Christians are easily startled, but they'll soon be back. And in greater numbers 36:11

[Gethelred]

Welcome to the Ask an Atheist thread II.

Previous part:

Win Prizes - Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack. As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them. If you've still got...

www.bigfooty.com

Standard board rules apply.

 

[evolved2]

Which creationism? Any one of the myriad of Australian Aboriginal creation stories? Hindu? Greek Mythology starting with Chaos? There's a lot of those out there. (Look up the Spiderwoman legends in Native American mythology).

If you teach it as cultural history, I've got no problem with any of them. Just not in any scientific class (biology, geography, chemistry etc).

Yeah, agree with all of that. Keep faith away from science and politics and we're good.

I have respect for the cultural aspects of faith including Christianity.

 

[sdfc]

How do you feel about creationism being taught at school?

Many creationists are respectful and well-behaved.

That god created the universe in seven days? Not if it's a science class.

But then again I don't think that life began with a few chemical reactions should be taught as fact. It's a theory.

 

[RCAB]

You're both... wrong?

Atheists here... correctly invoke burden of proof and Occam’s razor. Those are Enlightenment-era tools meant for empirical questions.

But when you apply them to metaphysical claims (does anything non-material exist) you assume the empirically measurable is the only thing that's real.

That’s positivism, not pure reason and I'm sorry if I'm shitting on your "belief system" but that's a philosophical faith of its own. Ouch.


So when you say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” you are already assuming that only evidence of a certain kind counts.

That’s not neutral. Metaphysical commitment disguised as epistemic modesty is well... It's own cognitive dissonance. Hence the contradiction... insisting you're simply withholding belief means we can't prove it? You see the resemblance?



Christians fall into their own mirror trap without even realising. Instead of defending their theology on its own philosophical footing (metaphysics, ethics, experiential coherence) they argue as if historical evidence alone could prove divinity. Unlucky.

Atheists have to deal with the same problems so their (Christians) whole premise collapses before it even concludes.

Even worse is when they appeal to personal experience of God while refusing to accept equivalent claims from Hindus, Muslims, mystics, etc..

They never address the central atheist criticsm of conditional salvatio and that Christianity resembles as already mentioned here a protection racket.




Both of you guys argue at different levels of discourse and never notice that...

Atheists here debate ontology through the lens of physics. and that believers defend relationship through the lens of a warped history.

Both of you never address maybe the most fundemental problem of Qualia or if humans experience transcendence at all.

Both think you're "belief systems" "logic" or epistemology is the "only" valid one. I have news for you... It's not. In fact you're not even close to the pin... You're both sitting in the bushes.


The irony I've noticed in these threads is that it becomes a ritual reenactment of what each side claims to reject...

Atheists form a fellowship of unbelief, complete with their own tribal religion, filled with boundary-policing and mockery.

Christians fall into a different trap... they defend faith like it’s a personal relationship one minute and a fact claim the next. It ends up confusing everyone to the point they end up saying "we're not here to convert you."

Fact is... both of you mirror each other’s dogmatism in different vocabularies.




IMO, none of you present your arguments very well here.

When either tries to bludgeon the other’s epistemic takes... with their own epistimic... takes, absurdity is the only way to describe this exchange.

“The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world" The Myth of Sisyphus - Camus



If you actually spoke honestly you'd admit..

You’re both trying to make sense of being thrown into existence with awareness and mortality. You just tell different stories about it.

Until that humility appears, you’ll keep circling the same arguments like an electron bound to its orbit and never quite finding the way to jump to a new state.

 

[sdfc]

You're both... wrong?

Atheists here... correctly invoke burden of proof and Occam’s razor. Those are Enlightenment-era tools meant for empirical questions.

But when you apply them to metaphysical claims (does anything non-material exist) you assume the empirically measurable is the only thing that's real.

That’s positivism, not pure reason and I'm sorry if I'm shitting on your "belief system" but that's a philosophical faith of its own. Ouch.


So when you say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” you are already assuming that only evidence of a certain kind counts.

That’s not neutral. Metaphysical commitment disguised as epistemic modesty is well... It's own cognitive dissonance. Hence the contradiction... insisting you're simply withholding belief means we can't prove it? You see the resemblance?



