What caused you to turn away from your faith?

So if I ask you whether Santa Claus exists, you'll respond that you can't know such a thing. And likewise werewolves, fairies, the Easter Bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

Or if you don't, you'll accept the criticism that your POV is not a scientific one based on evidence.

Really?

Let's bear in mind that most atheists don't claim to know that God doesn't exist in a comparable sense to that in which most theists claim to know that he does. Rather, they claim to know such a thing in the normal sense of "knowing:" that it's the best available explanation for a large set of evidence, and also has a solid track record of correctly predicting things that occurred after the theory was first formulated.

To stick to your overstrict definition of "knowing," you'd have to also admit that you don't know that electrons exist, or that the Earth is not flat, or any number of other plain physical facts about the universe.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that God exists. The word there is "believe," not "know," in the first place, and there is no such thing as "knowledge" in the sense that you are using it here, anyway. It should not be necessary to disclaim the impossible, nor should we redefine "knowledge" as if it were.

You forget the corollaries, which are:

1) except when evidence ought to exist.
2) except when contrary evidence does exist.

Either of which is sufficient to skewer pretty much all mainstream monotheist conjectures about God. For the first instance, if God is amenable to prayer, then you should be able to produce evidence of his responding to prayers. For the second, the existence of evil is evidence contrary to the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I prefer not to call myself with titles, thus I can check any claim depending on their claims rather than their status or titles, atheism, agnosticism or believers alike. Proving existence, finding evidence for existence is possible. Because existing entities (objects, forces, dimensions, energy, whatever you like) gives some signal(s), some effect, just "something". Because once something does exist, it occupies some place in existence, that's why it is called as "exist". And I do not restrict my understanding of existence to known forces, known universe; we might not realise it now, but we may develop a different perspective, different gadgets or anything new that we may discover their existence. I hope this is clear up until this point.

However, your old saying "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence" has no place within my understanding that I tried to describe for one reason: Because non-existence does not have any reflection in the existence. If it was, we would not call it "non-exist"; we would call it exist. There are various forms of existence as I tried to give examples as objects, forces, etc., but there is a clear distinction, -border- if you like between existence and non-existence. We know that neutrinos can and does penetrate the normal matter, and without the modern physics it was impossible for humans to discover their existence, no matter how hard they try to philosophize the concept. Yet they do exist. Modern physics also suspects the existence of other forces or entities in actual universe as gravitational movements of galaxies as well as some subatomic processes, and related calculations raise some questions. Although our daily life senses and/or current technology do not allow us to detect them yet, there are "indications" of their existence as they play a "role" within the "existence". If you want to put it differently, there are incomplete parts of the whole picture of universal existence.

If we go back to this old saying, and why it doesn't play any role in my understanding; simply because there is no way to detect or find evidence for absence. How can you prove the absence? First of all, you must be able to define what kind of absence or "absence of what" are you looking for. Absence of energy, absence of a cat, absence of dimension? And where are you looking for this absence? What is the context, what is the environment? In its humanly-known extreme example, there is this famous "double slit" experiment:

Wikipedia

Some might point out this "You see absence of particle or wave is intertwined in this experiment, so you can not prove anything". I am not in this camp. When I look at this experiment I can still evaluate the photon as an existing entity, yet I can observe and not observe its different forms of existence. The evidence of existence appears either as a conventional sense of particle or as a wave type signature. If we can go further in the science and understanding, as well as technology, we may discover previously unknown signatures of the same experiment. But nothing will be able to destroy the existence of the phenomenon itself.

When it comes to "evidence of absence"; I just mentioned, we need the identity of what we are looking for. I can prove that I was not hiding in a box of matches since it is physically impossible. I can not prove that I do not see what is going on inside a closed box of matches since there is an available technology which allows me to put micro cameras inside a box match and observe what is going on there. Yet, this observation was impossible before the invention of micro cameras. Anybody who was claiming what was going on inside a box of matches before the invention of this micro cameras should have had either a)a special technology that unknown to other people or b)magical powers. The option (b) can be eliminated for obvious reason: Magic does not exist.

All in all, only existence can be proven, non-existence can not. This is the major claim of believers: "You can not prove that God does not exist". But I don't have to: It is a simple and well established ancient logic, or legal wisdom if you like, established well before the existence of modern science:

Wikipedia

So if someone is claiming that something exist, the burden of proof is on claimant, otherwise I would claim that there was an elephant in the room and expect everyone to believe in it. Agnostics, as far as I understood would not bother to look or not look for evidence; they simply don't care...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To quad: I will not argue much as your points are well taken but in some cases: Santa Claus, tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, existence or not depends mainly on how these terms are defined. They are human constructs with various man-made definitions so under some definitions they do exist or with my sophist hat on I state that independent of definition, none of them do (along with most everything else but me, the thinking being, and my creator).

Quad: “Let's bear in mind that most atheists don't claim to know that God doesn't exist in a comparable sense to that in which most theists claim to know that he does.”

