Criteria for evidence of a God.

Post Reply New Topic

Well, a lot of things are potentially more dangerous, however, few people take full control of their lives. How many Sartreans do you see around? Most people have their own bits of bad faith(Sartre term), and most people have their idols.


Quite far. Most people are willing to believe anything they are taught, but that does not mean that they have a personality that necessarily submits to authority, it is just that people tend to believe the notions that they are taught, not only that, but on some level, religion actually is a good way to rationalize a lot of other instincts that people have. In any case, the Christian religion, which is often referred to, usually is not considered to have a "magical flying bearded sky man" but rather has an incorporeal being.


Says who? I deny that responsibility exists. Prove it does. QED it.


Seems true to me. How many people really try to grasp reality by the blunt facts that appear to make it up? Very few, most live by some noble lie that makes them feel better.

Sure, everyone does. It is just that most people don't know how far doubt can go down.

Do you think most people use their critical thinking ability? Do you think most atheists are magically good at it? I doubt the latter. There are some very thoughtful theologians, apologists, and some very stupid atheists. The only detriment that religion holds is that it is rooted in tradition, and thus have the fools that follow in that, however, a lot of the very smart, and very thoughtful people I know are religious, and to be honest, I think their notion of presuppositional apologetics is actually pretty good, as it brings fundamental questions upon the foundations of thought that most people take for granted, I am not ashamed to say that I accept presuppositional apologetics as an influence.


As a lot of things do. A lot of personal tastes are expressed beyond purchase decisions.


Says who? I don't see a reason to justify anything I think to you or anyone else. I think that this is an assertion, and one I clearly disagree with, and I think that this assertion has the potential to negatively impact large numbers of people as well(the people who do things that have potential to negatively impact large numbers of people perhaps, and there are a lot of them) Not only that, but I still must assert that apologetics exist, and that there are men of religion(with Phds no less) who debate atheism on the credibility of religion, these include debates on the historicity of Jesus, metaphysics, meta-ethics, and the foundations of human understanding.

Its not even all about apologism either. A lot can be said for natural theism (Aristotle's as well as the pagan's concept of 'God'). I will admit that its rare to find people who aren't working from assumptions backward and rationalizing them with the facts - which is sad. Even starting from that particular point, having no preconceptions and thinking objectively - it can go either way. The a priori a lot of people have that atheism is truth and that everything else is a delusion or emotion-based deviation is a bit short-sighted.

So, for me the questions becomes Which holds greater weight?
Faith-based sprituality or Fact-based spirituality?

I think fact-based are at least advantaged in one way; they have more tangible arguments that work in a public sphere when debating. The two worst enemies that the religious tend to have in their own public dialog are catharsis and dogma; those stripped away, there is plenty of intellectual ground for faith as there is the well-informed atheist. When I do see atheists who are of that caliber, I see the atheists who - while not believing in God - view religion as having great historical relevance (shaping everything about our culture and scientific disciplines of today even) as well as its utilitarian benefits and realizes that the underpinnings of society and the human condition work in such a way to where it has a positive secular place and use.

The funny thing is - that's the knife's edge, where atheists and theists are merging along an asymptote line; they'll likely never converge as groups completely but I think the two will embrace each other for what they have to offer in fine-honing each other's arguments on reality and yes, ultimately find better and better answers to the bottom line thesis.

Honestly, I am way too dumb to even understand what any of that means....
What the heck is "asymptote" or a "thesis"?

I'm saying the more they debate back and forth and weed out eachother's weaker notions the more alike they'll become.

It is a valid question you state that humans have a responsibility to humans first and (extrapolating) everything else be damned. I postulate that there should be a limit to the dogma of human supremacists and that world view while you state it to be fact it is an opinion based on no scientific evidence. I asked for you to justify your statement but you instead got offended. How strange.



Stating the results of psychological and sociological (even economics agrees) study yes but not moaning.



I have. That's why I'm trying to help others gain the fortitude necessary to put away their childish security blankets.



True but I can't really accept "It's a really daunting task to encourage everyone who doesn't to think for themselves for a change so we shouldn't bother trying".



It's a genetic imperative to protect the collective as failure to do so would lead to extinction. QED.

Fraya- am I correct in understanding that you believe converting everyone to atheism will save mankind?

Save mankind? I wouldn't claim something that grandiose but it should at least end religious manipulation of the masses and the atrocities it causes.

