A message to Theists

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

So, welcome to the very aptly named "Raving Atheists Forum".

Thank you. I understand I am on someone else's turf, and I appreciate the welcome.

Erich, I think the reason zdave seems not to want conversation is not because the old arguments are boring, but that they have been destroyed in the marketplace of ideas and he, and I, are hoping for, nay longing for, any really new argument with original supporting logic.

I think a book you may not agree with said "there is nothing new under the sun" so I don't think new arguments are all that prevalent. But a glance at the philosophical websites suggests that they haven't all been "destroyed in the marketplace of ideas". Like I said to zdave, it's interesting how different people assess things differently.

if you do sink into a bellicose preaching mode or quote the Bible at us as though it was evidence of something, you will get extremely impolite responses, likely including a great deal of what you will find discourteous language in the extreme.

I can't say I enjoy bellicose preaching either.

See you around.

[erich von stalhein]

nkb wrote

There are billions that believe in fairies. They just give their fairies names other than Tinkerbell.

Lol!! Fortunately, I am an aTinkerbellist!

[erich von stalhein]

zdave wrote

Again, thanks for popping in and reading my message.

The pleasure is all mine. Thank you for having me.

* EvS thinks to himself: "Can't have these young whippersnappers outdoing me in politeness!" *

I'm willing to change my mind if the evidence points to the contrary... are you capable to claiming the same thing?

Believe it or not, I've actually changed my mind several times in my life, about all sorts of things great and small.

However, if you don't care about whether or not what you believe is true, then I would not care to chat with you

I care deeply. But even if I didn't, we could always talk about Biggles?

the arguments have mostly been previously destroyed

Perhaps you could show where they have been destroyed please, so I am then wiser? Or perhaps you could pick a particular argument and show me how you would destroy it - your choice.

Thanks for responding.

[Sternwallow]

Starting with Genesis ...

Do you really believe that there was an original couple of people who spawned the entire human race? Do you believe that a snake actually carried on a conversation while pacing around on the feet that it later lost? Do you believe that the value of Pi is just three?

The list, just from the Bible, of literally unbelievable notions is huge even before we get to larger questions about God's own origin.

Where can one get reliable information about God if the only reference work about Him is in such poor repute?

Do you accept the concept of divine revelation outside of those found in the Bible and, if so, is it granted to just one human, the poop Pope or are we all potential recipients.

How, besides just having a strong feeling, does one determine that a personal revelation is from God and not from Satan, who apparently can easily fool us anytime? Very important, how can I know that your revelation is real or true and neither insane, a human mistake or a lie?

Please note that thinking atheists do not state that God doesn't exist, only that there is no reason to believe that He does, though He might.

We rely frequently on Occam's Razor to excise unnecessary complications in propositions.

There are too many issues floating around to begin to list them all. Please pick one of yours which you feel is very strong so that we can focus our discussion.

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

Starting with Genesis ...

G'day Sternwallow, is this what you think are the most interesting questions to ask a theist? They're not where I would start, but in the spirit of being friendly. I will give some quick answers (just my opinion) ....

Do you really believe that there was an original couple of people who spawned the entire human race?

I doubt it, the geneticists say there were several.

Do you believe that a snake actually carried on a conversation while pacing around on the feet that it later lost?

No

Do you believe that the value of Pi is just three?

No. PS I am surprised someone actually used this example, but like I said before, we are all different.

Where can one get reliable information about God if the only reference work about Him is in such poor repute?

All over the place, almost everywhere in fact.

Do you accept the concept of divine revelation outside of those found in the Bible

Yes.

is it granted to just one human

No

or are we all potential recipients

Yes

How, besides just having a strong feeling, does one determine that a personal revelation is from God and not from Satan, who apparently can easily fool us anytime?

One must be very careful.

how can I know that your revelation is real or true and neither insane, a human mistake or a lie?

You can't know. Neither can I. The man in black said to Inigo Montoya "Get used to disappointment!", and similarly, we all have to get used to uncertainty. The smart thing is how to work through uncertainty to probability.

There are too many issues floating around to begin to list them all. Please pick one of yours which you feel is very strong so that we can focus our discussion.

Do I take it then that you don't feel the same as zdave in his original post, and think there is a discussion worth having here?

Thanks for your friendly and interesting questions, I hope my answers are of some interest. All the best.

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalhein wrote

G'day Sternwallow, is this what you think are the most interesting questions to ask a theist? They're not where I would start, but in the spirit of being friendly. I will give some quick answers (just my opinion) ....

Thank you for civil and very revealing answers. I take it then that you are not a Biblical literalist and not a Catholic nor a YEC. Many of our previous theist visitors were tainted by one or several of those odious traits.

No. PS I am surprised someone actually used this example, but like I said before, we are all different.

Yes, Pi=3 is a very effective literalist detector.

All over the place, almost everywhere in fact.

Fine, then, taking some item that you think is evidence of God and/or His mighty works or His character, by whatg criteria do you know that this thing was from God and not some other source, nature, for instance?

