Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Dr. Zaus]

Your parents were coke heads and you credit Jesus for them getting their shit together? This is evidence to you?

So is this the way it works? Anything good is credited to Jesus and anything bad is blamed on the person?

You must focus on the crux of my argument first:

The biggest sin of conversing over the internet is assuming ancillary arguments that may not be made; so I want to be careful not to imply anything more than my central argument with SD, which was:

DC: I suggest you examine what you're getting for what you're giving up and see for yourself if this is a con. I think Magnus is offering some first-hand testimony that he doesn't tink so; but hell, your milage may vary.

SD : What am I giving up?

DC

"That's between you and the faith you enter.

From a Christian perspective you would be giving up other-hurting self-serving lust and pride (which is the definition of 'sin' in Christianity); Which means accepting a change in 'who you are' such that you give up 'yourself' and accept being turned into someone that is 'more like christ'.

If you're happy with who you are and where you are in life then this isn't for you. This "Christian" thing is for people in need of emotional/spiritual healing, ready, essentially, to leave behind their former identity.

I encourage investigating other paths as well if you're interested in spirituality, there seems to be an unfortunately low number of non-christian faithful in these threads :-\.

I don't know where you are in your life, but if you're happy with who you are then I'm fairly sure you are who God wants you to be."

SD : I am not interested in anything based upon nothing but assertions.
***

My argument was that this experience offers evidence greater than simple assertion in support of the potential-value that might come from trying to experience some faith.

Your parents were coke heads and you credit Jesus for them getting their shit together?

They credit their faith in Christ; I'm reporting this to you.

This is evidence to you?

When my wife has sex with me and says it's because she loves me I find that to be evidence that she loves me. I can't know what's going on in someone's head, but when they do something that's beyond the capacity of many people (such as look at me naked, or my parents overcoming being free-base coke addicts) then I believe them when they tell me what was going on their heads when they achieved the miraculous outcome.

So is this the way it works? Anything good is credited to Jesus and anything bad is blamed on the person?

Keep in mind the context:
From a Christian perspective you would be giving up other-hurting self-serving lust and pride (which is the definition of 'sin' in Christianity) This is not something that we do on our own, but something God does through us. If we fail it is the limitations of our skin, despite our sprit wanting better, but we should no more blame "us" for failure than we should blame an arm for not being able to lift a particular weight.

The Christian walk is about accepting freedom from gult for failure in the above regard by accepting being moved along a path that makes us more like Christ and less like our former selves.

So no, no blame: just grace and forgiveness. And of course still being subject to the law; you can't get away with killing someone because of a jury-room conversion or some-such...

I find it entirely believable that people can use religion to turn their lives around. People who lack direction are desperate to find something to give them order and purpose. It makes a lot of sense, and is one of the positive aspects of religion.

But the point is that it is their belief in something they consider good and worth working for that turns them around. What they believe in doesn't have to exist for this effect to occur.

What's the difference between an imaginary fire breathing dragon that burns the ever-loving shit out of my face every time I look at him, and a real fire breathing dragon? From a pragmatic philosophy (and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts almost everyone here from the US is an implicit pragmatist) It does not matter what's physically caporal if functionally something is real.

Many people turn their lives around in similar fashion using motivations or life events that have nothing to do with religion.

When you say this you imply that someone here is disagreeing with you (I"m not).

 

[OCNewbie]

I've seen my own parents go from free-base coke-addicts to people that are now taking care of their children and contributing to society because of their faith in Christ.

Did they go through any faith-based programs to get clean? Or did they attend church during their recovery period? I have a friend that continues to go to a faith-based program and it has helped him stay away from coke/alcohol for quite a while now.

 

[OCNewbie]

I can't know what's going on in someone's head, but when they do something that's beyond the capacity of many people (such as look at me naked, or my parents overcoming being free-base coke addicts) then I believe them when they tell me what was going on their heads when they achieved the miraculous outcome.

