crutch to lean on.

Although I do have some comments for your answer.

<<...some of the way in which [god] reveals himself will, almost by definition, be subjective and very much personal.>>

Yes and very convenient too that god only ever reveals himself in ways that can be explained by other more rational means.

<<...when people attack this view, they are obliged to construct another plausible method of knowing God that takes into account that he is meant to be a living being, not a concept>>

Easy, meeting him face to face in a more visual and/or audible sense.

Continued...

...Continued

<<The solid historical evidences for Jesus Christ.>>

You’ve got to be kidding me.

Most Christians I know of wouldn’t even use the word “solid” to describe the scant evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus, let alone a miracle performing Jesus.

There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus from an eye-witness; there is not a single event from his life that we can accurately date or provide any evidence for; we have no writings from him; no carpentry works. All we have are hearsay accounts, written by people who weren’t eye-witnesses, decades after the fact, and the supernatural claims would be impossible to verify even if they did happen, as they were of a supernatural nature to begin with.

It’s like I said the last time we discussed this: your posts read like that of a person who has just finished reading the books of the fraud, Lee Strobel - who’s arguments, mind you, have all been thoroughly discredited.

Trust me, I know them all.

<<The “minimal facts” approach to the Resurrection persuades me.>>

Then you’re easily persuaded considering we have no idea who even wrote the gospels.

The minimal facts approach means nothing considering our practical knowledge - the only measuring stick we have for examining extraordinary claims - gives us no reason to believe that the miracles occurred, especially when there are more rational explanations for the unreliable accounts.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It’s that simple.

<<The specific Christian version of the nature of humanity and the human condition is very accurate>>

How?

<<...and Jesus provides the perfect answer...>>

How?

<<There are suggestions to be found within humanity which point to the fact that we long for an answer.>>

Absolutely.

And when we can’t find an answer, we’re faced with two options:

-Admit that we don’t know and keep searching, or;
-Make something up.

Guess which option Christians take.

<<...you can only say that [religion is emotional and not rational] once you’ve proven it to be the case.>>

I don’t have to prove it. Theists prove this every day on OLO.

Continued...

...Continued

For starters, you haven’t yet come up with a rational reason for believing in god.

<<Is it also significant that many atheists are caught in the young university group-think bubble?>>

No, it’s not.

Particularly since I have no idea of what you’re talking about and neither does Google (http://tinyurl.com/5uxe82d), nor any atheist I've asked in the last couple of days.

<<I can talk about the psychology study which suggested many atheists dislike the idea of a father.>>

Unfortunately though, the fact that there is not the slightest shred of evidence for god combined with the fact that atheism is the default position, would make this an exercise in futility.

<<God holds people morally accountable for their actions. Many people are disturbed, emotionally, by this idea.>>

This is the single dumbest excuse for reasoning theists ever come up with and as a former-Christian myself, I can attest that it comes from an envy of the fact that non-believers aren’t bound by the same irrational and immoral sexual constraints as theists are.

Who in their right mind would trade an eternity of bliss for such temporary satisfactions?

<<They don’t all result from the above- there are plenty for whom intellectual considerations play a part.>>

The “intellectual considerations” come later as a justification for the newly adopted belief, and all are fallacious.

<<Finally, plenty of atheists are rather emotional about it all...>>

The difference being, of course, that they don’t become atheists to fulfil an emotional requirement. They get emotional because they are opposed to the insanity and destructiveness of religion.

<<Plenty give emotional reasons, certainly not strong intellectual ones, for their atheism.>>

Name one.

<<That depends what you mean by legend- his existence or the exact words he spoke?>>

Both.

<<Theism’s advantage, in my view, lies mainly in its explanatory power...>>

Theism does not explain anything, it simply asserts.

<<...and it’s advantage in the area of epistemology.>>

Considering my point above, this is actually a disadvantage.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I understand this but I believe that further clarity is brought to the issue by having three categories.>>

How can you possibly claim that it brings clarity when I’ve just finished demonstrating how it only confuses the issue?

In light of your definition of god, I can say that credible evidence for me would be anything that demonstrates the claims you’ve made without resorting to logical fallacies (such as the god-of-the-gaps fallacy) or anecdotes.

Unfortunately the, “which is mostly and primarily found in Jesus”, part fails before it can even be tested/demonstrated since there is no reliable evidence of a miracle performing Jesus.

In regards to evidence, I was a bit too broad in my definition and putting it a little too “simply” obviously. Evidence also needs to serve as proof of something; otherwise a schizophrenic episode would be able to serve as evidence of something. That being said...

<<Background beliefs and presuppositions play a huge part in this.>>

They play a big part in belief, but they are not evidence of anything.

<<Life experiences can be evidence...>>

Can be, but are not a very reliable form of evidence.

<<...arguments can be evidence...>>

Only if they’re rational.

<<...facts can be evidence.>>

Unfortunately for religion, yes.

<<Strong intuitions can even be evidence if we see little reason to doubt them.>>

No.

It would be fallacious to consider institutions or their strength as evidence of anything, since institutions can form and gain strength regardless of the truth of their claims.

<<Faith isn’t opposed to evidence...>>

No, it’s completely independant of it. Faith is belief regardless of evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary; you unwittingly admit this yourself...

<<[faith] can go beyond evidence (that is, there are some places evidence can’t take you, by definition...>>

Thank you.

Foyle (and other atheists),

In my previous post I said that my null hypothesis would be "Human beings DID NOT evolve from another species" . I'm not going to try and prove it because, as you said “Thinkers and science attempt to prove positives. Proof of negatives is considered impossible.” Rather I would put my own faith on the line by trying to DISprove it.

The proposition is refutable, at least in principle, by finding at least one instance of a human being evolving from another species. Then at the very least my statement could not be applied to all human beings. As a result the claim that the Qur'aan is Divine is testable and I'm simply conveying the invitation of Qur'aan to show proof that it cannot be the Divine.

Other the other hand, atheists ascribe to the proposition that “Human beings DID evolve from another species”. To refute this you would have to prove a negative: "Human beings DID NOT evolve from another species". But as you stated "proof of negatives is considered impossible.”

So atheists ascribe to a proposition that cannot be refuted.

Atheists are taking a position that avoids scrutiny through reason and evidence, betraying a fundamental lack of confidence in their own position.

salaams

Foyle you wrote:

<<The evidence that would satisfy me that a god exists would be if the evidence showed that the Epicurus long aphorism is wrong . In case you do not know it it is,

If god is willing to prevent evil but unable
Then he is not omnipotent
If he is able but not willing he is malevolent
If he is both able and willing
Whence cometh evil
If neither able nor willing
Why call him god.>>

I'll return, in time, (God willing!) with a fuller response to Epicurus's aphorism. In the meatime I invite you to contemplate the the following questions:

Is it always true of a human-being who is capable of preventing harm that they are “malevolent” if they do not prevent harm? Are you saying that you cannot think of a single example? Think: “lesser of two evils”.

salaams

If people facing a cyclone were offered a choice of a church full of believers praying for their deliverance or a platoon of tradesmen able to shore up their shelters, which would they choose? Glenn C.

Interesting query Glenn.

Regardless of falling short of carpentry skills myself, and not agreeing with prayer necessarily working within church dwellings themselves, and the fact that I conduct my own prayers for others and sometimes myself, it would be neither.

A bricklayer, Concreter or Stonemason for me thanks.

True Vanna, yet the European way, and I have friends of European origins, is the option of the old barter system 'I will help you with your needs, safety tasks or luxury items, if you help me with some of mine'. I have a few friends whereby for years have traded on numerous occasions fairly [I throw in a few extras in my spare time with one of them]. The odd things don't work out, however, most of us would not have some basic safety needs met had we not assisted one another.

weareunique,

I think you have it there. Prayer can be used for others if someone cannot actually be there to help them. If someone is in need, but you can't actually be there to help them, then what do you do?

Say "Oh well".

No, I think something extra can be done, and by praying for the other person, it gives them hope.

I find it interesting that so many academics such as Dawkins condem religion and prayer, when they live so much from the public purse.

And when they need money, they expect the public to automatically and readily hand it over to them.

Grateful, (and runner and other usrd)
If you really are interested in proof of human evolution read Robert Ardrey’s books for a start, ‘African Genesis’,’The Territorial Imperative’ and ‘The Hunting Hypothesis’. Ardrey's assembly of 24 lines of evidence that A. africanus was an armed hunter are particularly interesting and, to me, convincing.

I obtained from the University of Michigan site, a chart of the fossil record tracing the evolution of man from australopithecus afarensis through A. africanus, homo habilis, H. erectus, H.heidelbergensis to Homo sapiens.

Each of the classifications shown have been verified by the excavation of several different fossils and dated by several different technical processes for age determination.

The results are accepted by all reputable scientists in various specialist fields. You prefer the claims of an ancient who knew nothing of modern science and the views of those of this era who have learnt nothing from the scientists, writers and thinkers of the last 1500 or more years.

The variations between each of the above classifications are only small and in total, over some five million years, amount mainly to a straighter back and gradual increase in height, better walking and running capability, increased brain capacity and changes in skull shape to accommodate the larger brain.

There is so much proof of evolution of humans available that doubters of human evolution are classified as un-sinkable rubber duckies.

Weareunique, you say that when confronted by a need for assistance to survive a physical threat to your place of shelter, you would choose neither prayer nor the help of tradesmen because you would prefer the assistance of “A bricklayer, Concreter or Stonemason”. As all three are tradesmen, I have no idea of what point you are making.

Vanna, the problem with prayer is that it doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter whether you are praying that something nice will happen to yourself or to others. Are you not aware of the Templeton Foundation’s disastrous, failed attempt to prove that intercessory prayer works? In case you are not, of three groups of ill people prayed for by people in a range of churches, the ones that did not know they were being prayed for showed no benefit and the group that did actually went backwards.

As believers are repeatedly asked, and always refuse to answer, why do you refuse to pray to God to grow a new limb on an amputee?
Your complaint about Dawkins being paid by the public for his books and presentations is simply weird. Why do you think his being paid is different from when other authors and public figures are paid for their work?

AJPhilips:

We’re making no progress here, are we? I’m wondering whether to end it all by agreeing to disagree. But let’s try just once more to see if we can stop going around in circles.

Maybe that word “truth” is the problem. You are insisting that “truth” can only be ascertained through logical empirical methods. Well, this is certainly the case in science. You suggest that I am referring to “religious truth”. I think I would avoid that term because it would probably mean “truth” in the form of propositional statements to which a proponent demands assent, and this is not at all what I am referring to.

<< You can arrive at the truth using the imagination and the unconscious, just as you can with guesses. But like I asked before, how do you test the reliability and the accuracy of those methods of arriving at the truth? >>

Firstly, we can use imagination, but the notion of “using” the unconscious is laughable! Investigate it, question it maybe ...but not “use”. The unconscious is not a tool: it is reality.

A group of people can look at the tree across the road and confidently agree that they are all observing “a tree” -- the same object. That’s empirical observation. So “testing” the existence of the tree would involve a simple yes or no from each of the observing group. If they agree, the existence of the tree is accepted.

What if our group of people observe the tree across the road intuitively rather than empirically? Person A says that’s the hope of the future world – cleaner air, continued supply of fruit and timber. Person B says it’s how I see myself – depending on mother earth, bending to the winds of fortune, reaching for something out in the universe etc. Person C says that’s our society – all growing from the same soil but branching in many different directions. Person D says that’s all of those things and more.

Continued...

AJPhilips (continuing):

These people are taking the tree as a symbol; their observations may not be amenable to a scientific truth-test, but each is meaningful and valuable to the observer because it represents a genuine aspect of her inner life. Each observer is being “true” to herself. And in being honest and sincere in their statements they are being “true” to each other.

A symbol is not a sign. A sign relates to its referent in one-to-one correspondence as when scientists measure phenomena as mathematical data. A symbol refers to multiple things simultaneously and so must be recognised and understood by a mode of cognition different from that used in science. The Myer-Briggs Personality Type Inventory calls it “intuition”, a name derived from the work of Carl Jung. Intuition deals with symbols, metaphors and myths.

