Do Atheists pick on others (Off Topic version)

[MarkFL]

Most theists don't have to deal with that particular hurdle - they believe the version that was told to them as being the one true religion by their parents before they developed sufficient reasoning skills to question it.

But yes, an adult starting from scratch would have an almighty task in considering all religious claims and choosing one. A belief in the supernatural would lead to deism in that case I suppose.

Yes, I would agree that most theists were indoctrinated at a young age, accepted the version they were given without much critical thought, and became set. However, as we see here on this forum, there are those who think very critically, and whose belief comes after such critical thought...it is to them that I would ask how they found that they should align with one particular religion, over all others. For them, there is obviously more to it than, I have witnessed events that can only be explained by the supernatural, therefore Christianity is true. I am interested in how one gets from the supernatural to one particular religion.

 

[MarkFL]

By checking it out and see who answers. I only tested God, but Ian McCormack said: if there is a God help me to pray and He showed him what to pray and he saw Jesus and was raised from the dead. When I was atheist I reckoned if God exists and I want to know and test that why wouldn't He answer? It was really weird. For a year every stupid thing I said, if that doesn't happen I don't believe in God, happened and I was like that's a coincidence, but after a year I was convinced and went to a church. An atheist on a Dutch forum did it too, just for the rain to stop or something and it happened. Don't know if he's convinced yet, but it did impress him.

Did you ask God to do things that couldn't happen anyway? Rain has been known to stop on many occasions, but for example, did you pray that an amputee have their limb restored?

 

[Josiah]

What it doesn't waste time on is those things that present no evidence or starting point for hypothesis, those things include miracles and the supernatural. You should know this.

Science tends to accept certain realities.... and tends to reject anything outside that "box." The reality that (I think!) you regard yourself as an "atheist" means you discount that - your "box" is too small for that possibility. Okay.

What I've conveyed is that such is a choice; sciences make numerous assumptions (call them beliefs if you like) - and sticks to the "box" they create. I'd agree that "box" (especially in theoretical physics) has "grown" in the past century, but it still is determined by the assumptions (beliefs) science makes (I'd add the "box" grows at the protest - not the welcome - of physics, but I digress). I obviously have no problems with that, but on the other hand, doing so for me does not discount realities beyond that box. Indeed, a couple of courses in theoretical physics might even strongly encourage that possibility.

I understand that for one who only accepts a certain "box" , such will thus demand all substantiation be in that box and is not likely to "see" anything outside the box. I "get" it. But what I don't accept is the demand that all outside the box be substantiated by what they consider inside the "box."

Stating your profession and qualifications does not make claims of miracles true.

Certainly not (nor, of course, was that remotely implied, as we all know). Insisting that SUPERnatural must be "proven" (a whole other topic, lol) by the NATURAL is what I objected to. You seem to want a quasi-"science" substantiation for what you assume is outside "science."

I think we also are working with two different definitions of "miracle" as I tried to address.



Thank you.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

...I think we also are working with two different definitions of "miracle" as I tried to address...

You cited the birth of certain children dear to you as a miracle...if we are going to call things for which there is a natural explanation miracles, that is to widen the definition from "an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws" to include events that are in fact explainable using science, then are such miracles really miraculous?

 

[TubbyTubby]

Science tends to accept certain realities.... and tends to reject anything outside that "box." The reality that (I think!) you regard yourself as an "atheist" means you discount that - your "box" is too small for that possibility. Okay.

What I've conveyed is that such is a choice; sciences make numerous assumptions (call them beliefs if you like) - and sticks to the "box" they create. I'd agree that "box" (especially in theoretical physics) has "grown" in the past century, but it still is determined by the assumptions (beliefs) science makes (I'd add the "box" grows at the protest - not the welcome - of physics, but I digress). I obviously have no problems with that, but on the other hand, doing so for me does not discount realities beyond that box. Indeed, a couple of courses in theoretical physics might even strongly encourage that possibility.

I understand that for one who only accepts a certain "box" , such will thus demand all substantiation be in that box and is not likely to "see" anything outside the box. I "get" it. But what I don't accept is the demand that all outside the box be substantiated by what they consider inside the "box."