Couldn't this be achieved by believing in "Karma"? I've been diagnosed with cancer, and I will undergo treatment for it. I will not credit the expertise of the doctors & nurses involved, all the various high-tech equipment that was used to shrink my tumors, the chemicals injected into my body, etc., but my faith in the fact that I am a good person, treated others well, and that "what goes around comes around" is what healed me.

So what REALLY cured that person? Could this person's "faith" have played a part in that healing process? Maybe. Could focusing on having a positive outlook have provided the same results? I think so. Did the doctor's knowledge of how the disease affects the body, and applying proven methods of combating the disease play a beneficial part? I think it'd be rather ignorant to argue against that.

Here, perhaps you'll remember this story where a family planned to refuse treatment for their then 13 year-old boy (Daniel Hauser) who had a very treatable form of lymphoma. At first they resisted, but in the end (after courts ordered the family could not deny him medical care for religious reasons) he was treated with chemotherapy and is currently in remission. Somewhat ironically, his father, approximately a year later, was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. The father decided to go the route they were intending to go with the child, avoiding conventional medicine, and going with something more in line with their faith, and he died a ~year later.

http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/525593.html

 

[randomrogue]

That was a great post dixycrat

 

[Moonbeam]

Cerpin Taxt: The problem for me and many other skeptics is that the claims Christian make about their God appear inconsistent.

M: Both religious folk and atheists differ in the their flexibility of vision, ranging from complete literal mindedness to a more intuitive search for the spirit of what may actually be analogy. Take, say, the Christian notion that none may enter the kingdom of heaven except by the son, that only Christ is the way. On the one hand, when one bakes a potato one doesn't heat it a quarter way in one oven, them move it to a cold oven and start over to half cooked then change ovens again. If religion is a bridge to reality, best to stick with one bridge.

But additionally we less literal minded might ask, what is this Christ thingi. Could it be a state of knowledge that transforms the person into God, that you will know the kingdom of heaven if you achieve a similar state, that Christian and other real religions are really about an inner transformation? If so the seeker, if one exists, can dispense with the beliefs of the literal and move deeper into the religion.

The literal atheist rejects gods that don't exist plus the real benefits that were intended by throwing out the baby Christ with the bath water by his failure to see other possibilities. In short you have rejected the literal Christianity because you took it literally.

So a better informed skeptic has to move to a new plane. Is there something in all this hocus pocus that I am missing? Have I taken the literal for the figurative and shot myself in the ass?

CT: They say that God is all powerful, that all things are possible with God, that he loves us, and that he wants us to know him because our eternal fate depends on it.

M: Let those who believe that believe it. It's all true but allegorically, naturally in my opinion. Because I can't buy into that doesn't mean it's not real or that I have to reject it totally. I look into myself, my truth, and ask, what the hell is this. I know a state of perfection in which love ends all doubt, a truth that explains everything so what is the explanation here. The truth that I see with my instrumentality is this:

The ego seeks power and so an appeal to power is made. The state of oneness is the ultimate power. One becomes everything. I am the universe. That's better, even, than controlling gravity. All things are possible with me because my mind is so fast that I've caught up with the now and everything that happens happens by my will. I am at cause and I am at rest, the alpha and the omega. I am the lover who has ceased to exist in his Beloved, no yesterday, no tomorrow, only the eternal now. I have returned from whence I came.

CT: ...but God won't make his existence obvious to everyone. No, sir. That would be a no-no.

It doesn't add up.

M: I am sorry for this. This this the anger and pain of separation, but you, sir, because of your unconscious assumptions do not look in the only place where God can be found because you were taught self hate. You and God are one and the same thing. But if you believe in the life of Christ you would know you have been forgiven.

 

[Retro Rob]

Wait... just so I'm grasping your point here...

Are you saying that people who do not have sufficient evidence to believe should believe anyway "just in case" some "future evidence" were to come to light?