Christians fall into their own mirror trap without even realising. Instead of defending their theology on its own philosophical footing (metaphysics, ethics, experiential coherence) they argue as if historical evidence alone could prove divinity. Unlucky.

Atheists have to deal with the same problems so their (Christians) whole premise collapses before it even concludes.

Even worse is when they appeal to personal experience of God while refusing to accept equivalent claims from Hindus, Muslims, mystics, etc..

They never address the central atheist criticsm of conditional salvatio and that Christianity resembles as already mentioned here a protection racket.




Both of you guys argue at different levels of discourse and never notice that...

Atheists here debate ontology through the lens of physics. and that believers defend relationship through the lens of a warped history.

Both of you never address maybe the most fundemental problem of Qualia or if humans experience transcendence at all.

Both think you're "belief systems" "logic" or epistemology is the "only" valid one. I have news for you... It's not. In fact you're not even close to the pin... You're both sitting in the bushes.


The irony I've noticed in these threads is that it becomes a ritual reenactment of what each side claims to reject...

Atheists form a fellowship of unbelief, complete with their own tribal religion, filled with boundary-policing and mockery.

Christians fall into a different trap... they defend faith like it’s a personal relationship one minute and a fact claim the next. It ends up confusing everyone to the point they end up saying "we're not here to convert you."

Fact is... both of you mirror each other’s dogmatism in different vocabularies.




IMO, none of you present your arguments very well here.

When either tries to bludgeon the other’s epistemic takes... with their own epistimic... takes, absurdity is the only way to describe this exchange.

“The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world" The Myth of Sisyphus - Camus



If you actually spoke honestly you'd admit..

You’re both trying to make sense of being thrown into existence with awareness and mortality. You just tell different stories about it.

Until that humility appears, you’ll keep circling the same arguments like an electron bound to its orbit and never quite finding the way to jump to a new state.

Your little lecture seems to be predicated on the false assumption I'm a Christian.

I'm agnostic. I don't know. But it's not a barrier to discussion.

I'm not on board with materialism for reasons I've stated here before. It might be true but I think it unlikely given our current knowledge.

I also think that an old man in the sky judging people on their sexual preference is also unlikely to be true.

 

[RCAB]

Your little lecture seems to be predicated on the false assumption I'm a Christian.

I'm agnostic. I don't know. But it's not a barrier to discussion.

I'm not on board with materialism for reasons I've stated here before. It might be true but I think it unlikely given our current knowledge.

I also think that an old man in the sky judging people on their sexual preference is also unlikely to be true.

Not at all, it wasn’t aimed at you personally. I was talking about patterns that show up in threads like this, not assigning anyone a side. Agnosticism fits neatly in the middle of what I described anyway.

 

[Chief]

You're both... wrong?

Atheists here... correctly invoke burden of proof and Occam’s razor. Those are Enlightenment-era tools meant for empirical questions.

But when you apply them to metaphysical claims (does anything non-material exist) you assume the empirically measurable is the only thing that's real.

That’s positivism, not pure reason and I'm sorry if I'm shitting on your "belief system" but that's a philosophical faith of its own. Ouch.


So when you say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” you are already assuming that only evidence of a certain kind counts.

That’s not neutral. Metaphysical commitment disguised as epistemic modesty is well... It's own cognitive dissonance. Hence the contradiction... insisting you're simply withholding belief means we can't prove it? You see the resemblance?



Christians fall into their own mirror trap without even realising. Instead of defending their theology on its own philosophical footing (metaphysics, ethics, experiential coherence) they argue as if historical evidence alone could prove divinity. Unlucky.

Atheists have to deal with the same problems so their (Christians) whole premise collapses before it even concludes.

Even worse is when they appeal to personal experience of God while refusing to accept equivalent claims from Hindus, Muslims, mystics, etc..

They never address the central atheist criticsm of conditional salvatio and that Christianity resembles as already mentioned here a protection racket.




Both of you guys argue at different levels of discourse and never notice that...

Atheists here debate ontology through the lens of physics. and that believers defend relationship through the lens of a warped history.

Both of you never address maybe the most fundemental problem of Qualia or if humans experience transcendence at all.