Certainly not (nor, of course, was that remotely implied, as we all know). Insisting that SUPERnatural must be "proven" (a whole other topic, lol) by the NATURAL is what I objected to. You seem to want a quasi-"science" substantiation for what you assume is outside "science."

I think we also are working with two different definitions of "miracle" as I tried to address.



Thank you.



- Josiah

Well yes, the box that I and science exist in is able to be studied, it is the natural Universe and real. Anything outside of that box is supernatural and requires faith to believe in because it has no evidence.

I don't argue with that, you can call my box as small as you like in those terms. Like you say, the box continues to grow and the places that gods hide in are becoming smaller.

If evidence of a sentient powerful god that created the world we live in were to present itself then science would be very keen to investigate it I'm sure. But your gods seem pretty evasive, they used to live in the mountains, make volcanoes erupt and cause thunder and lightning or make the ground shake. They're not there any longer (although some Islamic Mullahs incredibly still do believe that). They used to live above the clouds but we've had a good look up there and no sign of them.

They now exist 'outside of the box' that science is able to look at. Pretty convenient that eh? As our understanding of the Universe expanded, the gods ran away, further and further out of reach until they found safety in a supernatural realm, their final resting place well out of the reach of that pesky science. A place where only faith can penetrate.

 

[Josiah]

Well yes, the box that I and science exist in is able to be studied

... by the same. Your chosen assumptions/faiths have made a "box". Yes, what is in that "box" is thus in that box.... if there is anything beyond it, such cannot be examined inside your "box." But this "proves" absolutely nothing - only the "circular" function of your faith.

it is the natural Universe and real

So you assume. And using a circular argument, what "is" your box thus is your box. And yes, IF there is any reality outside of your chosen, created "box" you've thus eliminated any means of confirming or denying such. Your choice.

Anything outside of that box is supernatural and requires faith to believe in because it has no evidence.

Actually, your assumptions (call them "belief") also requires faith. Sure, if you chose to believe that "physics" is what is "real" (I have a Ph.D. in physics and I have NO IDEA what that clause even means!) then yes, your belief is likely to be confirmed by your belief. But your faith choices have eliminated any means to determine any "reality" outside of your box - simply because your belief choices are that no such reality exists and nothing outside your "box" can be considered to evaluate that.

If evidence of a sentient powerful god that created the world we live in were to present itself then science would be very keen to investigate it I'm sure.

Nope. Because of that "IF" - you demand that all share your faith in the size of the "box." And since your faith insists there's no reality beyond your chosen "box" and you refuse to permit any investigation outside your "box" then it's IMPOSSIBLE (and disallowed) to investigate beyond your box.

I strongly suspect physics has a bigger "box" than you do.... but no, I see no evidence whatsoever that science has EVER been "keen" on proving it's box is wrong. Occasionally, things DEMAND such but science slowly comes kicking and screaming and trying hard to disprove such. But I agree with you, in physics (I'm mostly speaking of theoretical physics now), that "box" has been enlarged (or maybe just with fuzzy, cushy walls) - to the great, great dismay and frustration of science. I think it's likely bigger than yours, but whatever.

They now exist 'outside of the box' that science is able to look at.

The supernatural has always been supernatural.

What has "changed" .... perhaps..... is the faith in only the physical/material with a sharp chosen disbelief beyond that.

their final resting place well out of the reach of that pesky science. A place where only faith can penetrate.

The supernatural has no "place". Never did. Time, place.... these are aspects of the natural. The supernatural MAY, perhaps, interplay with the natural but it's absurd to subject such to it. Again, you are FORCING all to "fit" YOUR faith, the "box" YOUR faith creates. Your faith creates your "reality" and then, being circular ?, you conclude that all that is thus unreal is, well, therefore unreal. Your faith's creation of reality is the only means you permit to examine reality - thus insuring no challenge to your faith. I "get" it. And that IS your choice.



Appreciate, I'm not being critical of your faith and thus choices concerning "reality." I'm simply pointing out your faith and thus the "box" you've created (which I'm acknowledging is your choice) and disagreeing with the rubric that what is believed to be outside YOUR created "box" must be "proven" by what's in YOUR created box and "fit" within it. I think you've protected your faith creations well, lol. Is that unusual? Not at all.



Thank you.



.

 

[Rens]

Did you ask God to do things that couldn't happen anyway? Rain has been known to stop on many occasions, but for example, did you pray that an amputee have their limb restored?