From the atheists I've encountered, they outright say God doesn't exist. They've now dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future, or what's already here.

That's their problem, but its best to not believe something happened, than to deny it happened -- especially seeing how that latter can't be proven through experiment.

New evidence would essentially put God deniers in a peculiar position, that is, if they maintain their denial.

This would be interesting to see.

 

[Moonbeam]

Charles Kozierok: I find it entirely believable that people can use religion to turn their lives around. People who lack direction are desperate to find something to give them order and purpose. It makes a lot of sense, and is one of the positive aspects of religion.

M: The notion that people lack direction implies the existence of direction. The existence of direction would imply an inner sense that requires awakening to recognize what it is. This implies that religion can only provide direction because something within it resonates with real order and purpose, that like calls to like, that while one may not see a rose, one may respond to the scent, that religion is a template and reflection of mans possible evolution and real inner condition.

CK: But the point is that it is their belief in something they consider good and worth working for that turns them around. What they believe in doesn't have to exist for this effect to occur.

M: This is backwards. What has to first exist is the possibility to turn around from one condition to another and for one condition to be felt as less desirable than another. That implies that one can taste a difference. That implies that the methodology of turn around, what one decides to believe has to produce better tasting results. That can only happen if the sense of taste and what is tasted agree with each other. Does the notion of a loving God, for example, appeal to something within because there is something within that can love like God does? Religion can inspire us to higher love because we are capable of it.

Naturally, religion can be used for evil but is that the real intention? How would we know?

CK: Many people turn their lives around in similar fashion using motivations or life events that have nothing to do with religion.

M: If there is a direction in which to turn that leads to a better state then we will want to make our religion the science of states and our journey to the best place we can be. And if we can arrive at a place about which there can be no doubt it is the best place to be it will doubtless create some sort of wake that will attract other people or not, depending on how we react to people who make waves.

I think of Christ as one big Kahuna.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

From the atheists I've encountered, they outright say God doesn't exist.

Some do. Some don't. As we've discussed repeatedly.

They've now dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future, or what's already here.

Fallacious and dishonest reasoning.

As just one of many examples... 50 years ago, environmentalists thought that forest fires were just generally a bad idea and they should be stopped whenever encountered. Over time, we learned that naturally occurring forest fires are part of the forest's life cycle, and so the approach to managing them changed.

New evidence, new analysis, new reasoning --> new beliefs and approaches.

Your problem is that you have no evidence, no analysis and no reasoning. It's possible that will change in the future, and if so, I look forward to it. But past history suggests it will not.

New evidence would essentially put God deniers in a peculiar position, that is, if they maintain their denial.

This would be interesting to see.

Yes, it would.

The thing you don't get is that many atheists would love for that to happen. Including me.

But it doesn't happen. And you are too intellectually dishonest to accept that there is no evidence, so you instead try to turn it around on those who point this out to you, by lying about how they'd treat evidence in the future.

You think that claiming that we'd reject evidence even if it was presented, that this somehow shows we are being unreasonable. Problem is: we're open to the evidence. It just isn't there.

 

[dmcowen674]

The thing you don't get is that many atheists would love for that to happen. Including me.

But it doesn't happen. And you are too intellectually dishonest to accept that there is no evidence, so you instead try to turn it around on those who point this out to you, by lying about how they'd treat evidence in the future.

You think that claiming that we'd reject evidence even if it was presented, that this somehow shows we are being unreasonable. Problem is: we're open to the evidence. It just isn't there.

Bolded wipes out everything you posted under that.

 

[Retro Rob]

Fallacious and dishonest reasoning.

As just one of many examples... 50 years ago, environmentalists thought that forest fires were just generally a bad idea and they should be stopped whenever encountered. Over time, we learned that naturally occurring forest fires are part of the forest's life cycle, and so the approach to managing them changed.

New evidence, new analysis, new reasoning --> new beliefs and approaches.