Both think you're "belief systems" "logic" or epistemology is the "only" valid one. I have news for you... It's not. In fact you're not even close to the pin... You're both sitting in the bushes.


The irony I've noticed in these threads is that it becomes a ritual reenactment of what each side claims to reject...

Atheists form a fellowship of unbelief, complete with their own tribal religion, filled with boundary-policing and mockery.

Christians fall into a different trap... they defend faith like it’s a personal relationship one minute and a fact claim the next. It ends up confusing everyone to the point they end up saying "we're not here to convert you."

Fact is... both of you mirror each other’s dogmatism in different vocabularies.




IMO, none of you present your arguments very well here.

When either tries to bludgeon the other’s epistemic takes... with their own epistimic... takes, absurdity is the only way to describe this exchange.

“The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world" The Myth of Sisyphus - Camus



If you actually spoke honestly you'd admit..

You’re both trying to make sense of being thrown into existence with awareness and mortality. You just tell different stories about it.

Until that humility appears, you’ll keep circling the same arguments like an electron bound to its orbit and never quite finding the way to jump to a new state.

TL;DR

 

[RCAB]

TL;DR

This thread is 126 pages... It's a mere drop in a puddle of confusion.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

That god created the universe in seven days? Not if it's a science class.

But then again I don't think that life began with a few chemical reactions should be taught as fact. It's a theory.

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory.

What Is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts.

www.livescience.com

As it stands, it's the best and most plausible explanation of how life came about. Nothing in science should be taught as fact. It's based on evidence and the theory will change with the available evidence. So until it is falsified, it remains the dominant theory. Will it ever be able to be proven? No because that's not how science works. Will it ever be falsified? I can't see it happening but I don't dismiss the possibility. However until then it is entirely appropriate for abiogenesis to be taught in schools.

BTW - I don't think it was a few chemical reactions that lead to the establishment of life. It was most likely trillions upon trillions of them across the Universe and time until that one particular reaction went in the direction it did.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

You're both... wrong?

Atheists here... correctly invoke burden of proof and Occam’s razor. Those are Enlightenment-era tools meant for empirical questions.

But when you apply them to metaphysical claims (does anything non-material exist) you assume the empirically measurable is the only thing that's real.

So here's the issue for me - how can the non-material exist? It's a contradiction in terms. A god existing outside of reality surely doesn't exist. And of course, the problem is every religion claims their god is material. Their god talks through burning bushes or flies to the moon on a pegasus or has wars with four-armed female demons or carves the ground to create rivers or any other myth you care to invoke.

 

[RCAB]

So here's the issue for me - how can the non-material exist? It's a contradiction in terms. A god existing outside of reality surely doesn't exist. And of course, the problem is every religion claims their god is material. Their god talks through burning bushes or flies to the moon on a pegasus or has wars with four-armed female demons or carves the ground to create rivers or any other myth you care to invoke.

I'm not arguing "for" religions, I'm just arguing that the parameters set in here are not well defined

“How can the non-material exist? It's a contradiction in terms.”

You have to find existence as "material" and then said anything outside that box is impossible?

It’s called physicalism, but not very nuanced... And may get a lot of push back here. Descartes would probably have a field day with this argument.


If consciousness is even slightly non-material then non-material existence isn’t a counter argument, it’s literally the condition for you asking the question.

“A god existing outside of reality surely doesn’t exist.”

Depends what you mean by “reality”.

If reality equals matter, then sure. But if reality includes things like time, math, consciousness, then you’ve already got non-material realities baked in.

Though to be fair, I’m not even sure time or math “exist” the way we think they do.

They could just be ways we perceive consistency, not structures in themselves.
Observation might just be pattern, not proof.

“Every religion claims their god is material.”

That's not entirely accurate.

Aboriginal dreaming is metaphysical, and more like spacetime as story.

Buddhism literally denies substance! No creator and no permanent self.

Hindu Vedanta says Brahman is pure consciousness, beyond matter or mind.


Some Religions sometimes use matter as metaphors because they don't do a good job of explaining transcendence very well.

 

[evolved2]

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory.