Exploring the unconscious or spirituality requires “inner work”. Studying one’s own dreams and imaginings to uncover meaning, or analysing one’s own speech and behaviour to discover intentions or motives of which one was unaware at the time – these require much private perception, inner dialogue, and so on. We can “test” the conclusions reached by looking for internal consistencies, perhaps.

Other “testing” is possible. In outer life we can engage in dialogue with others about our observations with elaboration, mutual clarification, questioning, and reflection. We can compare and contrast our observations and interpretations with those of other people as expressed through books and other media. In doing so we may confirm to ourselves that our findings about our inner life were correct, or that they require correction and further investigation.

To me and very many others, faith is not so much about “beliefs” -- giving assent to propositions like “God exists.” Essentially it is following a path towards wholeness, or integrity of being, or “individuation” as Jung called it. I elaborated on all this in my last article, which you read. You seem to take “truth” as a transcendental concept or goal, whereas I and my fellow travellers know “truth” as the road we choose and the manner of the travelling.

Peace be with you.

Grateful,
re: Is it always true of a human-being who is capable of preventing harm that they are “malevolent” if they do not prevent harm? Are you saying that you cannot think of a single example? Think: “lesser of two evils”.

Human beings do not claim to be omnipotent; certainly not in the sense that 'people of the book' claim that their God is omnipotent.
A human being is doing the best he or she can if they make decisions that minimise harm.

But if there is a omnipotent god who allows a child to die prematurely of a brain tumour that god would be malevolent. Don't give me the nonsense that we cannot know the mind or the ways of that god.

I have stated elsewhere that I provide some voluntary care for a mother under 40 who has been diagnosed with a debilitating gene deficiency inherited from both parents. I am trying to minimise the harm to that woman and her children. The deficiency is an evolutionary fault which any competent omnipotent god, if existent, could have prevented. He or she didn't and is therefore malevolent so why call him god?

Glen C
If you were by yourself in a time of great need, or in some type of crisis, and you also knew that others knew that you were in some type of crisis, but they did not offer you their prayers or their hope that you could overcome your difficulties, then do you think this would be rather discouraging?

I would think it would be rather discouraging.

I also think that it is now a trendy thing, particularly for academics to malign religions and prayer, but so many of these people live with the safety net of the taxpayer’s purse.

Take away the taxpayer’s purse, and the situation would be quite different, and they would not be so ready to malign religion and prayer.

I other words, they are too well fed.

Foyle you write

'But if there is a omnipotent god who allows a child to die prematurely of a brain tumour that god would be malevolent. Don't give me the nonsense that we cannot know the mind or the ways of that god.'

You are pretty selective when you consider the millions of people who die due to promiscuity. Thousands of baby and children die of aids which was largely spread by the homosexual community and then by other immoral human behaviour. We do a pretty good job at violating every law of God that brings death

runner,
A just god would not have allowed the HIV virus to jump the species "gap" between green monkey, a reasonable close relative in evolutionary terms as proved by the jump, and the human race.

If your god was omnipotent and just he would promptly cure children suffering on account of any parental misdeed. Maybe you should just accept that we are alone and if each of us lived Socrates' examined life we would all be better off.

From your previous comments you appear to believe in authoritarian concepts of morals and ethics. I tend to find Christopher Hitchens' approach much more sensible, "The whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principles for ourselves."
(Christopher Hitchens - Letters to a Young Contrarian –Ch. 9 P58)

Foyle,
You dodged the key point: "Human-beings evolved from another species" is a proposition that cannot be refuted. This is your theory of evolution as applied to human beings. But if it cannot be refuted it is not a scientific theory.

Foyle you said:

<<If you really are interested in proof of human evolution read Robert Ardrey’s books for a start, ‘African Genesis’,’The Territorial Imperative’ and ‘The Hunting Hypothesis’. Ardrey's assembly of 24 lines of evidence that A. africanus was an armed hunter are particularly interesting and, to me, convincing.

I obtained from the University of Michigan site, a chart of the fossil record tracing the evolution of man from australopithecus afarensis through A. africanus, homo habilis, H. erectus, H.heidelbergensis to Homo sapiens.>>

Foyle, before considering the "facts" we need to get our methodology straightened out. You should be attempting to disprove the proposition: <<Human beings did not evolve from another species>>

Is a chart constructed on the premise that human-beings evolved from other species to be taken as proof of that premise? Without the evolutionary premise is it not conceivable that the same "facts" are consistent with an alternative view of our universe and the history of life on this planet? What makes these "facts" incompatible with the proposition that "Human-beings did not evolve from another species"?

Your attempt to derive those who dare to challenge evolutionary theory in describing them as "unsinkable rubber duckies" just supports what i said earlier: "Atheists are taking a position that avoids scrutiny through reason and evidence, betraying a fundamental lack of confidence in their own position."

Stick to reason and stop ducking the issue!

Grateful,
It is you who is ducking the issue. It is you who is ignoring factual evidence in your favouring of the scribblings of uneducated ancients with no knowledge of modern science and scientific method.

Of course evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by substantial amounts of evidence in the same way that the theory of gravity or Einstien's Relativity Theories are supported by evidence. Science relies on evidence to support each theory.

Newton's earlier motion theories were shown by evidence to comply with Einstein's Theory, but only at velocities that are a low fraction of the speed of light. Thousands of lines of evidence over more that 110years has shown that so far Einstein's Theories do not need modification.

The evolution of man theory could be refuted if verifiable evidence was found which supported a theory that mankind made a spontaneous appearance on the scene. Such evidence has never been found!

Thousands of fossils and the determination of the ages of those fossils has shown that the theory of evolution, as far as the evolution of man from earlier mammalian primates is concerned, is accurate. At most minor modifications will be necessary if new fossils come to light and such fossils fill in minor gaps in our current knowledge or add to our enlightment.

Hi again AJ. This may have to be my last response- not a copout, simply recognition of the fact that I have a ridiculously busy month ahead. And as I’m sure you’ll agree, discussions on OLO are, whilst interesting, not the number one priority in life.

<Yes and very convenient too that god only ever reveals himself in ways that can be explained by other more rational means.>

Firstly, you commit the fallacy of assuming that two explanations both can’t be true at the same time.

Secondly, often it’s the fact that people’s experiences CAN’T be explained by rational means that compels them to believe.

<Easy, meeting him face to face in a more visual and/or audible sense.>

If God just popped into existence every time a human asked him to, he’d be a genie in a bottle and many of the things that make life fruitful wouldn’t exist in the long run.

<There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus from an eye-witness;>

This is a hotly contested claim, like many things in history. There are good arguments which suggest that eye witnesses had a lot to do with the process.

<there is not a single event from his life that we can accurately date or provide any evidence for;>

We have documents from a short period after his life, attesting to events in his life. That is called historical evidence.

<we have no writings from him;>

Nor would we expect any.

< no carpentry works>.

Ditto.

<and the supernatural claims would be impossible to verify even if they did happen>

What sort of verification are you after?

You’re making serious epistemological errors- demanding unattainable evidence and more importantly, you’re asking for evidence that we wouldn’t expect to see, even if the hypothesis were true!

<your posts read like that of a person who has just finished reading the books of the fraud, Lee Strobel - who’s arguments, mind you, have all been thoroughly discredited.>

Where’s your evidence that he’s a fraud?

Strobel writes at a popular level and his aim is persuasion. He’s a journalist not a historian.

(continued)

<Trust me, I know them all.>

Have you read Michael Licona, NT Wright or William Lane Craig?

<Then you’re easily persuaded considering we have no idea who even wrote the gospels.>

There’s only one reason to doubt the uniform testimony of the early church and several reasons to believe it. But more to the point, authorship is irrelevant to the minimal facts approach.

<Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.>

Gross over simplification.

It all depends on your prior assumptions. If naturalism is true, miracles are impossible/exceedingly unlikely.

There are good reasons to doubt naturalism, there are good reasons for God’s existence and there’s a strong historical basis for Jesus claiming to be divine. Given those things, Jesus’s miracles and resurrection aren’t extraordinary at all. They’re likely.

Thus the minimal facts establish the events surrounding the claimed resurrection and make it a good candidate for explanation of the facts.

[<<The specific Christian version of the nature of humanity and the human condition is very accurate>>

How?]

It teaches that humans are fundamentally floored and that we are selfish at the very core. This contrasts with much of modern day psychology and humanistic beliefs.

Many people thought the world was headed for a better future and had to reconsider their beliefs in light of the horrific world wars of last century. From a Christian perspective, it wasn’t surprising.

[<<...and Jesus provides the perfect answer...>>

How?]

In an imperfect world, Jesus lived the perfect life. He reverses the natural order by teaching that the weak will be strong. Despite already setting the best example possible in his life on earth, he finished it all by sacrificing himself for others.

(continued)

[For starters, you haven’t yet come up with a rational reason for believing in god]

I’m persuaded by a personal experience or two that I interpret as God working in this world.

In terms of arguments, the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument strike me as plausible arguments for God’s existence, as laid out by William Lane Craig.

There are several things about the universe that make much more sense within a theistic, Christian framework than within a naturalistic framework: The beginning of the universe, the universe’s appearance of contingency, the fine tuning of the universe, the existence of rational inference, evidence for the miracle of Jesus’s resurrection, the whole beginning of Christianity as a historical event and the underlying mathematical order that allows science to function.

C Stephen Evans makes the following argument which is a reasonable one: Natural signs certainly seem to exist that lead people to believe in God. They provide widely accessible signs that point to God, yet they are easily resistible, which is exactly what one would expect to see if there is a God who exists and makes it possible to hold some sort of natural knowledge of him: Cosmic Wonder, beneficial order and the moral realm/moral awareness.

(I recently read this and highly recommend it http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Signs-Knowledge-God-Arguments/dp/0199217165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296876586&sr=8-1)

<Particularly since I have no idea of what you’re talking about and neither does Google (http://tinyurl.com/5uxe82d), nor any atheist I've asked in the last couple of days.}

Sorry- I didn’t explain that well.

Amongst the left-wing intellectual/academic elite, belief in God is seen as worthy or mockery rather than serious contemplation. Social factor.

Regarding moral accountability: Sexual restraints ARE rational. Don’t trust me on this; consult history.

I see you ignored my major point on this topic- that none of these arguments contribute much to proving the truth or otherwise of God or religions.

(continued)

<They get emotional because they are opposed to the insanity and destructiveness of religion>.

Insanity and destruction? Yes, sometimes, of course.

But if you suggest that the net value of religion to society is negative, I would have to get you a straight jacket.

Religious people are happier and healthier. They give much, much more time and money to charitable causes and they are more likely to be doctors, teaches and nurses. All these things have been proven by studies. Not that I need them to either- I know them to be true from my own circle of influence.

The vast majority of charities are either religious or were started religious and gave up the name for political correctness sake; but, their history remains.

This week a study showed that 12 churches in the Philadephia area combined to contribute over $50 million a year in economic benefits to the communities they serve. http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-01/news/27092987_1_partners-for-sacred-places-congregations-churches

Sociologically, religion is good. Only ignorant new atheist authors and their internet disciples could suggest otherwise.

<Theism does not explain anything, it simply asserts.>

Atheists often say this but I’ve never seen a good argument to support it. Can you elaborate?

re: The Historicity of Jesus:

Atheist historian Michael Grant:

“To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

See these links, they won’t take up much of your time and they are very informative on the issue:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/01/christ-myth-wont-die.html
Thanks for the discussion.

Foyle, you write:
<<Of course evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by substantial amounts of evidence in the same way that the theory of gravity or Einstien's Relativity Theories are supported by evidence. Science relies on evidence to support each theory.

Newton's earlier motion theories were shown by evidence to comply with Einstein's Theory, but only at velocities that are a low fraction of the speed of light. Thousands of lines of evidence over more that 110years has shown that so far Einstein's Theories do not need modification.

The evolution of man theory could be refuted if verifiable evidence was found which supported a theory that mankind made a spontaneous appearance on the scene. Such evidence has never been found!>>

Foyle,

Please consider the following statement of Newton's law of gravety from Wikipaedia.