You need to stop calling me dishonest, seriously, or I'm going to report your attacks, because you're taking this personally. My critique doesn't fit YOU... that doesn't mean someone else isn't rejecting evidence since my post are generic and not pointing at you.

Your problem is that you have no evidence, no analysis and no reasoning. It's possible that will change in the future, and if so, I look forward to it. But past history suggests it will not.

Dishonest, inaccurate. This is your opinion. So are you being dishonest? This is your opinion, stated as fact.

Past history suggests that since I'm not agreeing with you, I'm the dishonest one. Seriously, you need to grow-up and learn to handle those who disgree with you in a mature, intelligent manner fitting a mod here -- because I can tell you right now, you're setting a piss-poor example.

I'm done with you...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You need to stop calling me dishonest, seriously, or I'm going to report your attacks, because you're taking this personally.

Go ahead and report them. I haven't said anything that comes even remotely close to being over the line for P&N.

I'll stop calling you dishonest as soon as you stop making dishonest comments. Saying that atheists have "dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future" is a flat out lie.

Atheists ask for evidence. You provide none, and then say the problem is with the atheists, because they wouldn't accept it even if existed. Dishonest is about the nicest way of describing it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Go ahead and report them. I haven't said anything that comes even remotely close to being over the line for P&N.

I'll stop calling you dishonest as soon as you stop making dishonest comments. Saying that atheists have "dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future" is a flat out lie.

Stating something as "fact" (God doesn't exist), which some of them do, is a lie, and is a dismissal of evidence that is abundant that he "does" exist.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Stating something as "fact" (God doesn't exist), which some of them do, is a lie...

No, it is a position based on available evidence.

You can choose to disagree with it if you wish, but telling other people what they will or not believe in the future is pure bullshit. If you don't like getting called out on it -- don't do it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Go ahead and report them. I haven't said anything that comes even remotely close to being over the line for P&N.

I'll stop calling you dishonest as soon as you stop making dishonest comments. Saying that atheists have "dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future" is a flat out lie.

You need to separate your emotions from this discussion -- I did NOT say YOU dismissed evidence, rather, the atheists I'VE talked to.

How do you know they haven't? OR are you saying I'm lying about the people I've encountered?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You need to separate your emotions from this discussion -- I did NOT say YOU dismissed evidence, rather, the atheists I'VE talked to.

You're lying about them, and trying to generalize this false statement to other atheists.

How do you know they haven't? OR are you saying I'm lying about the people I've encountered?

You may well have met people who "outright say God doesn't exist". They're called "strong atheists". We've covered this.

If you say you've met an atheist who says "I have dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future", then no, I do not believe you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok Charles, I'm willing to drop this here.

Attack the post and not the poster.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you say you've met an atheist who says "I have dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future", then no, I do not believe you.

You're deliberately quoting me OUT OF CONTEXT!!

Where did I say an Atheist said to me this? Where? Show me!

I simply stated that the position they hold (again, the ONES IVE ENCOUNTERED) is a rejection of evidence. The evidence that they're rejecting IS the evidence of Intelligence in Design.

This is the evidence I see and attribute. How am I lying? They don't think design is evidence of God, am I right?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Where did I say an Atheist said to me this? Where? Show me!

You said: "From the atheists I've encountered, they outright say God doesn't exist. They've now dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future, or what's already here."

I challenged you: "Saying that atheists have "dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future" is a flat out lie."

You then said: " I did NOT say YOU dismissed evidence, rather, the atheists I'VE talked to. How do you know they haven't? OR are you saying I'm lying about the people I've encountered?"

Since you decided to make this about other atheists you've supposedly met, I said that if you're claiming that you met atheists who actually hold the position you assigned to them -- "they've now dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future" -- that I didn't believe you.

Since you've now admitted that no atheist has said this to you, we're back to where we started -- you made it up.