What Is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts.

www.livescience.com

As it stands, it's the best and most plausible explanation of how life came about. Nothing in science should be taught as fact. It's based on evidence and the theory will change with the available evidence. So until it is falsified, it remains the dominant theory. Will it ever be able to be proven? No because that's not how science works. Will it ever be falsified? I can't see it happening but I don't dismiss the possibility. However until then it is entirely appropriate for abiogenesis to be taught in schools.

BTW - I don't think it was a few chemical reactions that lead to the establishment of life. It was most likely trillions upon trillions of them across the Universe and time until that one particular reaction went in the direction it did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is that abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis rather than theory.

 

[evolved2]

You're both... wrong?

Atheists here... correctly invoke burden of proof and Occam’s razor. Those are Enlightenment-era tools meant for empirical questions.

But when you apply them to metaphysical claims (does anything non-material exist) you assume the empirically measurable is the only thing that's real.

That’s positivism, not pure reason and I'm sorry if I'm shitting on your "belief system" but that's a philosophical faith of its own. Ouch.


So when you say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” you are already assuming that only evidence of a certain kind counts.

That’s not neutral. Metaphysical commitment disguised as epistemic modesty is well... It's own cognitive dissonance. Hence the contradiction... insisting you're simply withholding belief means we can't prove it? You see the resemblance?

A god that intervenes in the natural world can be tested by scientific methodology. My opposition to religion is primarily directed at the Abrahamic faiths. Their holy books make claims to truth that can be tested empirically.

"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up."
James 5:14-15

It's fairly easy to formulate a scientific experiment based on that passage.

Christians fall into their own mirror trap without even realising. Instead of defending their theology on its own philosophical footing (metaphysics, ethics, experiential coherence) they argue as if historical evidence alone could prove divinity. Unlucky.

Atheists have to deal with the same problems so their (Christians) whole premise collapses before it even concludes.

Even worse is when they appeal to personal experience of God while refusing to accept equivalent claims from Hindus, Muslims, mystics, etc..

They never address the central atheist criticsm of conditional salvatio and that Christianity resembles as already mentioned here a protection racket.




Both of you guys argue at different levels of discourse and never notice that...

Atheists here debate ontology through the lens of physics. and that believers defend relationship through the lens of a warped history.

Your argument seems to be that scientists don't understand everything about gravity and can't prove gravity pixies don't exist which means the reasonable position to be is agnostic and openminded that physicists could be wrong and gravity pixies actually might exist.

Both of you never address maybe the most fundemental problem of Qualia or if humans experience transcendence at all.

Both think you're "belief systems" "logic" or epistemology is the "only" valid one. I have news for you... It's not. In fact you're not even close to the pin... You're both sitting in the bushes.


The irony I've noticed in these threads is that it becomes a ritual reenactment of what each side claims to reject...

Atheists form a fellowship of unbelief, complete with their own tribal religion, filled with boundary-policing and mockery.

Nah, not really. Atheists tend to go their own way and refuse to be herded.

Christians fall into a different trap... they defend faith like it’s a personal relationship one minute and a fact claim the next. It ends up confusing everyone to the point they end up saying "we're not here to convert you."

Fact is... both of you mirror each other’s dogmatism in different vocabularies.

Objective and subjective evidence are merely different vocabularies. Interesting claim.

IMO, none of you present your arguments very well here.

When either tries to bludgeon the other’s epistemic takes... with their own epistimic... takes, absurdity is the only way to describe this exchange.

“The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world" The Myth of Sisyphus - Camus



If you actually spoke honestly you'd admit..

You’re both trying to make sense of being thrown into existence with awareness and mortality. You just tell different stories about it.

Until that humility appears, you’ll keep circling the same arguments like an electron bound to its orbit and never quite finding the way to jump to a new state.

Do you view abiogenesis and Christian creationism as different stories, equally likely to be true?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is that abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis rather than theory.

My understanding is that it is

Abiogenesis | Research Starters | EBSCO Research

<p>Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life on Earth originated from nonliving organic matter through natural processes. This theory suggests that simple chemical compounds gradually combined and evolved into more complex structures over time, ultimately leading to the formation of basic...

www.ebsco.com

but there are various hypotheses on how it occurred which makes sense.