That I suspect is true of most self proclaimed atheists, but then the line between atheists and agonistics is blurred – only a question of how strong their doubts are. The definitions I offered in post 56 kept them distinct.

Quad: “To stick to your overstrict definition of "knowing," you'd have to also admit that you don't know that electrons exist, or that the Earth is not flat, or any number of other plain physical facts about the universe.”

No, not true. With my sophists hat safely stored in a trunk, I can know these physical things exist – there is evidence. I have even collected some as I have travel many hours in an airplane east west. Even going straight south to Brazil you can seen that the crescent moon flips right side open to left side open and understand that it is your now inverted POV due to the curved Earth that makes this false “quick change in the moon”. BTW I have done the Milikin oil drop experiment too so have direct evidence that the electron not only exists but has a fixed charge. My five year Engineering Physics program at Cornell had a wonderful advanced lab. Scattered X-rays off carbon block at right angle then detected the polarization, etc.

I don’t want to quibble with you so I admit that like the man-made concepts (Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc.) these physical concepts also do have man-made definitions; but they are reduced to operational procedures that can be demonstrated – .provide evidence for the existence of the electron, which I cannot directly see like I can see that fat guy in the red suit in late December. There are however, no universally accepted operational definitions for Santa Claus. Miracle on 42nd street movie made that clear.

Quad: “You forget the corollaries, which are:
1) except when evidence ought to exist.
2) except when contrary evidence does exist.”

To refute your “corollaries” taking the theist’s POV:
(1)And how do you know what god “ought” to do?
(2)But there is evidence for the God of the Bible, scientific evidence called the Big Bang. Admittedly back when the bible was written God could not have his scribes speak / write in modern scientific terms. I.e. speak of singularities, inflation, condensation of matter from energy, etc. They had to say things like he separated the light from the darkness, then created matter (the heavens and the Earth), then life; etc. They got the times scales wrong: some much too long and some much too short. His scribes could not comprehend or even express femto-seconds or a billion years.

Theologians have answers to all your assumptions of the last paragraph (even books on them) so I defer you to them on those questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A category that also includes God. So the point remains.

Such distinction is not desireable, when the reality of the situation is that the line between agnostics and atheists has always been blurry, and has always come down to a question of how strong their doubts are (or even, what audience they are addressing themselves to).

Definitions should match the reality they're supposed to describe, not adhere to ad hoc aesthetic criteria.

Oh? And how do you know that "evidence" exists?

For any of that to matter, you'd first have to prove that the inputs to your brain reflect some kind of external reality, and are not simply the imaginings of an isolated mind. Which you cannot do, ever.

You can't even prove/know that you exist, in the strong sense you've invoked here. And so it's a ridiculous standard to hold atheists to, when nobody else gets held to it in any other context.

I take the word of the people who insist that they know he exists and how he operates. The point of the exercise is to prove that they're wrong, after all, so I don't need to "know" anything about any objective "god" in the first place. It suffices to demonstrate that their assertions are at variance with reality.

That is preposterous on its face.

But none that satisfy. That someone can phrase an insufficient response is unimpressive - it's just a rhetorical tactic that the proud use to avoid admitting they're wrong. And so such books tend to range from the laughable (well-meant, honest defenses of obvious fallacies) to the despicable (employment of heaps of overwrought verbiage and rhetoric to distract from the basic contradiction that the author wishes to retain). The latter category lends itself to incoherence when taken far enough - witness lightgigantic's output on this site for an example.

 

I agree but did say I had my sophist hat safely stored in a trunk.

Then discuss why first part of Genesis is not just a description of the big bang by ill educated people in terms they could comprehend.

The remainder of your post assumes I have some interest in refuting or correcting theists. I do not. "Live and let live" is more my attitude on this but if they want to put me on the rack I will oppose them actively. Now days they too, except for some minorities like Jehova's Witnesses,* tend to follow the "Live and let live" rule too.

Quad: "But none that satisfy {me}." They seem satisfied with them.
--------
* A sweet old JW came to my door when I was a grad student. I opened it, saw her copies of the Watchtower, and immediately said: "I'm not interested - I am an atheist."

She looked so crushed as she had not yet even open her mouth and I needed a study break, so I softened. "What do you want?" I said. She began her speal and as she went on her continence brightened with some inter glow. So to really make her day, I let her convert me during the next half hour. Asking near the end where the church was, etc. I did not buy the Watchtower she offered, but to keep the illusion I said: "I am poor, without money so I will read it at the church." I think she bought that and went away extremely happy.

I use this example to show how important / good it is to lie, FOR OTHER'S BENEFIT (not your own) at times.

 

To answer the OP, I myself didn't get into religion until I was around 9. Parents started out as Methodist and ended up Baptist. I became very involved as I became a teen and then started to study the Bible very seriously. I had hopes of becoming a youth minister or possibly a missionary. Then my pastor began to ask me questions, oddly, for his sermons. Which he openely admitted in front of the congregation at one point.

His lack of knowledge, our constant debates on what the Bible said, stirred up things in my mind. Then I was asked to join the board, being a representitve of the youth in our congregation. I left outraged one evening as they tried to kick out and elderly mentally ill member and his wife because he had occasional outbursts. Not very Christian like. I then began to do some searching.

