Of course, religious people of any type know what it’s like to be Atheists. They don’t believe in all the other gods.

To become Atheists completely, all they need to do is disbelieve in one god more…

Because I don’t believe it.

Why not ask God if he exists or indeed if what I posted about Him is in the slighest bit true!? If you don’t believe He exists then you’ve lost nowt, other than entertaining the notion for a few seconds that is – about the length of time it takes to respond to a post on STW in fact. Seems like you can only gain from asking the question.

Like I said though, that’s entirely up to you (hard to say that without sounding patronising – sorry).

Why not? Perhaps you didn’t get it on the first pass: Because He doesn’t believe it.

Which god though?
The Greeks use to have loads, the Hindu’s still have plenty, where do they fit in?

Only the God in the Christian Bible (of Abraham, Moses and Paul etc) offers us relationship and reconciliation with him through his son Jesus. This offer of a personal relationship with him is the fundamental difference between Christianity and other ‘world’ religions – as I understand it.

You do realise that there is no actual evidence that the alleged Nazarene is anything more than a character that someone made up in a story, don’t you?

Plus of course, the obvious point that you will get nowhere claiming that any particular god as outlined in a book written by ignorant bronze-age tribal shamans can offer anything at all. This is not going to be taken seriously by someone who does not believe it.

Why not? Perhaps you didn’t get it on the first pass: Because He doesn’t believe it.

Yep I got it, but I’m not saying he has to at all, hopefully I have made that clear – but didn’t folk think the world was flat until someone opened their eyes to the possibility that it wasn’t????

My point in suggesting he pursues it, is that I know how life-changing it is to know Jesus and know how much he loves me.

Surely, if you had discovered the best set of disc brakes going, that there were unlimited stocks and that someone was giving them away for free you’d tell people wouldn’t you!?

Yes, but the disc brakes would not need anything to back up the fact that they exist by being anything other than clearly existant.

People accepted that the earth was not flat after it was claimed, then demonstrated that it is spherical.

So far, there has been no demonstration whatsoever that there is any such thing as a god. Of whatever type.

What evidence do you have that jesus loves you, by the way?

Only the God in the Christian Bible (of Abraham, Moses and Paul etc) offers us relationship and reconciliation with him through his son Jesus. This offer of a personal relationship with him is the fundamental difference between Christianity and other ‘world’ religions – as I understand it.

So does this mean all the other gods exist but you should only choose the Christian one for the reasons you mentioned?

Bhakti yoga in hindu vaisnavism has 4 modes of a personal relationship with the personality of god.

The Hindus have a good selection. One has an elephant’s head. Another, several arms (but only two legs, for some reason). Another one looks like a relatively normal human, except that it’s got bright blue skin…

Allegedley.

Then of course there’s the cosmic spaghetti monster and his noodley appendages.

Klingon to your mockery woppit, It seems to be a language you truly believe in.

That’s a good point. However, I think that the evidence (that there hqas been theoretical peer-group reviews, following rational experiment to obtain sound results etc.) suggests that the probability of finding one’s “belief” to be confirmed, is very high.

But this demonstrates my point exactly. The one thing they actually know about gravity is that it works in a way in which they don’t really understand, and that the current model does not adequately describe or predict the phenomenon. An example follows…

PS: Fortunately, there are websites and books available that will explain these ideas in “layman’s” terms so that it doesn’t need to be a “belief”.

The thread on flight demonstrated this nicely. Concepts such as flight or gravity are oversimplified by analogy and metaphor to the extent that they are jsut wrong and most people continue with that misconception about the phenomenon without actually understanding anything about it. What else is this but a faith, the idea that someone much smarter has worked in the area and published in peer-reviewed journals is akin to saying, well, I’m sure the pope / archbishop of canterbury knows more than I, so I’m sure it’s true. All you know about gravity is the effect it has in your demonstrable environment, and you probably have some misconceptions bout this as well, yet you accept it as a construct, even thought it is undefined, to you.

I won’t even start on electrons, string theory or evolution. Don’t get me wrong,I’m not saying these things don’t exist, but i recognise that my belief is exactly that only.

The Arthur C. Clarke quote is not a the same thing i am saying, so sither you are being deliberately ironic, you misunderstand me, you misunderstand the Arthur C. Clarke quote, you have taken it out of context or you misunderstand my point.

You do realise that there is no actual evidence that the alleged Nazarene is anything more than a character that someone made up in a story, don’t you?

I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that there was not

1) a being that did all the things outlined in the Gospels, including miracles.
2) a person who went around preaching those things, but was after all only a man.
3) no person at all.