One must be very careful.

Just how does one apply care to attributing anything to God as opposed to some other source? Do you just squint real hard and think slowly?

You can't know. Neither can I. The man in black said to Inigo Montoya "Get used to disappointment!", and similarly, we all have to get used to uncertainty. The smart thing is how to work through uncertainty to probability.

The common religious approach to uncertainty such as this is to build a fiction and pretend that it is certainty.
Belief is reflected in our behavior so it is very important that what we believe is as true as possible. It is not reasonable to me to just accept that we are supposed to conform to something that we can't begin to understand. The mysteries attributed to various parts of religion are not the wonderful hallmarks of spiritual realms and forces, they are gaps and potholes in the story and they go far to discredit it from being either true or useful to us.

Do I take it then that you don't feel the same as zdave in his original post, and think there is a discussion worth having here?

The portents seem favorable since you did refer to treating uncertainty as probability rather than running screaming from it as so many theists have done here in the past.

Thanks for your friendly and interesting questions, I hope my answers are of some interest. All the best.

Your answers were indeed interesting, particularly those that did not match the ordinary theist model.

So, just how would one go about deciding that an otherwise natural biological neurological event was actually a communication from God or some other deity?

I have had hallucinations about cats that were so real, I had real scratches when they were over. Logic alone saved me from full belief that I had been in the company of several cats.

How could one apply logic to an experience of say "divine rapture", to verify it was not just "a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato" [Dickens]?

[ILOVEJESUS]

nkb wrote

There are billions that believe in fairies. They just give their fairies names other than Tinkerbell.

Lol they change into guardian angels , sorry.

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

Thank you for civil and very revealing answers. I take it then that you are not a Biblical literalist and not a Catholic nor a YEC. Many of our previous theist visitors were tainted by one or several of those odious traits.

Right on, though I see no reason to call such people "odious".

Fine, then, taking some item that you think is evidence of God and/or His mighty works or His character, by what criteria do you know that this thing was from God and not some other source, nature, for instance?

Well "know" is too big a word for me - but "reasonably believe" I can do. I have read a story about a man who had a heart attack, and was treated in the emergency department of a hospital in the US, using all the skills and technology available in this technologically advanced nation. For three quarters of an hour they tried to revive him, but couldn't, all his vital signs were gone and his remote limbs were starting to discolour. A heart specialist with years of experience pronounced him dead and the team began to leave the room. The heart specialist was a christian, and as he was about to leave also, he felt prompted to pray directly for the man. He then asked the one remaining nurse to apply the paddles one more time, she did, and although the man had been clinically dead and unrevivable for 45 minutes, he revived, recovered and suffered no ill effects. You can read the story here, and I have checked all the news reports I could find to verify the story.

Now I wonder if you were the revived man whether you would believe that God made the difference. Certainly, there were only two differences between when the man was pronounced dead and when he was revived - (1) he had been dead and unrevivable even longer, and (2) he had been prayed for.

No-on can know for certain what happened and how, but I would think I would conclude that is evidence that God may exist. Wouldn't you (at least, if you weren't already a confirmed atheist)?

Just how does one apply care to attributing anything to God as opposed to some other source? Do you just squint real hard and think slowly?

Gritting one's teeth probably works better than squinting!! Like anything else, use logic, be honest, put aside preconceived opinions temporarily and don't mind being shown to be wrong.

The common religious approach to uncertainty such as this is to build a fiction and pretend that it is certainty.

Maybe common in your experience, but not in mine. I would prefer to say life goes on and we make choices all the time in the face of uncertainty (you can't 67% decide to marry this person or take this job, you either decide or you don't).

Your answers were indeed interesting, particularly those that did not match the ordinary theist model.

Well that is an encouraging realisation. It may perhaps be that your "theist model" is slightly unrepresentative?

So, just how would one go about deciding that an otherwise natural biological neurological event was actually a communication from God or some other deity?

Like I said, "know" is more than I can know. I'll settle for "probably". And you know what they say, if it quacks like God .... (to mex a mitaphor).

Thanks again. Why don't you give me a few of your answers to your own questions, I would enjoy seeing that.

[Sternwallow]

Well "know" is too big a word for me - but "reasonably believe" I can do. I have read a story about a man who had a heart attack, and was treated in the emergency department of a hospital in the US, using all the skills and technology available in this technologically advanced nation. For three quarters of an hour they tried to revive him, but couldn't, all his vital signs were gone and his remote limbs were starting to discolour. A heart specialist with years of experience pronounced him dead and the team began to leave the room. The heart specialist was a christian, and as he was about to leave also, he felt prompted to pray directly for the man. He then asked the one remaining nurse to apply the paddles one more time, she did, and although the man had been clinically dead and unrevivable for 45 minutes, he revived, recovered and suffered no ill effects. You can read the story here, and I have checked all the news reports I could find to verify the story.

Now I wonder if you were the revived man whether you would believe that God made the difference. Certainly, there were only two differences between when the man was pronounced dead and when he was revived - (1) he had been dead and unrevivable even longer, and (2) he had been prayed for.