Lol no that thought wouldn't have entered my mind then. I want to do that, my collegue too, but we're too chicken. My boss's girlfriend lost her arm. Imagine you just step out in faith and do it. Easy evangelism, but the 'what if it doesn't happen' thoughts make everyone think: let the big evangelist do it. One guy here was in the newspapers. He asked a woman whose husband had killed her kids and himself if he could raise them from the dead. She didn't even believe. The whole country said he was nuts and everyone was mad at him. Better first try with a believing family member without telling anyone.
I was quite uncomplicated and easier to convince I think. I was 14. I just asked for things I needed myself day in day out, like if I don't get an 8.3 for German I don't believe in God.
A friend just said: I see all those miracles in the Bible. God if I don't see them I won't believe. We've seen a lot of healings after I became a christian. Even my dad who used to be an antitheist and really mocked it, one day went to their sick neighbour to say she should go to that church to get healed. No we don't believe in God. Oh me neither he said, but I have seen some awesome things happening there. Family and people we knew were instantly healed from cancer, it was on an x ray. He's not saved yet, but he's not anti anymore. Recently he got healed himself. He didn't understand anything anymore, so then I dared lay hands on him.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Sorry, I can see a lot of words but not much substance.

I don't have faith, science is the polar opposite of faith. I don't know why theists always seem to want to insist that atheists have faith, it's ridiculous. I sometimes get the feeling it helps you bolster your own insecurities about believing in the supernatural if you convince yourself that everyone else uses a similar irrational system of faith.

You need to stop that because we don't. You have your faith, that's fine. Science doesn't, and that's it. Just leave it at that. If you are a research physicist then you should know this, if you don't then you're lying to yourself.

 

[MarkFL]

...Actually, your assumptions (call them "belief") also requires faith...

What beliefs has TubbyTubby stated as having without evidence?

Skepticism is not a belief, it is the rational choice to reject any statements which have no compelling evidence to back them. It is a common ploy by those with faith to declare that rejection of their beliefs is also faith, thereby trying to bring those who reject their beliefs to the same position of having to justify their position with some kind of evidence. A skeptic need only justify their position by lack of compelling evidence.

 

[MarkFL]

Lol no that thought wouldn't have entered my mind then. I want to do that, my collegue too, but we're too chicken. My boss's girlfriend lost her arm. Imagine you just step out in faith and do it. Easy evangelism, but the 'what if it doesn't happen' thoughts make everyone think: let the big evangelist do it. One guy here was in the newspapers. He asked a woman whose husband had killed her kids and himself if he could raise them from the dead. She didn't even believe. The whole country said he was nuts and everyone was mad at him. Better first try with a believing family member without telling anyone.
I was quite uncomplicated and easier to convince I think. I was 14. I just asked for things I needed myself day in day out, like if I don't get an 8.3 for German I don't believe in God.
A friend just said: I see all those miracles in the Bible. God if I don't see them I won't believe. We've seen a lot of healings after I became a christian. Even my dad who used to be an antitheist and really mocked it, one day went to their sick neighbour to say she should go to that church to get healed. No we don't believe in God. Oh me neither he said, but I have seen some awesome things happening there. Family and people we knew were instantly healed from cancer, it was on an x ray. He's not saved yet, but he's not anti anymore. Recently he got healed himself. He didn't understand anything anymore, so then I dared lay hands on him.

See, that's the thing...people have been known to do unexpectedly well on an exam, cancers have been known to go into remission without beseeching the supernatural, but the kinds of healing that have never been seen before, such as regeneration of lost limbs, seems to be a miracle that is never documented.

 

[Josiah]

What beliefs has TubbyTubby stated as having without evidence?

I'm not sure what his faith is.... It SEEMS to ME, Mark, that he has some concept of physics - and his faith tells him THAT is "reality" and all must be examined within that "box" and with the things in that "box."

Now.... assuming his faith is right.... and assuming thus his created/chosen "box" is right.... then it's very predictable that his box will affirm the "reality" of his box, and virtually mandates that it will not affirm any other reality.

it is the rational choice to reject any statements which have no compelling evidence to back them

Whose "evidence?" Mark, you are simply stating that what ones faith has embraced as "real" or "authentic" thus supplies the "evidence". Kind of circular, don't you agree?