>Concepts such as flight or gravity are oversimplified by analogy and metaphor to the extent that they are jsut wrong and most people continue with that misconception about the phenomenon without actually understanding anything about it.

Eh?
People may take flight for granted, but it’s easily demonstrable – that’s different to “oversimplified by analogy and metaphor”. What misconception? – it’s just bloody physics, regardless of your choice of diety(s).

>What else is this but a faith
Sorry, you’re showing your ignorance (that’s not a put down, that’s in ‘lack of knowledge’)

As for gravity, that’s taking a little longer to work out..

>All you know about gravity is the effect it has in your demonstrable environment, and you probably have some misconceptions bout this as well, yet you accept it as a construct,

Better trying to understand the world around you, rather than attempting blissful ignorance.

You “love” your parents right? or your children?
Define “love”… break it down into its constituent parts smart ass.. Logicalize that spock!…

There are things we do not understand.

Therefore God must be true 🙄

charlie – yes, your ideas about knowledge/gravity sound a lot like “we don’t know what caused the universe to exist and so therefore it must have been god”. A rationalist would say – “We don’t know how the universe started. Yet.” My response to your multiple-choice question – “c”.

jond’s example of flight is a good one. It is easily demonstrable how a plane flies – differential wing air pressures, forward thrust etc., rather than a “god” picking the plane up and moving it about…

Kevevs – is that directed at me? What I mean is – the exchange of any emotion (in this case “love”) is predicated on the presence of a giver and a receiver. How does theboycopeland know that his “jesus” is present to engage in the exchange? What is the evidence that it is anything more than his own wish fulfillment, given that the figure is, historically, unlikely to have existed?

I can’t figure out who are the biggest control freaks: militant aetheists or evangelical christians?

Atheists are interested in understanding reality, not controlling it. Of course, if we can derive useful technologies and knowledge along the way…

I think that it is fantastic that the debate of Jesus’ life & miracles continue to provoke such strong thougths/ reactions some 2000 years after he was born…

God continues to reveal his world (and all its intricate beauty) to us yet we remain blind & self-centred in our own importance/ intelligence.

it’s just bloody physics

Exactly what I mean!! “It’s just physics”!! Thanks for demonstrating the point. You may as well say “It just is” or “It’s turtles all the way down”

There are things we do not understand.

Therefore God must be true

Really? Is that what you understood my post to say?? I’ve never even said “God must be true” Let me ry one last time for you.

Some people believe in God, other people believe in physics some believe in both. Neither understands much about them or how or why they work. For many, they are both an absraction. But the physics believers ‘know’ that someone else has worked it all out, except that they haven’t.

Get it now?

Better trying to understand the world around you, rather than attempting blissful ignorance.

I don’t think anyone here has said otherwise. It’s just that some people chose not to explore some ideas. They start with an idea which is a result of their environment rather than any detailed study and refuse to explore it. This cuts both ways.

If you could come up with a theory and set of predictions that could be verifiable demonstrated that there was a high probability that it was turtles all the way down, then yes, you may as well say that it’s the same as saying it’s just physics 🙂

I do understand the point you’re trying to make though.

jond’s example of flight is a good one. It is easily demonstrable how a plane flies – differential wing air pressures, forward thrust etc., rather than a “god” picking the plane up and moving it about…

I am not suggesting God picks up planes and moves them about. I’m not sure where you got this idea. I was saying that the earlier defence about there being loads of stuff in books and on the web about how this stuff works is not valid, as it is demonstrable that there are lots of misconceptions being published and taught about this domain.

If you could come up with a theory and set of predictions

exactly!! I doubt that some of the folks here could do that, let alone in any comprehensive way. They are sure that someone else has done it and so that is good enough. That is faith or a belief.

That is faith or a belief.

Indeed it is, but I think to some extent you’re beginning to conflate different meanings of the word. This is neatly described in the OED definition of faith-

Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

I for instance have a faith and belief that my cat won’t have peeded on the sofa when I get home. For me, the importance of a faith or belief is based on whether, on exploration, it seems reasonably rational. For the cat’s sake it better be.

Well, I don’t want to be anti-semantic, but pulling out the dictionary definiton just pulls the argument in a differetn direction. If you are unhappy with “faith” then “belief” will do. But you know what i mean.

the importance is to whether the faith or belief is reasonably rational

and in terms of your cat peeing, you probably know enough about your cat to be able to make that decison.

Ahhh I see the tea break is over
Anyways the main problem I have with both camps, the atheist and Abrahamic gods, is their hubristic certainty that they are right!