I read the article and it makes an interesting story, what we rightly call an anecdote. Having experienced cardiac failure that required electro-conversion which failed to bring my heart back to proper functioning (it converted spontaneously some two hours later) and discussing my situation with the various doctors, they made it clear* that a brain starved of oxygen for over eight minutes will suffer some damage. I need to see a peer-reviewed report on this 45 minute "death" from someone other than FOX news.

The doctor claims to be a medical scientist yet he doesn't report any results of last-minute use of the paddles without praying.

I am certainly not saying it did not happen only that there are important practical questions here like, how do we quantify and organize the steps to take to ensure that any new heart problems will be similarly instantly healed. Would it have worked if the doctor prayed in Chinese? Would a Buddhist doctor have failed? How about a Reformed Adventist Christian doctor with Scientology leanings? Is this prayer business something that could be delegated to a nurse instead of taking the doctor's valuable time. Perhape the prayer could be recorded and played back when needed.

That aside, you haven't shown why you are sure (perhaps not "know") that it was Bible-God and not Quetzlcoatl who did the magic deed.

[Sternwallow]

I am only a confirmed atheist as long as the critical element is true, that there is no reason to believe in god(s). When valid (that is verifiable and objective) evidence comes along, I will follow it just as I do for all other information I take (provisionally) to be true. It is for this reason that I have no faith, no belief with insufficient (in this case, nonexistent) evidence.

So I admit the possibility of God and unicorns and Quetzlcoatl and all the other non-evidentiary notions that humanity has dreamed up.

[zdave]

My thread got hijacked haha. As you were guys, is a good read. I do just want to point out that Erich, you were asked to present the (in your opinion) strongest arguments for God so we can destroy them (however facetious that sounds).

Also, you asked for reading material regarding arguments and responses... please check out http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...believe_in_god and locate your strongest argument from this list (it's probably there).

As you were~

[Sternwallow]

Gritting one's teeth probably works better than squinting!! Like anything else, use logic, be honest, put aside preconceived opinions temporarily and don't mind being shown to be wrong.

If preconceived opinions are built on inadequate evidence, then of course I will gladly jettison them, but, if the opinions are based on the best current knowledge, they are not properly called opinions and they should be a strong part of any deliberations.

Yes I use logic and, more than just willing, I am eager to be shown to be wrong because that way we learn, not by piling on more confirmations that we are right. I have not yet been shown to be wrong on the issue of God's existence. So, if you have any respectable evidence of some effect in the world that is not explained by natural law and mathematics, bring it out for all to see. If we all agree that this thing is supernatural, then we can discuss whether it is the work of some god or other.

For ample reasons, I do not accept hearsay, testimony, anecdotes, special pleading or scripture (aka writing) as evidence of anything more than that some human had this thought and wrote it down.

[Sternwallow]

Like I said, "know" is more than I can know. I'll settle for "probably". And you know what they say, if it quacks like God .... (to mex a mitaphor).

Thanks again. Why don't you give me a few of your answers to your own questions, I would enjoy seeing that.

"If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is not done enough, send it back to the kitchen."

How would you arrive at even a rough estimate of probability for something like that mysteriously healed heart? I would give it a probability of less than one in the number of identified and operating gods times the number of believers in the right one, non-zero but close.

Here is one of my answers, humans experience powerful events in their mind/brain which may be transformative but which are merely the action of chemicals responding to patterns of neural connections such as fear and hate and comfort and ecstasy.

There is no disembodied soul, as is shown by the loss of claimed soul components when specific brain areas are damaged.

Since there is no disembodied soul, the concept of an afterlife is moot.

Do you believe that God ordered the massacre of thousands of His own "chosen" people for politely requesting a change in leadership?

[Sternwallow]

Right on, though I see no reason to call such people "odious".

No, I said odious traits, not odious people.
The traits I mentioned, not exhaustively, were "Biblical literalist, Catholic, YEC." Each of which are odious in their own particular way.

I do think, however that a Christian must be a Biblical literalist because there are commands and admonitions in the book that can only be considered moral or even thinkable if they have divine authority.

If the book is the divine word of God, it must not be interpreted even in one jot or tittle since that would introduce human error and evil and make the book no better a moral guide than a dime novel is.

Although I do not believe any of the bible has a bit of unique truth, I am a literalist in the sense that I think a person who interprets the Bible should not call himself a Christian.

Since the Bible is the only source of alleged information about God, if it is shown to be bogus in any way, the very notion of God loses all of its credibility.

"My God would not smash babies on the rocks for any reason but the damned book says that He did. So much the worse for the book and therefore, so much the worse for my God."

[Sternwallow]

zdave wrote

My thread got hijacked haha. As you were guys, is a good read. I do just want to point out that Erich, you were asked to present the (in your opinion) strongest arguments for God so we can destroy them (however facetious that sounds).

Are we not addressing issues relevant to "A message to Theists"?

Do jump in with your position on these many sub-topics.