I tried different congregations, religions and nothing worked. I gave up for awhile, but the whole "Worship God" thing nagged at me. I then became a Jehovah's Witness. For 7 years.

As a result of seeing their occult like practices, I am no longer a member, happily. Oh yeah, I was "disfellowshipped". I do encourage other people to avoid or run away from that religion as fast as they can.


As a result, I am agnostic. I think there may be something out there, but really don't give a flip. The way my life has been, if there was a true "God", I would have seen that god working in my life. Haven't yet. Perhaps the belief something is out there comes from my native american roots, perhaps brainwashing. You know what? I really don't care. Oh yeah, I have been baptized as a Catholic, Baptist, and J.W. And you know what? Baptism means crap! All a mental thing, nothing spiritual or revealing about it. Yeah, yeah, it's to symbolize this and that....crap. My life has been the same whether "God" was in my life or not. No difference at all. Trust me, it wasn't a lack of faith either. I was knocking on doors, preaching to my friends and families, fully believing the garbage I spitting out. At one point I was the go to gal for any Bible verse needed. Read the Bible all the way through at least 20 times through out my life. My attitude? Whatever.........!

 

So then how do we know when you're being honest?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Glad to have your comments. Can you give an example of a "specific" that could have been, but was not, included by Genesis writers with little education 2000+? (Genesis is first book of the old testament, written perhaps 3000? years ago? -I am not well versed here.)

I have not read Genesis for more than 50 years so had forgotten any statement about god moving over the waters in darkness* – (before light was created? or just after dark?) Can you cite this text? - I'll try to see if I can find a bible and read it. - Mine was one of the many “not needed” books left behind in USA ~ 17 years ago when I moved to Brazil.

Alternatively, can you briefly rewrite the Big Bang chronology in vocabulary that the writer's of Genesis could have used? (Avoiding making similarities as much as you can, of course, to make your point better and destroy mine.)
-------------------
*Also, are we sure statement is not some later insert by a priest, etc.

 

Well, use your common sense. For example if I tell you you are looking good, exceptionally smart, you can doubt me if you like.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

See? Now I'm confused!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So?? Just because you’re churchmen could not answer your questions. How does that disprove the existence of God? You do know that it is a part of the Christianity that we can never fully know God.

Unbelievable intellectual dishonesty. My reply was not stating that the actual happening was not in the Bible. I was stating that the INTERPRITATION you brought forward of its meaning was not written in the Bible.

These Scriptures are about the tearing of the veil. How do you link them with the sign of the destruction of the temple???

Once again where does it say this in the Bible? Give me a verse that states that no rainfall existed before the flood.

Yeah he was giving a cautionary warning. You stated that He had carried it out the action. When He had not.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

You're wrong, I'm an atheist.

 

Oh and here are my answers to the OP questions.

catholic

Nope

I found it to be in rebellion against the teachings of the One it claimed to be it’s God.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Of course you can. I'm also an 'adoomblethwanger'. Doomblethwangers don't exist, and I do not believe in them either.

 

Roman Catholic.
No.
Because of the intervention of The Word of God on my behalf.

 

Once again, these were just questions which had nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God. 1 Samuel 15 clearly states that God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites many generations after they attacked the Israelites as they fled Egypt. Why would anyone follow a God that condones mass murder against a people who had nothing to do with the original transgression? The depiction of God in 1 Samuel 15 is an evil one, period. Unless of course you can somehow justify genocide.

Ask any scholar how Jesus fulfilled this prophecy and what it means for us today and they will lead you to those same chapters in the Bible. The destruction of the temple came with his death and it being rebuilt in three days came with his resurrection.

My church took the words of the Bible very literally. The first rainfall described in the Bible was that of the flood but in Genesis 2:4-6 it clearly describes the conditions for making rainbows even though "God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,". In Genesis 9:14, God said "And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:". What does that say about the existence of refraction and reflection (the cause of rainbows and eyesight) before the flood seeing that this wasthe first time anyone had seen a rainbow. Maybe you can give me a verse which states that rainfall and rainbows did exist before the flood.

No I did not.

Is this indicative to how you interpret the Bible?

 

Here we have a classic example of the "Argument by Outrage" fallacy. However, simply stating outrage is not a sufficient form of argument. It is merely a substitute for true argument, with the intention to win over the prospective convert by means of emotional appeal. For more information concerning this fallacy click here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html

 

the bigotry

 

You could interpret it that way if you chose, but that doesn't add up to evidence. To have actual evidence, you need something that isn't subject to arbitrary re-interpretation - I could just as well insist that Genesis is a description of some other complex phenomenon, reduced to general terms.

Also it begs the question of why God would create people who aren't educated enough to understand the stuff that he purportedly wants to communicate to them.

Of course they do. They're already believers at the outset - those "counterarguments" are little more than affirmations of their faith in the first place. Satisfaction only scores points when it is expressed by those who harbored genuine doubt to begin with.