I think man's inhumanity to man depends neither on religion nor a lack thereof. People will always mistreat each other, no matter what kind of society they live in.

True but no other excuse works as well as religion when looking for absolution of responsibility for your destructive actions.

No other method out there works better when trying to make a group of people forgo reason and do what you want than standing behind a pulpit either.

Take those things away and I think humanity will be harder pressed to justify its inhumane actions.

Fraya, I think there's one very important element of atheism that your missing. This isn't an argument for or against the bottom line reality of it but if your that concerned with seeing religion as a poison that the world would be so much better without, this is the problem: there is *no* reason, none whatsoever, for us not to either end our race or at the very minimum line up the genetically inferior, the afflicted, the infirmed, in front of machine guns and just execute anyone who is a drag on society. No reason at all. This is why many Jews and Christians are horrified by the idea of people who have not only gone atheist but who have taken up either the 'green' religion or started making assumptions that animals and humans have the exact same worth - it doesn't exalt animals in reality, it does just the opposite.

I'll take a wild guess, I don't know you so correct me if I'm wrong, but your probably horrified by the idea of blunt-force eugenics taking society over. I have to ask you this then - why do you feel horror toward that? Is that horror just innate? If your parents had raised you without any of the lessons they had or had even told you that it was appropriate from a young age - where would you be now on it? Your perspective that its evil is strictly a perspective brought on by your own developmental experiences.

Moral of the story? Lets say we did completely obliterate all religion, lets say the world did go atheist; for a few generation the religious social values would still hover in the background, people would still practice good societal values and treat eachother well for no other reason than that's how they were raised and they were taught to 'feel' that it is wrong - that's the only thing stopping them, not thinking - feeling. Feeling unfortunately is paper thin. A few more generations and, everything I said above, people will in fact start taking it seriously. In the wake of that you may have some people converting back to religion just out of acknowledgement of the horror created by the situation - government, if it got involved in eugenics, would have to tare them down and line them up with the invalid in front of the machine gun - why? Nothing would matter at that point, only the efficiency of societal breeding and quality control, anyone who got in the way of that would be enemy #1. Its very Orwellian stuff. This is also why a great many atheist thinkers are coming back to center and at least acknowledging that religion, even if they don't believe in a God, has a positive net worth when its conducted peacefully and is almost necessary for stabilizing the human condition or at least, if eugenics ever does end up winning out, making certain that its done as humanely and non-impingingly as possible to general human rights and pursuit of happiness.

There will always be justifications for inhumane actions. If not religion, then something equally compelling. Sportsfan rivalry, for example. Or wearing the wrong colour in gang-infested areas. Honestly I don't think subtracting religion from the human equation (if this were at all possible) would improve the collective character of the human race.

Well, if nobody is really doing it, then why bother trying? I mean, hell, I think you aren't even a person who thinks a thought to it's very depths first rather than accepting some level of authority. I know I base my ideas upon authorities at times, and I am one of the most controversial thinkers i know.


No, bad argument, possibly in the realms of being "completely terrible", certainly a league away from a QED. Evolutionary biologists are usually even quick to assert that one cannot derive facts about what people ought to do based upon evolutionary facts, and your own assertion completely ignores the massive gulf between physical facts and moral facts that Hume pointed out centuries ago. I mean, heck, Marquis de Sade's argument that "people ought to gratify themselves no matter the costs to others because desire is natural" seems significantly stronger than your own position. In any case, a genetic imperative to protect the collective is less true than a genetic imperative to propagate your own, personal genetic code, and thus based upon the logic of "genetic imperatives are good", one could argue that promiscuity, lying about condom use, and rape are the ways men ought to behave.

Yes, but the issue is that no responsibility is required in the first place. The stricture that must be absolved is just as mystical as the original religion is.

Either that, or claim to represent the proletarian. Have you seen the far-left? They aren't religious, anti-religious in fact, but they still talk about "the revolution" in such theological tones that it sounds like the rapture. God is not necessary for religion, nor is a spiritual plane.

There is no such thing as the "inhumane" action. Only an action that the current society condemns.

Awesomelyglorious, you and I are arguing with opt-outs. If anyone says something of equal or greater intellectual value that disagrees they just clam up, find another thread, and throw the same arguments out - sheepishly looking over their shoulder hoping no one will come along and rain on their parade. I'd like to be wrong but, that looks like the shape of things.