<<Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.>>

Please explain how you draw the analogy between this law and the proposition that "Human beings evolved from another species"

cont...

cont..

Secondly, consider the following example. Suppose scientists initially claim that fossels A and B fit in to the evolutionary chain that has lead to human beings. Then suppose that due to more accurate dating technology it was found that change was much more rapid than the traditional Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection would warrant. The response of someone who accepts the premise that "human beings evolved form other specieis" would be to say the fossels do not constitute evidence. So when one hears "all the evidence" supports your theory, this type of instance would be excluded from "all the evidence". Your theory becomes irrefutable.

Foyle you say:
<< The evolution of man theory could be refuted if verifiable evidence was found which supported a theory that mankind made a spontaneous appearance on the scene. Such evidence has never been found!>>

Scientisits who accept the evolutionary hypothesis would dismiss any such evidence because it would not be consistent with the premise the "human beings evolved from another species". The methodology does not permit refutation.

<<It is you who is ducking the issue. It is you who is ignoring factual evidence in your favouring of the scribblings of uneducated ancients with no knowledge of modern science and scientific method.>>

Clearly you are not confortable when someone is not willing to uncitically accept your premise that "human beings evolved from another species". Take care not to fall into a fundamentalist mentality. Stick to reason.

Hi Trav.
"<we have no writings from him;>

Nor would we expect any."
Why not? There are more than a few written works from and before that time; written by mere humans with no supernatural advantages. Why is it unreasonable for Jesus? Mohammed had no problems.

"< no carpentry works>."

"Ditto."
Ditto indeed. Again, there are works of carpentry dating back to and before the time of Jesus, again without supernatural advantages.
Imagine how much easier it would be for sceptics to believe, if there was just a little bit of tangible evidence.
Why would a God deliberately withhold evidence of it's own existence, if belief is so crucial to everlasting life?
To those theists who believe birth control is wicked, what say you about this apparently quite deliberate population control, of the after life?

Grateful,
Science works on "supposes". That is what an hypothesis is. But science also works on evidence. That is what I was pointing out with the acceptance of Newton's laws of motion as only the low velocity case of Einstein's Relativity.

The date of each fossil found, to be accepted as accurate, has to be verified by several separate dating techniques carried our by separate laboratories. Those methods include the well known half-life decay rates of specific radioactive elements. Fission tracking and nuclear decay dating did lead to changes in the dating of fossils found earlier than the late sixties but the fossils were shown to be older than first thought.

Science is older than than the Christian or Moslem religions.

I will close my comments on this matter with a quote from the well known physicist Bob Park who writes an email each week called "What's New". I read that email each week because it has real value to the future of the human race. The scribes of old should be irrelevant to any thinking person and usually are. Park wrote;

"On May 28, 585 B.C. the swath of a total solar eclipse passed over the Greek island of Miletus. The early Greek philosopher, Thales of Miletus, alone understood what was happening. The world's first recorded freethinker, Thales rejected all supernatural explanations, and used the occasion to state the first law of science:

every observable effect has a physical cause.

The 585 B.C. eclipse is now taken to mark the birth of science, and Thales is honoured as the father.

What troubles would be spared the world if the education of every child began with causality."
I say amen to that!

Foyle:
<<every observable effect has a physical cause.>>
Why any such law should exist in the first place is the question science CANNOT answer. But, as you wish, let's move on.

Returning to Epicurus, you stated:

<<The evidence that would satisfy me that a god exists would be if the evidence showed that the Epicurus long aphorism is wrong . In case you do not know it it is,

If god is willing to prevent evil but unable
Then he is not omnipotent
If he is able but not willing he is malevolent
If he is both able and willing
Whence cometh evil
If neither able nor willing
Why call him god.>>

My son was once playing with an open fire BBQ. I knew in all probability he would burn his fingers, I could have stopped him but did not. He burned his finger. Does that necessarily make me a malevolent father?

I’m approaching an intersection and I notice an old lady running from behide to cross the road. I trip her up and she falls flat on her face breaking her nose. Does that necessarily make me a malevolent person?

I come across someone lying on the beach. I punch the person in the chest breaking several ribs. Does that make me a malevolent person?

In each of these examples I have ommitted the intended consequence of my actions but you are intelligent enough to realise that the answer as to whether my actions are malevalent or not depends on the intended consequence.

Grateful,
You have fallen back to the idiotic 'we cannot know the mind of god defence'. In an earlier post I warned against that defence.

You are in effect agreeing with the idea that god permitted the HIV virus to jump the species barrier to punish humans, many of whom are innocent victims of someone else's behaviour, such as the virtuous wives and of promiscuous men.

I would back my ethics against yours or your god's any day.

Agree Grim I was being a little cheeky about the need for atheism. There is no such thing as a faireist because people do not believe in fairies.

People come to their spirituality in different ways. For me it boils down to connections with people (not deities) and with the natural wonders that sustain us. I know many people of 'faith' who also value those connections but come to it from a different perspective - kinda like crabsy's approach but he defines his 'intuitive' connection as 'God' (as a simple interpretation). Many people of faith are redefining God which understandably sticks in the craw of many who cling to the creationist perspective and who hold little value in the humanity of what science has to offer (just for eg.).

It is an evolving process - resistance to 're-evaluation' is not new. Witchburnings were long ago deemed inhumane and plainly criminal and the earth we now know is not flat. Maybe one day we will even know the 'truth' about climate change.

Crabsy,

Obviously I wasn’t referring to that version of ‘truth’. I was talking about ‘truth’ as in conformity to reality or actuality. You made a positive claim to knowledge earlier in this thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11510#196766) stating that god was “real” and claiming the existence of a “spiritual reality” which, according to what you’ve said, you’d have no reliable way of distinguishing between god and this spiritual reality and something that isn’t real.

The above sounds very objective, but as soon as I offered my criticism, you switched to the more subjective ‘truthfulness’ of one’s beliefs. Perhaps I’m wrong here and god, to you, is merely a subjective idea, but then why create confusion by calling it “god”?

Furthermore, the word ‘god’ carries with it some baggage because of its historical use. You don’t get to use the word when it suits you, but then just dump the baggage when it’s convenient in an apparent attempt at conflation of truth and blurring of reality.

I hope this response bares more relevance.

Trav,

If you’re too busy to continue then that may not be such a bad thing, because if you continue to misconstrue what I say in order to conjure up fallacies that aren’t there and errors in reasoning that don’t exist, then we could be here for a very long time.

Firstly, how on Earth can two explanations be true at the same time? And if every divine revelation has a more rational explanation (and I challenge you to find a verifiable example that doesn’t), then god has failed at the most basic test of communication.

Secondly, what part “meeting him face to face” necessarily means “appearing at our every beck and call”?

Thirdly, you accuse me of epistemological errors when my point was exactly the same as yours with the added conclusion that therefore, there is no good reason to believe in a divine Jesus.

Speaking of Jesus, eye-witnesses may have had something to do with the accounts for his alleged life, but that’s beside my point. Either way, the arguments for this are not “good”.

Continued...

...Continued

The documents (from decades after his life mind you) do not accurately date any event in his life.

As for writings or carpentry works, well, I don’t know about you, but if I was being threatened with infinite punishment for finite crimes, then I’d expect a heck of a lot more those even.

Yet another colossal failure of communication.

Thanks for your Christ myth links. I’ve already read them once before and they’re actually refuting the idea that Jesus never even existed as an historical person (albeit with the mistaken belief that it somehow lends credence to the divine Jesus), not that Jesus existed as the son of any god.

Strobel is a fraud because he portrays himself as a sceptic who honestly and objectively considered the evidence for Jesus and came to the conclusion that he did exist as the son of god. Yet his arguments are so poor that they’re only convincing to someone who has already made-up their mind.

As for William Lane Craig et al, if I hadn’t known better, I’d think you were some atheist pulling my leg because you’ve listed some of the biggest dills in apologetics. Here’s just one example of the intellectual rigor of Craig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9DLcTfYBcQ

As for his cosmological argument, you’d have to have been living in a bubble to not realise just how thoroughly and repetitively it’s been debunked. It is a self-refuting, special-pleading argument that falls down at its premise and the YouTube link above explains just how flawed Craig’s cosmological knowledge, that the premise of his argument hinges on, is.

Besides which, considering how screwed-up one’s reasoning skills need to be in order to be a creationist in the first place, offering the opinions of people like Craig, Plantinga and Overman does nothing to help your case. How could you possibly expect me to take these guys seriously?

In regards to the ‘minimal facts approach’, there is no good reason to suggest that any of it is proof considering every supernatural phenomenon that has ever been investigated was found to have a rational and naturalistic explanation.

Continued...

...Continued

That being said, nothing has ever made more sense in a theistic framework - ever - and the only examples you can give that (at first) appear to make more sense, are fallacious god-of-the gap arguments from ignorance.

Extraordinary claims continue to require extraordinary evidence regardless of our prior assumptions because our prior assumptions have no baring on the truth of something. It matters not what we ‘assume’ or ‘believe’, but what we ‘know’. We investigate things, by measuring them against what we already know about reality, not what we assume. So my point still stands.

On to Christianity accurately reflecting humanity and the human condition. You first point out that we’re flawed and selfish, but for this to bare any weight, you’d have to describe and demonstrate how this is any different to what people would be like if Christianity were not true. Do you think we would have all been perfect?

And as for your explanations as to why Jesus provides the “perfect answer” (forgetting for a moment that they are all unfounded), your first claim actually contradicts the last. There is nothing “perfect” about sacrificing one’s self just so we can all be forgiven for what would have ultimately been god’s fault to begin with.

Given what you’ve clarified in regards to those who tend to make-up the “academic elite”, your comparison of that with people taking up the predominant religion in their culture, is pure nonsense. For starters, only a miniscule fraction of atheists fit this description.

You’re right though, none of this goes to saying whether or not religions are true, but it is just one example of how the reasoning applied, when one takes up a religion, is not rational.

Getting back to misconstruing what I’ve said for a moment, I didn’t say that all sexual restraints are immoral or irrational. What I was saying was that Christianity’s criteria by which we are expected to live (in this regard) are wrong (most of them anyway).

Religions need sex to propagate themselves.

Continued...

...Continued

Christianity, for example, is like a virus in that it uses sex (something that we’re inevitably going to do) by setting up immoral and irrational criteria by which to live so that when those criteria are inevitably broken - even if it’s just lustful thoughts - the host needs to turn to the religion to for forgiveness and peace of mind again.

This is yet another reason, on top of the one I mentioned on another thread recently, as to why Christianity is immoral.

Yes, the net value of religion in society is negative. If you only look at Western cultures, then on the surface you appear to have a point, but worldwide you’d be hard-pressed arguing otherwise.

Let’s not forget too that even in the Western world (a collection of countries, many of whom have secular ideals to thank for dragging them kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity, in spite of their religion) the religiosity of a country directly coincides with the crime, murder, rape, suicide, teenage pregnancies, abortions, etc.

The theists may be happier and healthier, but they don’t seem to make their societies on the whole any happier or healthier.

Sociologically, religion is not good.

I can go much further into this, but it could take another four posts.

Mentioning charities is hardly fair though. Religious charities always have ulterior motives: PR, heavenly credit rating, a shred of relevance in a world where they are no longer relevant and of course, conversion -potentially a negative since our beliefs inform our actions and no-one should ever inform their actions with unfounded nonsense.

<<Atheists often say [that theism does not explain anything and only asserts] but I’ve never seen a good argument to support it. Can you elaborate?>>

Not sure how to elaborate. Religion explains nothing, yet it asserts a whole lotta stuff as if no evidence or reasoning were necessary. God just says so.

Try naming one explanation theism has provided us with that could not have possibly been explained through secular means.

So anyway, what arguments have you actually heard?

AJ Phillips,

It's always a pleasure being privy to your wonderfully lucid yet workmanlike reasoning.
One day I'll have to start a thread criticising scientism (I think I used that term first here), as the only defence I can think of for your quarry here is that it is hunted outside its natural theological habitat. The new all-conquering paradigm is yet to have its illusions shattered (though there are already fractures).
I'm half persuaded that there is a greater reality than that which our tiny empiricist perspective discloses, but that's just an idle hobby.
The real business of life is the here and now as the senses reveal it to be. Ergo I play the man and not "The Man".