And of course, beyond the faith that creates the "reality" (the box), and the rubric that only what one's faith accepts as "real" can be used to authenticate "reality" (thus protecting one's faith very well, lol), you raise other difficult issues: what is "COMPELLING?" What can be "PROVEN?" According to what? According to whom?

I think some atheists simply protesteth too much..... protest the "circular" thoughts perhaps without acknowledging their faith is doing the same thing. Okay. We ALL have our assumptions, our "world view," our "glasses" (examined or not) - our faith creates the "box" in which we chose to live. But what I tend to disagree with is the rubric that every "box" is subject to MY "box" and must be "Proven" (??) to be "Real" (??) or Authentic (??) must be subject to and evaluated exclusively by the stuff in MY box as arbitrated by ME. To be blunt: if one acknowledge nothing outside their "box" (however examines or not that may be) then there is a rather predictable outcome: What is outside their "box" of reality is therefore assumed to be not real, and they reject anything outside their box as valid for examining anything outside their box - which isn't real anyway. Chosen faith has created a "box". Nothin' per se wrong with that. But it is chosen faith that has created the "box". And I don't "argue" with that (it tends to be the Atheists who ridicule and demean me.... who question MY intelligence, honesty, integrity, education). What I DO "argue" with is that others must "prove" (whatever that means) thier concept of reality (whatever that means) according to THEIR box, the tools in THEIR box - which not only is circular but only insures THEIR box will not be challenged. And (ironically) this is often shrouded in the CLAIM of being "enlightened" - no, it simply is a rubric that insures our faith will stand unchallenged. Yes, it works both ways..... some "see" this in others but not in self. Understandable.

A skeptic need only justify their position by lack of compelling evidence.

I respectfully disagree, Mark. Such is simply EVADING their own faith and the "box" it creates as to what is "real" and thus can supply "evidence."




Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[TubbyTubby]

You're trying to say that god is in a supernatural place that science can't see but then claim it's our fault for not being able to see it because our view is limited.

It's either in the natural observable world (discovered or not) or its in another imagined place not in reality. You can't have it both ways.

What's your field of research?

 

[psalms 91]

the natural realm and the spiritual realm and to those who dont believe it is foolishness but to those of us that do it is more real than the natural

 

[Rens]

You're trying to say that god is in a supernatural place that science can't see but then claim it's our fault for not being able to see it because our view is limited.

It's either in the natural observable world (discovered or not) or its in another imagined place not in reality. You can't have it both ways.

What's your field of research?

Science should be able to see if something is supernatural. If someone is raised from the dead after 4 days or a limb grows back, how else could you explain that? But it's not the fault of atheists. That's easy. Blame the atheist that he doesn't believe when you don't even believe yourself that you can grow a limb out.

 

[Josiah]

You're trying to say that god is in a supernatural place that science can't see but then claim it's our fault for not being able to see it because our view is limited.

IF this is written to me, then no - what I'm saying is what I said, the words I used in my post.

No, I posted that the SUPERnatural is and isn't in any place/time. Here TOO you seem to INSIST that all agree with YOUR faith, YOUR choices, YOUR assumptions, YOUR box, YOUR tools of examination. I disagree that what is claimed to be outside YOUR 'box' is nonetheless, you insist, subject to YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR 'tools'. Kind of circular, don't you think? Could such have any other purpose than to insure nothing beyond your faith's "box" will have any validity?

It's either in the natural observable world (discovered or not) or its in another imagined place not in reality. You can't have it both ways.

Why MUST all be either Supernatural or just natural, one OR the other? Why IMPOSE this mandate? Ah. Your faith has, perhaps.


Ah.... I think many scientists would question your faith that all that is "real" must be "observable" (especially by YOU) but let's not digress.... Again, your faith has created a certain "box" which you label as "reality". This is the function of your faith and certainly is your choice. I've not challenged or debate that (THAT tends to happen in reverse, atheists questioning MY intelligence, honesty, integrity, education, worth). I'm only challenging your rubric of mandating that all be docilicly subject to YOUR faith, YOUR box - and that all must "prove" (?) THEIR views according to the tools and stuff in YOUR box.