There is enough that science does not know to allow for some sort of theistic interpretation, any other viewpoint is viewing science as dogma which suggests a semi-religious zeal in believing in science. This arrogance just gets theists backs up.
There is also plenty wrong with the religions (particularly the Abrahamic ones of Christianity, Judaism, Islam), or people’s interpretation of their dogma. A greater humility would be appropriate behaviour and probably closer to the spirit if not the words of their books.

Yes it is in people nature to want to believe that they are right – what any spiritual tradition should do is to modify their behaviour towards a better less fanatical or dogmatic view of the world. Sadly many religions (and I include atheism in this) do precisely the opposite.

And just don’t get me started on the Devil… people commit evil acts! Blaming it on the Devil is a bit like a 4 year old denying they wrote on the wall, when they were the only one in the room and it says “<insert 4 years old name> was here.”

BTW I have little faith in our cats, particularly when it’s cold / wet / snowy 👿 grrrrrr

CharlieMingus – surely it is about levels though?

Using the argument you present you end up eventually at solipsism. I believe I exist but nothing else. Absolutely everything becomes an issue of ‘faith’ which makes the word itself meaningless.

Usually I go with the phrase: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”. If someone says that their house is painted blue then I’m happy to believe them unless proven otherwise. If someone says their house is painted blue and levitates ten feet off the ground with no visible means of support then I am likely to demand proof.

I think this is really playing with the word ‘belief’. My acceptance of fluid dynamics as a model for how certain things work is not a faith in the same manner as a religious one.

I think this is really playing with the word ‘belief’.

Well, i’m not too concerned waht you call it. But belief seems a good word for accepting that things happen because of certain things, without having any understanding about waht those certain things are, and faith is what it sounds like when you trust that other folks have worked it out for you. But as I said, I don’t really want to get involved in a semantic argument. Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.

There is enough that science does not know to allow for some sort of theistic interpretation, any other viewpoint is viewing science as dogma which suggests a semi-religious zeal in believing in science.

Sorry but that is nonsense. Gaps in science does not allow for theistic interpretation as all this does is end up with a “god of the gaps” something which even most theists find unacceptable.

Also a scientific viewpoint and an athiest viewpoint are not the same thing. Many scientists are also theists and many athiests believe in all sorts of non scientific nonsence.

Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.

No you’re not. What you are saying is like those who conflate the colloquial definition of the word “theory” with the scientific definition. It’s the same word but with two very very different meanings.

No you’re not. What you are saying is like those who conflate the colloquial definition of the word “theory” with the scientific definition. It’s the same word but with two very very different meanings.

Well, now why don’t you tell me what I mean then. and what others mean when they say theory

Sorry but that is nonsense. Gaps in science does not allow for theistic interpretation as all this does is end up with a “god of the gaps” something which even most theists find unacceptable.

I would say it allows for some sort of god as architect rather than god of the gaps.

Also a scientific viewpoint and an athiest viewpoint are not the same thing. Many scientists are also theists and many athiests believe in all sorts of non scientific nonsence.

The trouble is that atheists use science to define their arguments.

Really? Is that what you understood my post to say?? I’ve never even said “God must be true” Let me ry one last time for you.

Some people believe in God, other people believe in physics some believe in both.

Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive then it boils down to what I have said.

Neither understands much about them or how or why they work. For many, they are both an absraction. But the physics believers ‘know’ that someone else has worked it all out, except that they haven’t.

The “who” that you refer to that apparently “believers” in Physics defer to, “who” is that “someone else” exactly?

Get it now?

I think I was right the first time!

The trouble is that atheists use science to define their arguments

No, some athiests use science to define their arguments. Some theists do the same.

Well, i’m not too concerned waht you call it. But belief seems a good word for accepting that things happen because of certain things, without having any understanding about waht those certain things are, and faith is what it sounds like when you trust that other folks have worked it out for you. But as I said, I don’t really want to get involved in a semantic argument. Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.

But the issue is the whole argument you are positing is just that – a semantic one. I have ‘faith’ that aeroplanes work, just like others have ‘faith’ in a deity or deities. Your argument all hinges around the meaning of the words ‘belief’ and ‘faith’.

I am not a scientist so I may be wrong, my understanding is:

A theory is testable, repeatable and withstands objective peer scrutiny.

Some theories may also be termed “facts” but in scientific terms are still “theories”

Theories without any underpinning are hypothesis. They may be rubbish and not stand scrutiny or testing. They can then be refined or dispensed with, any prediction could be one of these.

Religious teachings about where we came from withstand no scrutiny hence cannot be theories, they are hypothesis’s and cannot be compared (as those with an interest in teaching creationism are want to do by corrupting the minds of the youngest and most vulnerable in our society)