Having said that, I recommend a listen to this, aired on the Science Show recently:
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/scienceshow&d=rn/scienceshow/audio&r=ssw-2011-01-15.ram&w=ssw-2011-01-15.asx&t=Saturday%2015%20January%202011&p=1

Sorry about the link; forgotten how to shorten it.
It's all about words, and lets not forget that our reasonign is couched in words--language games.
I'm fascinated by the account described of wordless realities. There does seem to be an ontological essence..

AJ,

I did promise that I wouldn’t be continuing our conversation but you’ve really caught me by surprise with your last lot of posts.

I believe it’s possible for two reasonable people to disagree on an issue. This happens a lot- for example at work this morning I was listening to some people debating the flood levy, and I found myself strongly disagreeing with the person who was dominating the conversation. Nonetheless I don’t think they were being “unreasonable”- it’s just that the two opposing sides have different ideas about what is really important and how to implement it. This is a generally applicable idea- two reasonable people can disagree on things.

Until your last lot of posts yesterday, I had thought you were a reasonable person, despite disagreeing with me.

Brushing off William Lane Craig with a wave of the hand “Oh he’s a dill, his reasoning is clearly impaired, how can you take him seriously?”, does NOT constitute an argument. It’s called an ad hominem attack. The man has two phd’s and has probably forgotten more than you’ll ever know. If you don’t understand the arguments/are ignorant of them/aren’t sure how to respond it’s ok to admit this- there’s plenty of things you don’t know and there’s plenty of things I don’t know- we are merely everyday people discussing an important issue over OLO.

This was one example of many. If you’re going to constantly ignore the best arguments I make, make factual errors, make ad hominem attacks, throw in red herrings and respond to something other than what I’ve said (when I have CLEARLY stated my views) then I’m not sure why I bother with arguing over the internet. At least in person I’d have some idea of your integrity/seriousness/willingness to discuss.

Clearly that was a good decision to end the discussion from my side of things (for all practical purposes) with my last post, since it’s now clear that you are more interested in disrespectful, dogmatic debate than thoughtful discussion.

Cheer

Cheers*

Squeers,

Thanks for your kind words, I’m humbled by them. Thanks too for the link, fascinate stuff there, although I’m only half way through it so far.

I’d be curious to see how a thread on scientism would go. What constitutes scientism seems to vary quite a bit depending on who you ask and their level of hostility towards it.

Trav,

I too thought this was going fine until your last post where you descend in to a nasty attack in which you accuse me of all sorts of things that you not only fail to provide examples of, but that you know are not even true to begin with.

<<Brushing off William Lane Craig with a wave of the hand “Oh he’s a dill, his reasoning is clearly impaired, how can you take him seriously?”, does NOT constitute an argument.>>

Absolutely.

Which is why I provided you with a link to a video that debunks the first premise of Craig’s re-hashed, dusted-off old cosmological argument so that you could see the reasoning behind my claims.

Did you bother to watch the video?

It doesn’t sound like it.

<<It’s called an ad hominem attack.>>

No, it’s not.

An ad hominem attack is an attempt to divert attention from the issue by attacking the person instead of their arguments.

That being said, the only ad hominem attack here is in your last post with your questioning of my integrity and seriousness and accusing me of being unreasonable and dogmatic without actually backing your claims with any reasoning or examples.

You do realise that others can just read what I’ve said and verify if what you’re saying is accurate, don’t you?

<<The man has two phd’s and has probably forgotten more than you’ll ever know.>>

Precisely why he should know better.

Craig demonstrates, in the video I linked to, that he doesn’t even understand the concept of ‘I’ - something a person with a PHD in philosophy should certainly understand.

Again, did you even bother to watch the video?

<<If you don’t understand the arguments/are ignorant of them/aren’t sure how to respond it’s ok to admit this...>>

I certainly admit when I don’t understand something. I did so earlier when I told you that I had no idea of what you meant by the “young university group-think bubble”.

I know and understand very well what Craig’s arguments are as well as how to debunk them. All five “proofs” in fact.

Continued...

...Continued

I’m sorry that I didn’t have the posting allowance to go into detail as to why the cosmological argument fails - that’s why I gave posted the link to at least give you a taste - I could go in to them all if you’d like but it would probably be quicker if you just Google it all. There’s nothing I could say that’s not already out there.

It’s like I said, his cosmological argument (in fact, all of his arguments) have been debunked thoroughly and repetitively, so there’s certainly no shortage of websites.

<<...there’s plenty of things you don’t know and there’s plenty of things I don’t know- we are merely everyday people discussing an important issue over OLO. This was one example of many.>>

Well, since we’ve now cleared this up by showing that it wasn’t, could you please give me some examples of where I:

-ignore you’re best arguments;
-make factual errors;
-use ad hominem attacks; [We can check this one off now actually]
-respond to something other than what you’ve said.

That first one is particularly offensive given the time I invested in taking great care to cover every point of yours as accurately and as thoroughly as I possibly could within the word limits.

<<Clearly that was a good decision to end the discussion from my side of things (for all practical purposes) with my last post, since it’s now clear that you are more interested in disrespectful, dogmatic debate than thoughtful discussion.>>

Could you provide me with some examples of where I have been dogmatic?

I apologise if I come across as “disrespectful”, but I have a habit of telling it how it is, so a better defence would be to prove me wrong rather than simply crying foul.

It sounds to me like “thoughtful discussion”, to you, means discussion without mentioning something if it might offend someone, regardless of whether or not it’s true.

At the end of the day though, Trav, you haven’t actually demonstrated that any of what I have said is wrong, just that you don’t like it.

Foyle, you state:

<<Grateful,
You have fallen back to the idiotic 'we cannot know the mind of god defence'. In an earlier post I warned against that defence.

You are in effect agreeing with the idea that god permitted the HIV virus to jump the species barrier to punish humans, many of whom are innocent victims of someone else's behaviour, such as the virtuous wives and of promiscuous men.

I would back my ethics against yours or your god's any day.>>

It seems you have given up on reason, if the best you can do in responding to my post is to verbal me and erect a strawman for you to knock down. Nothing constructive can come from this approach.

As for ethics, cann't you see that your post is itself an example of poor etiquette and unethical (at least in my religion). You are betting on a loser, bro! I'll leave you to it.

cont..

Foyle,
With the examples I gave I refuted Epicurus’ aphorism by refuting the proposition that “If he is able but not willing he is malevolent”.

In the case of HIV, the evil is committed by human beings, although as with everything it is only by the will of Allah. In the Qur’aan it states that the purpose of creating mankind is that we worship Him, and WE DO SO WILLINGLY (there is compulsion in religion). HIV is a consequence of not worshipping Allah, of ignoring His guidance, firstly in having sex outside of marriage and secondly not taking measures that would prevent harm to others. Our creator has given each of us the choice.

And why just speak about HIV? Why not alcohol or other drugs, gambling and so forth, all of which is resulting in enormous harm to innocents. The harm is due to people NOT following Allah's guidance.

If we as a society really cared about innocents then the harm caused by OUR actions would be taken as a sign that we need to correct our ways. What will it take before we see reason?

salaams

Grateful,
Have you looked at any of the evidence I suggested, Robert Ardrey's books for example?

In 1993 a very well respected ABC broadcaster, Terry Lane, published a book with the cheeky title "God; The Interview". The ABC republished it with a new introduction in 2004. The following is an extract from that introduction;
"It was not my intention to be a sort of anti-evangelist for atheism so much as to set out the intellectual process by which I moved from believer to unbeliever over the years. Now, as I re-read that conversation with the Almighty, I can't help thinking that it might have been better if it had a more evangelical edge.

After all, if there is one thing we have learned in the last ten years it is that as long as religion persists and flourishes just so long we will live in peril.

Ten years ago it didn't seem important to pay too much attention to Islam. Devotion to Allah was too exotic and, frankly, primitive to deserve serious consideration. Islam is a religion without a Reformation, a Renaissance or an Enlightenment, so picking an intellectual argument with it is akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

We post-Christian, post-Enlightenment European rationalists don't have a common starting point with a world view that has never been informed by the equivalent of a Voltaire or a Hume.

In 1739 David Hume declared: 'Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous'.
Right now we are living through a period in which the murderous nature of religion it is only too apparent".

I assume he is talking about 9/11 which was followed by the Spanish train explosions, and the UK subway and bus explosions (indiscriminate abominal massacres all) and who committed those atrocities.

If you were familiar with Hume, Voltaire, Bertram Russell and a few other great modern thinkers, it would be worth arguing with you.

Foyle,

Baiting once more. Reason with me, don't degrade yourself by resorting to insults.

<<If you were familiar with Hume, Voltaire, Bertram Russell and a few other great modern thinkers, it would be worth arguing with you.>>

No need for such silly, pompous remarks.

Your quote from Terry Lane illustrates how ignorant a person "familiar with Hume, Voltaire, Bertram Russell and a few other great modern thinkers" can be.

The "reformers" of Islam are the Wahhabi's, so believe me, you do not want a reformed Islam!

Contrast Terry Lane,s description with someone who has done a bit more research: Carly Fiorina, as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. The follow excert is taken from a speach delivered on 26 September 2001 in Minneapolis, Minnesota at a conference whose theme was: "TECHNOLOGY, BUSINESS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE: WHAT'S NEXT" http://www.islamfortoday.com/hewlettpackard.htm

<<There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.

It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins.

One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.

And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.

Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things.

cont....

cont..

When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others.

While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.

Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers like Rumi challenged our notions of self and truth. Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.

And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population–that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions.

This kind of enlightened leadership — leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity and courage — led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.

In dark and serious times like this, we must affirm our commitment to building societies and institutions that aspire to this kind of greatness. More than ever, we must focus on the importance of leadership– bold acts of leadership and decidedly personal acts of leadership.>>

Hi Grateful, I'm curious.
"In the Qur’aan it states that the purpose of creating mankind is that we worship Him, and WE DO SO WILLINGLY (there is compulsion in religion)"
What would you think of a person who would only suffer the company of toadying, obsequious little yes men?

Good question, Grim.

It's not really even a god if it experiences such petty human emotions  like egotism and insecurity now, is it?

A self-debunking god. 

Here's an interesting little question to ponder...

What's more powerful:

A god who can create worlds and save people from their sins, or;

A god who can create worlds and save people from their sins while simultaneously not existing?

Is say it's the latter.

So, god doesn't exist. 

<<What would you think of a person who would only suffer the company of toadying, obsequious little yes men? >>

Last friday's sermon by Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad (Cambridge)relating the the events in Tunis and Eygpt and the role of religious leaders will provide examples contrasting those who submit to Allah (at great personal sacrifice) and those who submit to a lower authority (http://cambridgekhutbasetc.blogspot.com/2011/02/enjoing-good-forbidding-wrong.html). Take your pick as to who you would prefer to be with.

Here is the introduction:

<<Friday sermon (jum'ah khutbah) - Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad - 4 February 2011 - Cambridge - 23 mins 32 secs

In the past days and weeks people all over the world have been following the events in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere. The people's struggle for freedom inspires hope, but the dangers they face provoke fear and anxiety. Many question the role of religion in such difficult circumstances. Some fear mixing politics and religion. Others criticise the absence of leadership from religious figures, and say the ulema are out-dated and irrelevant. In this sermon, Sheikh Abdal Hakim provides a timely reminder of the fundamental importance for our leaders of 'enjoining the good and forbidding the bad' (amr bi-l-ma'ruf wa-nahy 'an al-muhkar) - so important that Imam al-Ghazali called it 'the greatest pillar' (al-rukn al-'azim) of the religion.

Among the many great scholars and saints who have discharged this weighty responsibility, despite the grave threat to their livelihoods and even their lives, Sheikh Abdal Hakim mentions Hasan Kaimi Baba of Bosnia, Sheikh al-Hasan al-Yusi of Morocco and Sheikh Amadou Bamba of Senegal. They were true followers of the Prophetic example, because they resisted injustice and oppression. May Allah grant our leaders, our scholars and us ourselves the determination to do the same, and may He in His All-Encompassing Mercy guide and protect the people of Tunisia, Egypt and all over the world wherever they face cruelty, corruption and repression.