No, could it be that you are the one locked into the faith that reality is physics - and thus has time/space (etc.)? I never remotely indicated that. Here again, you seem to be insisting that I submit to YOUR faith.... that I must submit to YOUR faith's created "box."



Thank you.



- Josiah

 

[TubbyTubby]

Science should be able to see if something is supernatural. If someone is raised from the dead after 4 days or a limb grows back, how else could you explain that?

We can't explain it, there's no examples to study

But it's not the fault of atheists. That's easy. Blame the atheist that he doesn't believe when you don't even believe yourself that you can grow a limb out.

What?

 

[MarkFL]

I'm not sure what his faith is.... It SEEMS to ME, Mark, that he has some concept of physics - and his faith tells him THAT is "reality" and all must be examined within that "box" and with the things in that "box."

As you are I am certain well aware, physics makes predictions that can be tested and verified. So, no faith is being exercised for example if we believe that general relativity, or evolution, are sound explanations for what we observe. We can assume that what we observe is reality, otherwise we can assume nothing. It is only when we believe something not observable, testable and verifiable that we are using faith.

Whose "evidence?" Mark, you are simply stating that what ones faith has embraced as "real" or "authentic" thus supplies the "evidence". Kind of circular, don't you agree?

Evidence that we can all objectively agree is real.

I think some atheists simply protesteth too much..... protest the "circular" thoughts perhaps without acknowledging their faith is doing the same thing.

Again, I would ask what is being put forth here by me as faith?

I respectfully disagree, Mark. Such is simply EVADING their own faith and the "box" it creates as to what is "real" and thus can supply "evidence."

You keep trying to put the skeptic in the same position you are in...the skeptic makes no positive claim, the skeptic merely reject claims until there is some compelling reason to accept it. By compelling evidence, I mean things like gravitational lenses, a prediction of general relativity, which has been verified. We are compelled to examine this evidence, because it is there or all to see. If someone says they believe something for which there is no real compelling evidence, their faith in this does not somehow suspend the need for me to have more than their statement before I can believe it as well. That's what makes me a skeptic...my skepticism is not the product of some kind of faith.

 

[Rens]

We can't explain it, there's no examples to study

What?

No unfortunately.
I say that a christian can't blame an atheist that he doesn't believe in God if you don't believe yourself that you can grow a limb out in Jesus' Name.

 

[TubbyTubby]

IF this is written to me, then no - what I'm saying is what I said, the words I used in my post.

No, I posted that the SUPERnatural is and isn't in any place/time. Here TOO you seem to INSIST that all agree with YOUR faith, YOUR choices, YOUR assumptions, YOUR box, YOUR tools of examination. I disagree that what is claimed to be outside YOUR 'box' is nonetheless, you insist, subject to YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR 'tools'. Kind of circular, don't you think? Could such have any other purpose than to insure nothing beyond your faith's "box" will have any validity?






Why MUST all be either Supernatural or just natural, one OR the other? Why IMPOSE this mandate? Ah. Your faith has, perhaps.


Ah.... I think many scientists would question your faith that all that is "real" must be "observable" (especially by YOU) but let's not digress.... Again, your faith has created a certain "box" which you label as "reality". This is the function of your faith and certainly is your choice. I've not challenged or debate that (THAT tends to happen in reverse, atheists questioning MY intelligence, honesty, integrity, education, worth). I'm only challenging your rubric of mandating that all be docilicly subject to YOUR faith, YOUR box - and that all must "prove" (?) THEIR views according to the tools and stuff in YOUR box.

No, YOU are the one locked into the faith that reality is physics - and thus has time/space (etc.). I never remotely indicated that. Here again, you are insisting that I submit to YOUR faith.



Thank you.



- Josiah

With respect, you claim to be in scientific research but your words belie it.

What field of research are you involved with? I'm not aiming to insult you, I'm interested to know how someone can be involved in Physics yet be content to blur the lines between the natural world and the supernatural.

 

[MarkFL]

No unfortunately.
I say that a christian can't blame an atheist that he doesn't believe in God if you don't believe yourself that you can grow a limb out in Jesus' Name.

Likewise, an atheist cannot blame a Christian for their faith...all an atheist should do is explain why they don't share this same belief. I cannot say that having faith is wrong, all I can say is why I do not use faith as a means for figuring out what is true vs. what is not.