 

[RCAB]

A god that intervenes in the natural world can be tested by scientific methodology. My opposition to religion is primarily directed at the Abrahamic faiths. Their holy books make claims to truth that can be tested empirically.

Sure if we’re talking about a god that’s meant to act like an event in nature. But that’s already a different category from metaphysics. You’re gonna run an experiment on theology like you’d test gravity?

"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up."
James 5:14-15

It's fairly easy to formulate a scientific experiment based on that passage.

You're doing that bait and switch thing again to win a Bigfooty argument

That verse isn’t a falsifiable medical claim, did I say that? I don't think I've ever argued for the Bible’s truth, only that not every kind of statement belongs in a lab coat.

Treating it as a lab claim “let’s test if prayer cures disease” probably misrepresents what that text is doing. But I'm no priest, so maybe go ask them.
I'm guessing it's just pastoral instructions.

In ancient times anointing with oil wasn’t just symbolic or pharmacological, it was both.

Oil was common medicine, and the prayer component representes hope. Reducing it to a testable “does prayer heal?" is intellectually dishonest.


You can test whether intercessory prayer produces statistically significant healing effects. (And people have... the STEP study, Byrd 1988, etc.)
But that only examines the physical outcome, not the theological meaning.


Interesting why humans keep generating moral or mythic language to confront uncertainty and mortality.
I think that's a shared substrate between religion and science... You disagree.

Your argument seems to be that scientists don't understand everything about gravity and can't prove gravity pixies don't exist which means the reasonable position to be is agnostic and openminded that physicists could be wrong and gravity pixies actually might exist.

Not quite.

I’m saying when you treat metaphysical questions as physical ones, you’ve smuggled your conclusion into your method.

That’s not science, that’s just metaphysical flat-earth.
Descartes would probably sigh at this one... he spent half his life separating res cogitans and res extensa so we wouldn’t confuse thought with stuff.

Nah, not really. Atheists tend to go their own way and refuse to be herded.

You’ve been on this board long enough to know every herd insists it’s not a herd.
The rituals just look different: mockery instead of hymns, citations instead of verses.

Objective and subjective evidence are merely different vocabularies. Interesting claim.

Not my claim.

It's Husserl through to Merleau-Ponty. Different vocabularies for the same encounter with being.
You can reject it, but feel free to provide your counter phenomenology.

Do you view abiogenesis and Christian creationism as different stories, equally likely to be true?

No. They're not same argument.

Abiogenesis is a scientific model that adjusts with data. Creationism is a fixed mythic account that adjusts its metaphors for convenience.

They’re not rivals in probability.

But do you think this is what I was arguing?

 

[Osho]

So here's the issue for me - how can the non-material exist?

Abstract concepts?

 

[Osho]

Will it ever be able to be proven? No because that's not how science works.

Science proves things all the time, proof of things working or behaving as expected. Proving Truth is indeed another matter.

 

[Total Power]

That is why I said maybe it's because I grew up in a non-religious household that I don't care I acknowledge people can have different experiences. You clearly don't.

You have not acknowledged that, you kept saying 'i didn't....'. I never even gave my reference, i gave references of people (family and friends) who suffered cause of religion, to which your response was 'it's bullshit'.

What has me travelling got to do with it? I've been to the US and wasn't harassed by anyone, religious or otherwise.

Because these are common issues. You sound like a person who has no idea how religion operates. Yeah you were a tourist there, you had a good time, i get it. Go to the middle states and see what's going on there. They won't let abortion legal, won't let evolution be taught in schools, making Bible mandatory and compulsory in school etc etc. Forcing your beliefs on others is ok??

Fortunately outside of Oklahoma, other states have opposed to such laws, however that doesn't stop these bigots from pushing their agenda.

Just one guy who wanted to bum $40 off us in the carpark of one of their enormous servos to get some fuel. My wife gave him $100. I was more aggrieved at her than anyone else in the country.

Jesus, does the entire middle east sound like a one off scammer to you?

Equating old Betty at the church op-shop with Pakistani fundamentalists is over the top.

Cause you live in one of the freest and most secular country in the world. Try expressing an opinion on Christianity in Brazil, or certain parts of America or any Islamic country and see to how you go. Thank secularism that you are able to express an opinion in Australia (and many other OECD countries) and not be attacked or killed for it . But vast majority of the populations don't live there.