Ya Qawiyyu ya Matin ikfi sharr al-zalimin, aslah Allah umur al-muslimin, sarraf Allah sharr al-mu'dhin.>>

salaams

grateful,

And can you name some countries where Islam has great influence has a society where women are equal, lesbians and gays are not shunned, apostasy is accepted and is prosperous and democratic.

Please, let’s not go down the ‘Islam has not been tried properly’ path. That is nonsense.

Which country do you live in?

David

<<grateful,

And can you name some countries where Islam has great influence has a society where women are equal, lesbians and gays are not shunned, apostasy is accepted and is prosperous and democratic.

Please, let’s not go down the ‘Islam has not been tried properly’ path. That is nonsense.

Which country do you live in?

David>>

Way off topic! I sense a desperate bid to rescue a mate.

As head of the Atheist foundation why not respond to the post which is on topic . Here it is, reproduced in full:

<<Foyle,
With the examples I gave I refuted Epicurus’ aphorism by refuting the proposition that “If he is able but not willing he is malevolent”.

In the case of HIV, the evil is committed by human beings, although as with everything it is only by the will of Allah. In the Qur’aan it states that the purpose of creating mankind is that we worship Him, and WE DO SO WILLINGLY (there is compulsion in religion). HIV is a consequence of not worshipping Allah, of ignoring His guidance, firstly in having sex outside of marriage and secondly not taking measures that would prevent harm to others. Our creator has given each of us the choice.

And why just speak about HIV? Why not alcohol or other drugs, gambling and so forth, all of which is resulting in enormous harm to innocents. The harm is due to people NOT following Allah's guidance.

If we as a society really cared about innocents then the harm caused by OUR actions would be taken as a sign that we need to correct our ways. What will it take before we see reason?>>

I have said earlier I have no fear of exposing my faith to critical scrutiny, provided it is through use of reason. Foyle's departure from reason through insult and denigration (through the word's of someone who is clearly ignorant when it comes to Islam) indicate a lack of confidence in his own position. et toi?

grateful,

I have asked you some very simple questions that are on topic not that they have to be BTW.

Of course, as was predictable, you have failed to respond to them.

You say Allah has the answers to everything, apparently. Then I am asking where is it demonstrated that this works. Very uncomplicated.

Please do me the favour of answering. Thank you.

David

Grateful,
re Epicurus
You missed much of my point. The HIV virus jumped between the green monkey and humans because we are closely related mammals even though our ways parted from a common ancestor millions of years ago. If there was an omnipotent god he could have designed us sufficiently different from other species that such events didn't happen.

You didn't disprove Epicurus with your examples. For example why did you break the hypothetical women's nose? Wasn't it because a supposedly omnipotent god didn't take a suitable alternative action or in reality isn't omnipotent and really doesn't exist.

Why do I not debate your supposed evidence? It is because I have read real evidence from modern scientists and nothing you have said is supported by evaluated, supported, evidence.

What sort of god offers virgins as a reward? Bit hard on the virgins!!
Don't they have a right to an independent fulfilled life instead of waiting around to be raped by terrorists who murdered about 100 Australian in the WTC 9/11 atrocity. Also many innocent Muslims were victims that day.

The Muslim caliphate may have had a hey-day while the Western World went through its dark ages but as Terry Lane pointed out, luckily we had our thinkers such as Copernicus, Gallilo, Adam Smith, Hume, Voltaire, and Russell etc. (Adam Smith on ethics rather than economics)

You need to read Hume, Russell, Darwin, Ardrey et al for yourself and broaden your outlook and get out of your dark ages outlook.

David wrote:
<<You say Allah has the answers to everything, apparently. Then I am asking where is it demonstrated that this works. Very uncomplicated>>

In the heart's of Muslims

Of the Day of Judgement Allah says: "The day on which neither wealth nor sons will be of any use, except for whoever brings to Allah a sound heart. (26:88-89)

Foyle, you said
<<You missed much of my point. The HIV virus jumped between the green monkey and humans because we are closely related mammals even though our ways parted from a common ancestor millions of years ago. If there was an omnipotent god he could have designed us sufficiently different from other species that such events didn't happen. >>

There is a point that you are missing. If we had followed Allah’s guidance the virus would not have spread. Those of us who do follow His guidance are not at risk of contracting HIV. That is the lesson i draw from the spread of HIV. Similar lessons can be drawn from the increase in alcohol and drug abuse and sexual violence and complete disrespect for woman through their depiction as objections of sexual gatification. From the Muslim countries the lessons are different and related to the disgrace/humiliation meted out to those who turn away from the deen (Islamic way of life).

Hi Grateful,
what about David Attenborough's example, of a parasite that burrows into eyeballs, causing excruciating pain and eventual blindness.
Apparently, it is most prevalent in African countries, I believe, and so far has shown no preferences regarding a victim's religion.
Would you describe this as an example of a loving, merciful creator?

grateful,

“In the hearts of Muslims” is subjective tripe. This is argument without proving the premise.

Your apologetics for Islam are nothing new. Muslims, to a greater extent than people of many other religions, compartmentalise narrow topics to disallow contradistinctions to surface. Sorry to let you know, but nothing is “off topic” when evaluating propositions to see if they are valid or not.

The AFA receives many emails from Muslims and they all follow the same pattern. Why not write to us and allow one of our Islamic experts to respond.

Just the questions I have posed point out the ludicrousness of entertaining the notion that an alleged god whose words are responsible, should have any sway on anything to do with a sane, just and equitable society. Unsustainable past glories have gone, only religious oppression remains.

No one worships a tyrant god because they want to. Fear of reprisal or expectation of reward by the tyrant god is not freewill. Such is the power of cultural indoctrination.

You are not a special person ordained by the alleged Allah to promote his alleged ideas. You don’t differ from the rest of humanity, except in delusion. The idea of supernatural realms/deities is all in your head, possibly implanted in impressionable youth.

My suggestion, which no doubt will be unheeded, is to get your head out of the Koran and think for yourself.

An alleged god did not influence the Koran; it is the work of humans. Unless you have some universally accepted evidence proving conclusively that, I’m wrong about this.

Please answer the initial questions I posed and include a couple left out. How are Atheists and Atheist organisations treated in Islamic countries? Can you name the said Atheist organisations for me? Thanks.

David

Foyle you wrote:

<<You didn't disprove Epicurus with your examples. For example why did you break the hypothetical women's nose? Wasn't it because a supposedly omnipotent god didn't take a suitable alternative action or in reality isn't omnipotent and really doesn't exist.>>

Gratitude and patience are key attributes of the believer. It follows from what i said before that in fact for the believer problems/trials/tribulations are a mercy from Allah. Allah wants of us that we trust/rely/worship Him (and Him alone) and we do so willingly (without compulsion). Without problems very few of us, if anyone, would be inclined towards Him. We would simply attribute our good fortune to ourselves (ring a bell?)
Consider the following sayings of the Prophet
“God keeps testing the person whom he loves, until that person has no more sins to be forgiven for. (Narrated by Imam Bukhari)
“Strange are the ways of a believer, for there is good in every affair of his; for if he has an occasion to feel delight, he thanks (God); thus there is good in it. And if faces troubles and hardship, he endures it patiently; there is good in it for him.”(Narrated by Imam Muslim).

For Muslims there is a Hereafter and we rely on Allah’s mercy that we enter Paradise. We are also told that our time in this life is a test and when we do actually die those things which appear so durable (the houses, cars, yachts, etc) will be left behind. What we will take with us will be the most ephemeral of things: our deeds, good and bad.
cont..

cont..

So for the lady who broke her nose (it was an accident by the way), yes of course Allah could have prevented it. But can it be said that He is malevolent. No, for the lady it is an opportunity for her to respond with patience and reflect on the fact that if I hadn’t of knocked her to the ground she would have crossed the road and been hit by a truck! If my intention was to prevent her from being hit then it would have been a good deed. If my intention was to hit an old lady then it would have been a bad deed. Nevertheless, irrespective of my intention the test for the lady would be whether she was grateful towards Allah for saving her life and patient in adversity.

For the believer illness and adversity are always opportunities. This world can be likened to an “exam room” and we are willing to put up with the nerves and writers cramp for what it means after the invigilator has declared “pens down”.

AJ,

My apologies for offending you with my claim that you ignored my best arguments. It wasn’t my intention to offend.

As I posted last weekend, personal time constraints prevent me from making any more substantive posts here. I was happy for you to have the last word; I only responded again to point out my view that you didn’t do justice to the arguments that I’d made.

Perhaps it is telling that we have both accused each other of similar things, perhaps there are inherent problems with the format we’re using. Either way, thanks again for the discussion

David Nicholls, the president of the AFA has made a reappearance. I’m not here to make a substantive post (as would be necessary to respond to AJ) rather I only want to cut and paste some previous discussion:

David said this in response to grateful:

<An alleged god did not influence the Koran; it is the work of humans. Unless you have some universally accepted evidence proving conclusively that, I’m wrong about this.>

Previously in this thread, whilst responding to me, David described his view of “universally accepted evidence”:

<BTW, universally accepted evidence is somewhat similar to the law of gravity where every one on the planet who understands it has the same view.>

My response was as follows:

{But there is very little evidence about anything that everyone interprets in exactly the same way. If you chose to base your life on “universally accepted evidence”, using your definition then your life would become unliveable. There is no universally accepted evidence for which insurance policy you take out, there’s no universally accepted evidence for where you should take a holiday and there’s no universally accepted evidence which makes it clear who you should marry. Everyone on the planet who understands the evidences on these issues do not always agree about these things. Someone might see the same evidence and get a different insurance policy, or visit a different place, or someone might be in an almost identical relationship and choose not to get married because they are less willing to commit. So if most things in life come without universally accepted evidence, then why should worldviews and religious beliefs be any different?

In other words, it sounds to me like you want certainty, but uncertainty is an inevitable part of being human}

There is no “universally accepted evidence” which proves conclusively that suicide bombers caused the events of 9/11.

There is no “universally accepted evidence” which proves conclusively that the first moon landing occurred in 1969.

There is no “universally accepted evidence” which proves conclusively that the holocaust actually happened.

Why? Because there are people “on the planet” who “understand the evidence” but who hold to different views about these issues.

If we hold to David’s view of requiring “universally accepted evidence” then we wouldn’t be justified in believing anything.

Furthermore if we turned the tables and asked David for “universally accepted evidence” of many of the statements that he makes, we would see the absurdity in his request and we would see that it would no longer be possible to actually have a discussion on OLO because no one would be able to provide “universally accepted evidence” for any of their views.

Trav,

Why do you have to include sneakily the word “conclusively” into what I have stated? The highest probability is all that can be expected.

You can have your own opinion on the universally accepted evidence about gravity but it won’t allow you to float off the planet.

David

I threw the word "conclusively" in because you asked grateful for conclusive proof about the Koran.

Your demands for "universally accepted evidence" are absurd, David. I think that's "certainly" been established ;-). Your backpedalling is evidence enough of that.

Trav,

Sorry, my mistake, I apologise for not giving a better explanation. AFA head office is having computer problems and I wrote in haste. Allow me to expand.

The sneaky part is that you have emphasised the word “conclusively” by using a set of examples as though it has greater meaning than is attributed to it. It means ‘decisive’ or ‘convincing’.

The casual reader from your cunning phraseology could see it as an absolutist word, which it is not.

Asking for universally accepted evidence is only absurd in the eyes of those whose case crumbles without it. This is not someone’s love life or an insurance policy; this is how humans looks at reality. Either there is a supernatural realm or there is not. Preference by various ‘believers’ doesn’t mean a hoot. You can prefer not to accept gravity but it won’t help as I have explained.

If you or grateful wish to impose your religious views on humanity or just have others accept they have some kind of validity, then you must each demonstrate respectively that, your particular god exists with conclusive (Convincing) evidence, which will have universal acceptance. As you can see, this is impossible as they both can’t be accepted universally as existing and therefore the highest probability is that neither one does.