 

[Retro Rob]

Since you decided to make this about other atheists you've supposedly met, I said that if you're claiming that you met atheists who actually hold the position you assigned to them -- "they've now dismissed any and all evidence that may come to light in the future" -- that I didn't believe you.

You just can't admit to being wrong, can you Charles? The point is, you don't believe me -- that's what all this is about, and you're taking this as a personal attack which wasn't my posts intent.

Since you've now admitted that no atheist has said this to you, we're back to where we started -- you made it up.

I never said an Atheist said that to me to begin with, but what they have said to me is "God doesn't exist". Hence, saying God doesn't exist, as far as I am concerned, is rejecting evidence found in nature, design, organization, etc, that he DOES exist.

I think it's clear that's what I was saying.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You just can't admit to being wrong, can you Charles?

I've done it many times.

All you need to do is show that I've been wrong about something.

Hence, saying God doesn't exist, as far as I am concerned, is rejecting evidence found in nature, design, organization, etc, that he DOES exist.

And, as I already mentioned, you have every right to that opinion.

You don't have a right to proclaim that atheists will reject evidence found in the future, because that is not a position held by atheists.

 

[Retro Rob]

And, as I already mentioned, you have every right to that opinion.

You don't have a right to proclaim that atheists will reject evidence found in the future, because that is not a position held by atheists.

That's fair, and fine. My bad.

Just stop taking this so personal, I wasn't talking about you or anyone else I've yet to talk to. That's why I prefaced my post with "the atheists I've encountered" to avoid this very thing.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's fair, and fine. My bad.

Thank you.

I'll let the rest drop.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes... that would be true!

I've had issues with evidence and folks who claim God exists based on something like....
A person with some bad disease prays to God and is cured in a manner that baffles the Md's... 'Impossible', they might say... but yet the person is cured.... Is that evidence of God?.... It may not be persuasive but it is ummmmm interesting or should be.

...but then, those who pray and aren't healed, then what?

This is also the issue I have too with certain people's evidences, also considering the sheer amount of prayers that go "unanswered".

 

[Darwin333]

Yep, but see, that doesn't at all explain that God somehow "told" them to kill heretics.

If you examine motives (such as retaining power, money, influence) you can easily make the argument that they carried this out on their own accord, and they have, IMO.

I think it is important to separate a "violent man that happens to be a Christian/Muslim" from "a man that's violent because he's a Christian/Muslim".

I give the same regard to race, social status, etc.

Exactly. Organized religion has throughout history and still to this day been used as a very powerful and effective tool to control the masses.

Reason # 1,543 I don't buy into them

 

[LunarRay]

There is a reasonably scientific approach to a faith in God.

The theoretician develops a hypothesis and predicts an outcome. He provides all the evidence to support the hypothesis... but he also provides whatever evidence may not support it... He is honest! The experimentalist then goes about trying to disprove or falsify the hypothesis... He tests it every which way he can. He is honest too!

The hypothesis for the existence of God contains within it evidence that cannot be tested. It is faith based after all... Well... does that cause rejection of the hypothesis? No! It simply won't get published in the Earthly journal of Science...

IF you want to appeal to the reasoning of the Agnostic (I reject Atheism as a term unless the Atheist is capable of god like eternal knowledge) you have to present what they can attempt to falsify. It would appear that the Agnostic has already rejected anything and everything that the Believer might seek to introduce. And if they haven't encountered everything then they will find a way to reject the new bits too... They want to be Agnostic! And the Believer wants to believe!...

Since Faith in God and Agnosticism is between the person and their belief any comment that seeks to discredit the belief must necessarily also discredit the believer and their rationalization process...

That this thread has... what... a million posts... and hardly any real personal attacks is in itself a miracle... and possibly Proof of God's existence... hehehehehehe Or maybe it is only that folks seek entry into the new debater thingi where they can display their mastery in the debate process.... Master Debater... a worthy title... maybe indicated under their Avatar..... hehehehe