For someone who has lived and worked extensively in Africa, you would not want to be express an opinion about Jesus there.

You're not just railing against the church but against all religious people.

All religious people? i spoke about religion and the damage it does to which your response was 'don't need hurt peoples beliefs'. Again i am asking you why does religion get a special privilege?

 

[evolved2]

Sure if we’re talking about a god that’s meant to act like an event in nature. But that’s already a different category from metaphysics. You’re gonna run an experiment on theology like you’d test gravity?

Given that we're posting on a thread about the subject of Christianity, I propose we limit our definition of 'god' to the Christian deity.

In that case, the bible makes many testable claims about the nature and actions of god, and his interaction with the natural world. A god that interacts with the natural world can be tested by science.

Do you agree?

You're doing that bait and switch thing again to win a Bigfooty argument

That verse isn’t a falsifiable medical claim, did I say that? I don't think I've ever argued for the Bible’s truth, only that not every kind of statement belongs in a lab coat.

Treating it as a lab claim “let’s test if prayer cures disease” probably misrepresents what that text is doing. But I'm no priest, so maybe go ask them.
I'm guessing it's just pastoral instructions.

In ancient times anointing with oil wasn’t just symbolic or pharmacological, it was both.

Oil was common medicine, and the prayer component representes hope. Reducing it to a testable “does prayer heal?" is intellectually dishonest.

Religious texts like the bible were a means for primitive humanity to make sense of the world through wisdom, science, psychology, recorded history and predicting the future.

Each of those can be tested under the light of modern knowledge.

The bible supports me there too..."The first to speak in court sounds right— until the cross-examination begins." Proverbs 18:17 (my favourite bible verse btw)

You can test whether intercessory prayer produces statistically significant healing effects. (And people have... the STEP study, Byrd 1988, etc.)
But that only examines the physical outcome, not the theological meaning.

There is no singular agreed upon theological meaning. Look at the numerous branches of Christianity and denominations that claim to have the truth, found via faith.

Interesting why humans keep generating moral or mythic language to confront uncertainty and mortality.
I think that's a shared substrate between religion and science... You disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide some examples of science "generating moral or mythic language to confront uncertainty and mortality".

Not quite.

I’m saying when you treat metaphysical questions as physical ones, you’ve smuggled your conclusion into your method.

With respect to Christianity, Jesus approved of skeptics asking for physical evidence.

"Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see--for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." Luke 24:39

That's the standard for me. I'll believe in Christianity when I see objective evidence.

That’s not science, that’s just metaphysical flat-earth.
Descartes would probably sigh at this one... he spent half his life separating res cogitans and res extensa so we wouldn’t confuse thought with stuff.

Please explain that further.

You’ve been on this board long enough to know every herd insists it’s not a herd.
The rituals just look different: mockery instead of hymns, citations instead of verses.

"Scientists do not join hands every Sunday and sing "Yes gravity is real! I know gravity is real! I will have faith! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about the concept."
Dan Barker

Not my claim.

It's Husserl through to Merleau-Ponty. Different vocabularies for the same encounter with being.
You can reject it, but feel free to provide your counter phenomenology.

I'm not familiar with that. Please elaborate.

No. They're not same argument.

Abiogenesis is a scientific model that adjusts with data. Creationism is a fixed mythic account that adjusts its metaphors for convenience.

They’re not rivals in probability.

But do you think this is what I was arguing?

I think you were arguing for an alleged middle ground, a voice of reason between dogmatic atheists and theists. Kinda like most self-described agnostics do.

Agnostics are a lot more fun to argue with than theists. Do you consider yourself agnostic?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Science proves things all the time, proof of things working or behaving as expected. Proving Truth is indeed another matter.

I'd argue science provides evidence to support models which increases the probability that those models are correct. I think we're in furious agreement that it doesn't represent the truth (whatever that is - it's still a trashy yet amusing newspaper to me).

 

[RCAB]

Given that we're posting on a thread about the subject of Christianity, I propose we limit our definition of 'god' to the Christian deity.