Gravity is not beset with the same intractable problem. There are not two or many thousands of competing theories about gravity. With religions, there have been about 4,000 competing gods.

Do you see the difference now or are the blinkers still blocking your view of reality?

David

Trav,

There’s absolutely no need to apologise. I offend people all the time on OLO. Even those who often agree with me, yet don’t understand the importance of what I do, are offended by me.

Your reaction was perfectly understandable. So much so, that I was not only already prepared for it, but expecting it.

I mean, hey, it’s not every day you come to realise that one of the key rationalisations of your entire belief system was fatally flawed all along. Not to mention the fact that you also came to the realisation that someone you admired and looked up to was capable of acting like such an uneducated doofus - and all this on the very same day at that!

It really sucks, I know because - at the risk of sounding patronising - I’ve been through it all before.

<<I was happy for you to have the last word; I only responded again to point out my view that you didn’t do justice to the arguments that I’d made.>>

Actually, I did,

I had already demonstrably debunked your claims, yet here you are, asserting that I didn’t without any examples, reasoning or evidence for your assertions.

Not a good look.

<<Perhaps it is telling that we have both accused each other of similar things>>

Well, it would be “telling” had I not substantiated my claims like you didn’t.

But since I did, it isn’t.

Foyle,

<<Why do I not debate your supposed evidence? It is because I have read real evidence from modern scientists and nothing you have said is supported by evaluated, supported, evidence.>>

This is a dodge. As you know, my challenge was direct to the methodology which interprets human fossils on the premise that “Human’s evolved from another species”.

The premise “Human’s evolved from another species” cannot be refuted because one cannot prove a negative. Now I’m not saying you are wrong, just that you have not justified the methodology. There is little incentive for me to discard my religion based on the word of someone who cannot even defend the methodology and resorts to mockery and pompous declarations that I am (no longer) unworthy of their attention.

<<What sort of god offers virgins as a reward? Bit hard on the virgins!!
Don't they have a right to an independent fulfilled life instead of waiting around to be raped by terrorists who murdered about 100 Australian in the WTC 9/11 atrocity. Also many innocent Muslims were victims that day.>>

Why do you blame Islam for these acts? These guys, the Wahhabi re-formers of Islam, were/are following Western culture. To put things in perspective read Daniel Pipes: "The Western Mind of Radical Islam" (http://www.danielpipes.org/273/the-western-mind-of-radical-islam). Of course Pipes is not exactly an apologist for Islam but nevertheless he is able to distinguish between the teachings of Muhammad and the teachings of Wahhabi's who, he argues are largely ignorant of their religion and more influenced by Western culture and ideas. In any case Wahhabism will be gone in another decade, if not sooner, God willing.

So back to the question: Why do you blame Islam?

Answer: Because it suits.

Demonstrating once more how committed fundamentalist atheism is to the truth.

Foyle stated
<< The Muslim caliphate may have had a hey-day while the Western World went through its dark ages but as Terry Lane pointed out, luckily we had our thinkers such as Copernicus, Gallilo, Adam Smith, Hume, Voltaire, and Russell etc. (Adam Smith on ethics rather than economics)

You need to read Hume, Russell, Darwin, Ardrey et al for yourself and broaden your outlook and get out of your dark ages outlook.>>

Without denying the value of such scholarship, for practical purposes I need to think carefully how I allocate my time (I’m neither retired nor a student). So can I ask if you, or anyone else (capable of a modicum of manners), to address the following question:

What can a Muslim learn from these scholars that cannot learned from scholars in the Islamic tradition in regards to ethical conduct?

If you are not familiar with Islamic scholarship then perhaps you can offer what you would regard as the key insights/guide posts to ethical conduct. I would then be able to offer my own assessment and bounce it off you.

salaams

@ Grateful

>> distinguish between the teachings of Muhammad and the teachings of Wahhabi's who, he argues are largely ignorant of their religion and more influenced by Western culture and ideas <<

It is more likely that the Wahhabi’s have got it right --if right means getting it as close as possible to the Koranic –Hadith blueprint .

We often hear with regard ethnic cuisines, that the authentic dishes are served up only in the home country . With restaurants in the West opting to serve locals a modified version that they think will be more in keeping with local tastes—nice, but hardly authentic!

In the same manner and for the same reasons –I’d suggest -- neophytes in the west have been served a sugar coated version of Islam .

>> In any case Wahhabism will be gone in another decade, if not sooner <<

What is more likely is that when the full impact of the massive population increases that most middle eastern countries have allowed, flow through.
And it becomes apparent that neither Mubarak nor the military can solve their problems, the populace will become more susceptible to demagogic figures preaching versions of Wahhabism –or worse!


>> So can I ask if you, or anyone else (capable of a modicum of manners), to address the following question…What can a Muslim learn from these scholars that cannot learned from scholars in the Islamic tradition in regards to ethical conduct<<

I think you’re looking at the issue back-to-front .

The question you should be asking yourself is:
“What could Grateful possibly learn from those dust old “scholarly” Islamic tomes that he could not learn here:
http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Ethics-For-Dummies.productCd-0470591714.html

And if Grateful was honest with himself, he would have to answer – “not much”.

Lan astaslem!

AJ,

See now your arrogance is getting a little absurd. The spirit of our debate was rather charitable but now it's disappointing to see that you're getting emotional. I barely even scratched the surface of justifying my worldview in any kind of detail, so to make the claim that I came "to realise that one of the key rationalisations of (my) entire belief system was fatally flawed all along" is completely ridiculous, so I don't think you're doing yourself any justice here.

If you wanted examples then I don't recall you mentioning anything at all about my brief sketch of C Stephen Evans argument in his new book, nor anything about the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. You waved off my claim that theism accounts for many facts better than naturalism, and you completely missed my point about extraordinary evidence. You responded, but nonetheless missed the force of the argument I made. Either way, as I said, I distinctly get the impression that your approach to these kind of discussions is not conducive to fruitful dialogue. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I only need to re-read your previous few posts to put the argument behind that assertion. Thus, the valuable and (at the moment) scarce resource called time is too valuable to spend with someone who garners that impression in me.

All the best AJ, now I will make a brief response to David- I have not got the time right now to write a substantive post stretching to the daily limit or anything as I had previously- and this will do for this thread.

David, thanks for fleshing out your views in more detail, now I have a greater understanding of your view about why you expect religions to be supported by "universally accepted evidence" and what that means.

However, your argument fails because you are still thinking in terms of black and white, and thus failing to appreciate grey, not to mention blue and green and yellow and orange and purple and aquamarine and daffodil.

You assume that either Islam is true and Christianity is entirely false, or that Christianity is true and Islam is entirely false, or scientific naturalism is true and they are both entirely false. You then proceed to argue that the most likely hypothesis is that no religion is true.

However, this framework of understanding things is misleading. As a Christian, I do not hold that Islam is entirely false! Islam holds that there is an all powerful creator of the universe- this I agree with. I may disagree about some of the attributes of that creator but at the core there is fundamental agreement. Islam holds that Jesus existed and was an important prophet, just not the son of God- again; there is a lot of agreement.

If you request “universally accepted evidence” which pits them against each other because they are both seen to “universally” exist, you are missing the fact that much of the reasons will crossover due to the great overlaps between the two systems of belief.

Trav,

That a Jesus existed is contentious to say the least. History is not reliable at the best of times being written by the winners and all. Many people think that the study of history is equal to science. It is not and there is no compunction to accept unreliable stories supported by flimsy evidence at best.

One would expect that early promoters of Islam would have knowledge of the Christian Bibles and Occam’s razor would support that fitting the alleged Jesus into their own story would give it some kind of credibility to those suffering a decent dose of ‘I hope it is all true’.

Islam supported the ‘Jesus is a man story’ and Christianity is bolstered by Islam recognising the alleged Jesus supposedly was an historical character even though not divine. The merry-go-round of belief is astounding indeed.

To you, Islam has part truth in that there is a creator god and Muslims are misguided. To Islam, Christianity has part truth but is misguided. Neither Islam nor Christianity can come up with the goods that there was a creator god but both are willing to dismiss that and call their respective gods the creator god.

Personally, I prefer turtles all the way down which neither Christianity nor Islam accept. Silly of them really, as there is the same amount of evidence for that as there is for Yahweh/Jesus or Allah as being the prime mover.

David

Grateful,
Re; This is a dodge. As you know, my challenge was direct to the methodology which interprets human fossils on the premise that “Human’s evolved from another species”.

How else could the scientific method interpret the confirmed sequential, but occasionally partly overlapping, age ranges of Australopithecus Afarensis, A.africanus, Homo habilis, H.ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidlegergensis, H.sapien and H.sapien sapien? Humans share 98%+ of their genome with our closest living ape relative so with A. Afarensis, if we could find some DNA, the sharing would be in the high 99% area.

That is what science does, interpret evidence and the evidence of this progressive development from A. ergaster to H. sapien is overwhelmingly. You can read it and learn something worthwhile ( which I did after retiring 19 years ago at the age of 61) if you get your head out of the ancients writings.

In my earlier posts I mentioned the age of the earth (4.5b years) and compared it to the time elapsed since the big bang (13.7b years). The science is irrefutable; our earth contains products of a supernova explosion so why did god wait for a second generation solar system and wait a further 4.49999+billion years before putting a human being in place?

You comment about the morality and ethics of the western world and atheists. Let me make a point about ethics and morality and to do so I will quote from Sam Harris’s latest book “The Moral Landscape” where he states, based on studies,
"And on almost every measure of societal health, the least religious
countries are better off than the most religious. Countries like
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands - which are the most
atheistic societies on earth - consistently rate better than religious nations on measures like life expectancy, infant mortality, crime, literacy, GDP, child welfare, economic equality, economic competitiveness, gender equality, health care, investments in education, rates of university enrolment, internet access, environmental protection, lack of corruption, political stability, and charity to poorer nations, etc."

If god exists she has obviously been favouring the atheists ever since The Enlightenment.

Trav,

It’s a pity you won’t be sticking around; with your arguments going the way they are, the discussion is bound to get shorter and shorter anyway.

<<The spirit of our debate was rather charitable but now it's disappointing to see that you're getting emotional.>>

Um... no, it was actually your emotional outburst last Tuesday (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11510#197615) that caused the discussion to take a dive. Things were travelling until then. Why would I need to get emotional when my arguments are still standing strong?

<<If you wanted examples then I don't recall you mentioning anything at all about my brief sketch of C Stephen Evans argument in his new book, nor anything about the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument.>>

Firstly, my criticism of the cosmological argument applied to both versions. Hence why I’d simply use the more broad term “cosmological argument”.

Secondly, you were claiming that I was ignoring you “best” arguments, yet the Leibnizian cosmological argument is actually worse than the Kalam cosmological argument; it fails for the same reasons the Kalam cosmological argument fails and more. It is so bad, that even William Lane Craig was reluctant to touch it at first.

You still haven’t even watched that video yet, have you? Your reluctance here is not surprising though, given your ignorance of just how thoroughly these arguments have been debunked. They worked fine hundreds of years ago, but we know a heck of a lot more about causation now.

As for C Stephen Evans, lets take a look at his arguments, shall we?

<<Natural signs certainly seem to exist that lead people to believe in God.>>

Even if there were aspects of nature that lead people to believe in god, that wouldn’t say anything about the truth of those beliefs; just that it lead them to believe in a god. Not only that, but to assume a god is to give up. It’s laziness. God is only ever inserted as a way of easing our discomfort of not knowing everything and doing so is fallacious.

Continued...

...Continued

<<They provide widely accessible signs that point to God, yet they are easily resistible...>>

Easily resistible because they are based on a combination of excessive credulity and an ignorance towards science.

<<...which is exactly what one would expect to see if there is a God who exists and makes it possible to hold some sort of natural knowledge of him:>>

So what would a universe look like if it wasn’t created by a god and how do you know how to tell the difference if everything we see is ‘created’?

