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