Basically C Stephan Evans is alluding to the fine tuning argument here, which is fallacious since it assumes that we have sufficient knowledge to determine that there could not have possibly been any other cause. It is a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

<<Cosmic Wonder, beneficial order and the moral realm/moral awareness.>>

I think I’ve covered the “cosmic wonder” and “beneficial order” sufficiently for now, but as for morality, we have very good naturalistic explanations as to how it’s come about. Besides which, I had already explained why Christianity is immoral earlier, so I fail to see how Christianity could ever be a good explanation as to where we get our morals from.

These are not reasons to believe that the universe makes more sense in a theistic framework.

<<You waved off my claim that theism accounts for many facts better than naturalism...>>

No, I did not.

I provided reasoning as to why you were wrong by pointing out that everything that has been attributed to gods has eventually been found to have natural explanations.

<<and you completely missed my point about extraordinary evidence.>>

No, I did not.

You claimed that the fact that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence is “over-simplistic” because one’s prior assumptions can vary what is considered “extraordinary”. So I then explained why it doesn’t matter what our assumptions are when gauging what is “extraordinary”; only what we “know” counts.

Continued...

...Continued

Now that I’ve covered those, I should also point out that to imply that my lack of response to these points of yours was deliberate by claiming that I “ignored” them, is totally dishonest. Perhaps it is me who should be questioning your seriousness?

<<Either way, as I said, I distinctly get the impression that your approach to these kind of discussions is not conducive to fruitful dialogue.>>

Your claim that this discussion hasn’t been “fruitful” is discredited by how much we’ve established. To you, “fruitful dialogue” just seems to be any dialogue that doesn’t drag you our of your comfort zone. Here’s just a short list off the top of my head of what we’ve established:

-The cosmological arguments don’t work;
-Extraordinary claims do in fact require extraordinary evidence;
-There is no credible evidence for a miracle performing Jesus.
-There are no arguments for the existence of god that are not fallacious.

I respond with lengthy, thorough responses, covering a wide range of topics and yet you have the gall to question my seriousness. People who are not serious tend to give short sharp and often largely irrelevant responses.

<<Thus, the valuable and (at the moment) scarce resource called time is too valuable to spend with someone who garners that impression in me.>>

I know you would truly like to believe this, Trav, but the plain fact is that you have not sufficient given reason to show this to be the case. You are simply clamming up because my arguments drag you out of your comfort zone and now you need a reason to get out quick.

That’s the trouble with debating a former Christian: I am all to familiar with these tactics and can spot them a mile away.

Self-deception is rife amongst the religious, but you take it to a whole new level with your claims that I ignore your best arguments, continually miss your points and your attempt to divert attention from the fact that your arguments don’t hold by making me and my credibility the issue.

AJ,

Continually trying your hand with psycho-analysis achieves nothing.

“The plain fact” is that unless you know me personally or have some means of knowing details of my personal life you have absolutely no way of knowing how scarce my time is right now! This is yet another perfect example of the arrogance I was referring to in my previous posts.

I am not “clamming up”- like most Christians, I don’t even actually claim that my position is primarily even based on syllogistic style arguments and I do not believe that the majority of atheists views are primarily based on arguments either. I simply hold that there ARE some arguments that a rational person could hold which provide strong support for a Christian worldview. That is all. AJ, once again: Do not attribute to me, or assume that I hold views that you do not know that I hold and do not assume to have knowledge that you do not have!

The problem with you being a former Christian is not that you can spot anything a mile away, it is that you have become so certain of your own position that you blind yourself with your own arrogance without even realizing it.

(continued)

One last comment: If it weren’t for my lack of time (I am posting this on my lunch break- and have virtually full time commitments, day and night till Sunday afternoon so I can 100% guarantee this will be my last post): This medium of communication has simply proven to be untenable- your responses to my brief sketch of C Stephen Evans completely misunderstand his arguments (they are nothing like fine tuning arguments!), but admittedly that was mostly my fault as I didn’t lay them out in enough detail to allow you to grasp them.

This type of forum would work if we agreed to both argue ONE point, for example “Is the Kalam argument reasonable?” or “Should we expect that theistic evidences will be easily resistable?. But given the way our discussion has run, there are too many misunderstandings and generalizations. This is not primarily anyone’s fault- it’s mostly a result of the format.

Cheers, all the best

Foyle stated
<<You comment about the morality and ethics of the western world and atheists. Let me make a point about ethics and morality and to do so I will quote from Sam Harris’s latest book “The Moral Landscape” where he states, based on studies,....>>

Sam Harris may be good at correlation but can say very little about causation. For serious scholarsship, I refer you to Robert Barro (world’s leading economist and has been a strong candidate for nobel prize for the last 10 years) and Rachel M. McCleary (http://www.nber.org/digest/nov03/w9682.html)

<< The authors turn next to the assessment of how differences in religiosity affect economic growth. For given religious beliefs, increases in church attendance tend to reduce economic growth. In contrast, for given church attendance, increases in some religious beliefs -- notably heaven, hell, and an afterlife -- tend to increase economic growth. In other words, economic growth depends mainly on the extent of believing relative to belonging. The authors also find some indication that the fear of hell is more potent for economic growth than the prospect of heaven. Their statistical analysis allows them to argue that these estimates reflect causal influences from religion to economic growth and not the reverse.

Barro and McCleary suggest that higher rates of religious beliefs stimulate growth because they help to sustain aspects of individual behavior that enhance productivity. They believe that higher church attendance depresses growth because it signifies a greater use of resources by the religion sector. However, that suppression of growth is tempered by the extent to which church attendance leads to greater religious beliefs, which in turn encourages economic growth. >>

cont..

cont..
Along the same lines, McCleary summarises the research as follows: (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5729#4)

<<To turn once again to the question I posed at the outset: Is religion detrimental to economic growth? Perhaps John Wesley’s conclusion that economic growth will decrease religiosity need not be absolutely the case. If people spend too much time on productive activities relative to religious activities, then they will become less religious. If children are not taught religious values and beliefs, then they themselves will not be religious, and, perhaps, not productive. Furthermore, if societal expectations accompanying educational attainment are not met, people will resort to nonproductive activities, such as crime and terrorism. With nonproductive time on their hands and grievance against society, people will engage in destructive behavior. However, a virtuous cycle occurs when people believe relative to belonging. That is, people hold religious beliefs but do not spend enormous amounts of resources (time, income, talents) on their religion. Finally, religious beliefs that promote hard work, thrift, and honesty can be found across the world’s major religions. The key question is: How does a society promote these values and in what circumstances does it, intentionally or unintentionally, discard them?>>

Having being raised by atheists i can testify to the propensity towards destructive behaviour of those raised without religious belief!

cont..

cont..

And of course you just have to look at the papers to see the impact:

(http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/dangerous-underage-drinking-on-rise-20110211-1aqjp.html)

<<EVERY day in NSW, on average, three children get so drunk they require an ambulance, figures obtained by the Herald reveal.

In one year, paramedics were called more than 1000 times to treat alcohol-related problems such as violent vomiting and loss of consciousness in people aged under 18 - most of whom required hospital treatment.

The child was 12 or younger in at least 16 of those cases, according to an analysis of call-outs provided by the NSW Ambulance service.

Advertisement: Story continues below The under-18s treated between July 2009 and June 2010 made up about 10 per cent of the overall numbers treated for alcohol sickness, a spokesman for the service said.

The figures, which do not include call-outs for indirect alcohol problems such as falls or fights, were a frightening ''tip of the iceberg'', said Mike Daube, the director of the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth.

"It's even more worrying than it looks, given that it is only the very worst cases - those children who are utterly, disastrously drunk and at immediate risk," he said. "What kind of a society are we turning into where children under 12 are taken to hospital in an ambulance because of their drinking?"

Per capita alcohol use was at an all-time high, and research shows 80 per cent of alcohol consumption among 14- to 24-year-olds was done dangerously.>>

Foyle, in this context, I repeat my suggestion:

Perhaps you can offer what you would regard as the key insights/guide posts to ethical conduct. I can offer some insights i draw from Islamic scholarship.

Would you like to use drug and alcohol abuse as an application? This shouldn't be too hard given your previous claim to ethical supremacy.

salaams

Foyle,

Just to be sure the message is received loud and clear:

Atheism is destroying the values and beliefs that would prevent many young Australians from going off the rails and loosing big chunks, if not the whole, of their productive lives.

How big a sacrifice would it be for adults to quit the drink when we all know that this would give parents the moral authority to tell their kids to do the same. Just about every non-Muslims i know says its impossible. In Islam its a reality arising from living life with a sound heart and proper guidance.

cont..

Grateful,
As someone who has never been one to drink large quantities of alcohol I am not the one to ask questions on alcohol abuse.

Neither my parents nor my children have abused alcohol and I like you object to behaviour of some parents and their children. However I know of no non-theist believer in humanism or rationalism, which is what I am, who would stone someone to death over an "honour" matter, or for breach of some religious "law", (or what usually is just a human weakness). Harris in his recent book has an excellent comparison of the honour society common in some Muslim countries and the situation which applies where non-theism and enlightened thinking is common. I know where I would prefer to live.

In an over populated world wasting depleting resources I do not worship growth, particularly in the prosperous western world. I read the article at the website you quoted on this matter and it really shows that religious people do not really understand some of the problems facing the human population.

I am a proponent of teaching children to think clearly and to undertake for themselves the hard task of developing their own ethical concepts. Religious indoctrination tends to prevent that happening and leaves young people who reject the nonsense of religion without a foundation on which to build an examined life.

You took a thousand or so words to say nothing that I find worthwhile so I won't be even reading anything else you post.

Once again the discussion has pretty much degenerated into a “Does so too! Does not neither!” argument with no sign of any participant changing their views even marginally.
To take the title of this piece literally, I decided to try it.
I'm currently in a bit of a financial predicament. We recently decided to try and do our small bit for the environment and the looming energy crisis by starting a small online business in hydroponics; encouraging people to grow their own (is giving myself a free plug permissible? -nakedhydroponics.com-) but sadly, people are yet to break down any doors to get to us.
I have several options before me. Lying sleeplessly staring at an invisible ceiling one night, I decided to experiment with prayer. I started with “OK God” and proceeded to lay out the various options.
The answer was immediate and unequivocal.
Does this 'prove' God's existence to me? Not at all. It proves I knew all along what I have to do; for various reasons the 'right' course just isn't my first preference. I think by according one side of the argument to an outsider (me v. God, rather than me v. me) I was able to judge the merits of the argument more objectively.
So for me the power of prayer is quite strong.
But I'm still an (at least de facto) atheist.

<<In an over populated world wasting depleting resources I do not worship growth, >>

Foyle,
Once again you are relying on inferior (if any) scholarship. accoring to Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, there is enough food: it is its distribution that is the issue.

"The promotion of large-scale land investment is based on the belief that combating hunger requires boosting food production, and that supply has been lagging because of a lack of investment in agriculture. Hence, if investment can be attracted to agriculture, it should be welcomed, and whichever rules are imposed should encourage it, not deter it.

But both the diagnosis and the remedy are incorrect. Hunger and malnutrition are not primarily the result of insufficient food production; they are the result of poverty and inequality, particularly in rural areas, where 75% of the world’s poor still reside.

In the past, agricultural development has prioritized large-scale, capitalized forms of agriculture, neglecting smallholders who feed local communities. And governments have failed to protect agricultural workers from exploitation in an increasingly competitive environment. It should come as no wonder that smallholders and agricultural laborers represent a combined 70\% of those who are unable to feed themselves today."

ref: Olivier De Schutter, Responsibly Destroying the World’s Peasantry, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/deschutter1/English

Foyle wrote;

<<In an over populated world wasting depleting resources I do not worship growth, particularly in the prosperous western world. I read the article at the website you quoted on this matter and it really shows that religious people do not really understand some of the problems facing the human population.>>

The research is by the foremost experts in growth and development! Its not some atheist guru that says things that you like to hear.

Foyle wrote:
“How else could the scientific method interpret the confirmed sequential, but occasionally partly overlapping, age ranges of Australopithecus Afarensis, A.africanus, Homo habilis, H.ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidlegergensis, H.sapien and H.sapien sapien? Humans share 98%+ of their genome with our closest living ape relative so with A. Afarensis, if we could find some DNA, the sharing would be in the high 99% area.”

The point i make is that it interprets the evidence assuming that “Humans evolves from another species”. In doing so scientists will be selective in what they put forward as evidence. If you assume that “humans evolved from another species” then you are going to ignore evidence to the contrary. That’s the problem with the methodology.

Compare this approach with that taken in the climate change debate. The broad scientific community agrees that the evidence is sufficient to reject the notion that “human beings have not been the primary cause of climate change”.

In other words the null hypothesis is “Human beings have not been the primary cause of climate change”

The appropriate procedure is to reject the null only if the probability of FALSELY rejecting the null is small...and that is what most scientists agree upon. The probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis is “small” (say 5% or 1% or even smaller).

All I’m saying is that I do not believe evolutionary theorists, when it comes to human beings, are following a scientific methodology. The null hypothesis should be: “Human beings did not evolve from another species” and it is only to rejected if the probability of FALSELY rejecting the null is “small” (Perhaps you haven’t got a background in statistics so all of this is bit confusing. But ask anyone with some basic statistically training and this is basic stuff.)

Anyway, you would presumably say that the probability is in fact small because of the above mentioned sequence. But then you would need to prove that this sequence would be highly unlikely if human beings did not evolve from another species. Has anyone approached the problem in this manner?

cont..

cont..

By the way National Geographic report scientific work that contradicts your numbers:

"For decades, scientists have agreed that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98.5 percent identical. A recent study suggests that number may need to be revised. Using a new, more sophisticated method to measure the similarities between human and chimp DNA, the two species may share only 95 percent genetic material. "
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

So i don't know what that means for your conjecture about "A. Afarensis, if we could find some DNA, the sharing would be in the high 99% area.” Do you?

Foyle you state:

"You took a thousand or so words to say nothing that I find worthwhile so I won't be even reading anything else you post."

That's fine. I'm doing it primarily to see how robust reasoning on the basis of Qur'anic precepts can be.

Since you and others end up caving in (twice now!) and resorting to personal attacks then i interprete this as evidence of the robustness of message to critical scrutiny.

salaams

Intriguing position, grateful.

>>If you assume that “humans evolved from another species” then you are going to ignore evidence to the contrary.<<

Two points on that.

As I understand it, the position “humans evolved from another species” was deduced from evidence that was uncovered and analysed over an extended period of time.

After all, the starting point for every culture across the globe was "humans just happened", a concept that was supported by an entire history of mythologies and folk-tales. It took a great deal of courage to amass and decipher evidence to the contrary. If indeed they started with a preconceived notion, it would have been the prevailing "God put us here for a purpose" ideology.

The second point is even more interesting.

You assert that "evidence to the contrary" is being ignored. Would you care to offer some examples?

@Grateful,

Grateful is keen on selling the line that it’s not population, but the distribution of food that is the real problem

See his comment of 17/02: [[Once again you are relying on inferior (if any) scholarship. accoring to Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, there is enough food: it is its distribution that is the issue.]]

And of course, it’s only coincidental that those countries that are in the top ranks of the population growth stakes, and often have major issues feeding their numbers are in many, if not most cases, states who identify themselves as Islamic.

Grateful’s implied solution is a redistribution of resources . A variation on: we should all line up with our bowls for an equal sized dollop of halal stew .Though, I suspect, in keeping with the tradition of the jizya tax, the believers would get two dollops to the non-believers one.

Unfortunately for Grateful we’ve heard it all before.The old communist block implemented widespread planning with the intent to minimise waste/duplication and equalize distribution. The result was producers lost incentive to produce and production diminished.

Reducing waste is a worthy ambition –and has wide currency-- which his why Grateful employs it.I was particularly intrigued with a project in parts of the UK to collect left over food items and turn them into energy and fertilizer.
http://player.sbs.com.au/programs#/programs_08/fullepisodes/latestepisodes/playlist/The-Future-Of-Food-Ep-2/
(it starts at around 44:00)

But the above would hardly satisfy Grateful, since Grateful only uses waste reduction as a pretext. His real intend seems to be that the West should subsidize his adopted people.

SPQR.... would you mind emailing me at adl777@y7mail.com ?

I'd love to chat with you about a few important things.

cheers
me

Foyle you state:
Neither my parents nor my children have abused alcohol and I like you object to behaviour of some parents and their children. However I know of no non-atheist believer in humanism or rationalism, which is what I am, who would stone someone to death over an "honour" matter, or for breach of some religious "law", (or what usually is just a human weakness). Harris in his recent book has an excellent comparison of the honour society common in some Muslim countries and the situation which applies where non-theism and enlightened thinking is common. I know where I would prefer to live.

Two points here. The values that you apparently adhere to are being undermined by the spread of atheism. The main problem is that in advocating atheism you are supporting a doctrine that is leaving society defenceless against these evils.

What i find is that Islam actually works. Everyone in the West says prohibition doesn’t work. But in Islam it works.

For example, read the testimony of Lauren Booth (Tony Blair's sister-in-law her converted late last year) and in particular, her remarks on alcohol which conclude with

<<And, as it happens, giving up alcohol was a breeze. In fact I can’t imagine tasting alcohol ever again. I simply don’t want to.>>

http://www.alazhartouba.com/index.php/en/videos/video/806-qi-love-islamq--lauren-booth-a-british-journalist-and-sister-in-law-of-former-british-prime-minister-tony-blair

You have to read the whole article and her background to understand the significance of these remarks. Further they should be read in the context of a West that regards "prohibition" as imposssible. In these terms her experience and that of billions of other Muslims represent miracles. And you would have us give this up for a atheism which is a non-starter when it comes to offering real solutions to social ills.

cont..

On the second point, honour killing, Sam Harris has obviously not read, or more than likely ignored, one of the leading historians on Islam, Bernard Lewis. Bearing in mind Lewis is a neo-con, this is what he had to say about honour killings (as well as genital mutilation) in his book "Islam: the Religion and its People" :

"At a time when European opinion and comment were predominantly hostile to Islam, the great Hungarian Jewish orientalist Ignaz Goldzilher devoted much time and effort to defending Islamic practice and achievements against detractors. A particularly important point he made was that Islam as a religion and as a culture should not be blamed for the tribal customs of some of the peoples who adopt it. A good example is genital mutilation of young females, widely practiced in Africa and, to a lesser extent, in some other places, but without any foundation whatsoever in Islamic scripture, tradition, or law. Another example is the practice of honor killing.
Islamic legislation in the Koran and in the Sharia is designed to protect women from abuse of this kind, but in many parts of the Islamic world today, even the rules of law designed to protect women are used to abuse them..." (p118)

As metioned above Bernard Lewis is among the most eminent of Islamic historians, which you can confirm for yourself, and certainly not an apologist for Islam. Yet, you will not find a more unequivocal rebuttal of the assertion that honor killings are a part of the Shari'a.

If you want further proof, just look at East Asia (where the bulk of Muslims live) where there are no honour killings.

@Grateful

I am increasingly convinced that one has to be a special person to be grateful.

1) For starters you need to have a special way of looking or not looking at things;through one eye only.

/// What i find is that Islam actually works. Everyone in the West says prohibition doesn’t work. But in Islam it works.///

“Scouring the alleys on the lookout for religious police, youths in loose leather jackets stuffed with illicit substances bike round town - mobile off-licences peddling beer, vodka and opium.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1740617.stm

“Khat is popular in many countries of the Arabian peninsula and the Horn of Africa, but in Yemen it's a full-blown national addiction. As much as 90% of men and 1 in 4 women in Yemen are estimated to chew the leaves”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917685,00.html

2)Then you need a unique knowldge of world affairs and geography:

/// If you want further proof, just look at East Asia (where the bulk of Muslims live) where there are no honour killings ///

Wrong!

Do the maths.

The bulk of Muslims in SE Asia live in Indonesia –population approx 237 Mil

Now consider the numbers outside SE Asia –all the countries below (exc India) are almost wholly Muslim.

Pakistan 171 Mil
Bangladesh 150 mIl
Iran 75 Mil
India 138 Mil
And we haven even come to the middle east or Africa,yet!

3) And most important of all, you need to be completely impervious to any corrective comment.

Your generalizations are as sweeping - and as inaccurate, grateful - as the most fundie of Christian fundies.

>>The main problem is that in advocating atheism you are supporting a doctrine that is leaving society defenceless against these evils<<

Atheism is not a "doctrine".

doctrine n. a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

There is no "belief system" associated with atheism. Quite specifically, there is a lack of one.

Atheists do not "leave society helpless" against evil. Their lack of belief in a deity has absolutely no impact on their ability to tell right from wrong, good from evil, and love from hate.

Demonstrably, religions have consistently failed their members on each of these points, over many centuries, and are hardly in a position to stand in judgment over others.

I am quite happy to accept that you don't drink, from choice. Just as you must accept that there are many Muslims who do.

By the way, I notice that you didn't respond at all to my last post.

You had stated:

>>If you assume that “humans evolved from another species” then you are going to ignore evidence to the contrary.<<

I made two observations. One, that the default position of historical investigation has been "god made us", not that we evolved. And second, what is the "evidence to the contrary" that you refer to?

If you choose not to answer, just say. I won't be offended.

Or surprised.

QUOTE Intriguing position, grateful.

>>If you assume that “humans evolved from another species” then you are going to ignore evidence to the contrary.<<

Two points on that.

As I understand it, the position “humans evolved from another species” was deduced from evidence that was uncovered and analysed over an extended period of time.

After all, the starting point for every culture across the globe was "humans just happened", a concept that was supported by an entire history of mythologies and folk-tales. It took a great deal of courage to amass and decipher evidence to the contrary. If indeed they started with a preconceived notion, it would have been the prevailing "God put us here for a purpose" ideology.

The second point is even more interesting.

You assert that "evidence to the contrary" is being ignored. Would you care to offer some examples? ENDQUOTE

Pericles,
Your maintained hypothesis is that “Humans did evolved from another species”, which is fine until it used as a premise for selecting evidence. In this case, if there is evidence to the contrary then it will be ignored because it doesn’t fit the hypothesis. The appropriate procedure, if this is to be your null hypothesis, is to look for evidence to the contrary, and reject the null by some criteria such as 5% probability of falsely rejecting the null of “Humans did evolved from another species”.

If you want to argue that this is being done, then you provide the evidence. Name the scientists that are searching for evidence not to confirm but to reject the null.

As for the having as the null “Humans did NOT evolved from another species”, I get this from the Qur’aan. Since this is my null hypothesis (because i’m not brave like you), it should only be rejected if there is a “small” probability of false rejection.

PS
I've been busy

Pericles wrote:
<<Atheists do not "leave society helpless" against evil. Their lack of belief in a deity has absolutely no impact on their ability to tell right from wrong, good from evil, and love from hate.>>

Blind Freddy could tell you that atheism not only impairs people's ability to distinguish right from wrong but undermines people's willingness to do so. What would be the point, other than feeling good about yourself or showing off. Atheism leaves society defenceless against evil.

On the contrary grateful, it is religion which leaves people defenceless against evil.
I would suggest the essence of moral behaviour is the principle of reciprocity; treating others the way you would like to be treated. Although just about all religions would like to claim this principle for their own, it has been espoused by philosophers for thousands of years, and requires absolutely no divine intervention.
It is a simple rule for people to live with other people.
Compare this to the theist who declares: "without God, why should people be nice to each other?"
IOW, where the moral atheist obeys the principle simply because it is the sensible, logical and ethical thing to do, these 'fundamentalists' obey the Word of God only because they're afraid of divine retribution.
What happens when such people lose their faith?
You (Grateful) would claim their loss of faith leaves them 'defenceless against evil'. In truth, they never had any defence, since they lacked that basic empathy, that ability to put themselves in another's shoes, in the first place.
And where does that empathy come from? I would say it comes from accepting that we have peers; that we are all equal despite our differences, and that our opinions are no "better" or "worse" than the opinions of others -to an 'impartial' observer (such as a putative God, if you will).
No theist can ever achieve this egalitarian impartiality, simply because -by definition- they favour fellow believers in their own superstition.