In that case, the bible makes many testable claims about the nature and actions of god, and his interaction with the natural world. A god that interacts with the natural world can be tested by science.

Do you agree?

Religious texts like the bible were a means for primitive humanity to make sense of the world through wisdom, science, psychology, recorded history and predicting the future.

Each of those can be tested under the light of modern knowledge.

The bible supports me there too..."The first to speak in court sounds right— until the cross-examination begins." Proverbs 18:17 (my favourite bible verse btw)


There is no singular agreed upon theological meaning. Look at the numerous branches of Christianity and denominations that claim to have the truth, found via faith.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide some examples of science "generating moral or mythic language to confront uncertainty and mortality".

With respect to Christianity, Jesus approved of skeptics asking for physical evidence.

"Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see--for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." Luke 24:39

That's the standard for me. I'll believe in Christianity when I see objective evidence.

Please explain that further.

"Scientists do not join hands every Sunday and sing "Yes gravity is real! I know gravity is real! I will have faith! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about the concept."
Dan Barker

I'm not familiar with that. Please elaborate.

I think you were arguing for an alleged middle ground, a voice of reason between dogmatic atheists and theists. Kinda like most self-described agnostics do.

Agnostics are a lot more fun to argue with than theists. Do you consider yourself agnostic?

I'll just repeat it again...

I'm not here to defend religion or saying science is wrong, I'm saying you're treating its unbridled success as if it's complete or it already knows everything (I know you will argue against it but it's exactly what you're doing here, you're presenting as a rationalist but you're more of a rhetorician. You're arguments can be summed in one sentence: "I already know how we know things... now show me your evidence using my criteria!"


When you keep asking for "objective evidence" you've already decided what counts as objective. That's not a conclusion from data, that's your ego telling how supposedly another conscious being should behave.

Descartes, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty are all asking the question you keep sidestepping: what makes experience possible in the first place?

Before you can test reality, you have to appear within it. That appearance, consciousness, perception, qualia, that's what phenomenology examines. And it can't be reduced to lab measurements without dissolving the thing you're trying to explain.

You position yourself as a rationalist... but rationalism without self-examination just becomes empiricism with attitude.

IMO, the fact that you're not familiar with phenomenology and yet come here and still speak authoritatively on consciousness is... telling. There's a whole domain of philosophical inquiry you haven't engaged with yet. Which is fine, but maybe don't dismiss what you haven't studied?

To put it more simply:

• you don't recognise the epistemological references...umm
• Ask for explanations on basic concepts...
• you fall back on New Atheist talking points

-you try to "win" rhetorically rather than engage philosophically


Basically a contradiction of your rationalism since you claim to have:
-Rational inquiry

• evidence based arguments only
• cross-examinations of the Bible... LoL

But when challenged on your philosophical foundations, you...

• Don't know the philosophical background
• treat "agnostic" as an insult
• use tribal identity markers (Dan Barker quotes)
• avoid engaging with the meta-level questions

I'm assuming you don't know what you're doing, or that your following a script, the New Atheist Bible, word for word. Do you think you have a free-will? Do you believe you are an "independent thinker?"

 

[Total Power]

I'd argue science provides evidence to support models which increases the probability that those models are correct. I think we're in furious agreement that it doesn't represent the truth (whatever that is - it's still a trashy yet amusing newspaper to me).

This is correct.

Proofs exist in the realm of math and formal logic. They do not exist in science.

In order to prove something you must provide an argument in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, and in which all of the premises are true. The reason why math and logic can “prove” things is because they can always guarantee the truth of the premises—because we invented them!

this is the reason why we say, “this has been the most consistent observation, therefore this is the most likely outcome.” Or, in another phrasing, “we’ve seen this pattern of data, therefore we believe this is likely the case.” Even if experiments and observations consistently show the same outcome, we can still only say “this has happened so far” but not guarantee that it always has or always will.

Also the existence of axioms! Those base assumptions (called axioms) are just things we assume to be true. You cant find them out to be true or to be false. It wouldnt even make sense to do so. We just call them axioms, and so they are true.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

 

[sdfc]

You have not acknowledged that, you kept saying 'i didn't....'. I never even gave my reference, i gave references of people (family and friends) who suffered cause of religion, to which your response was 'it's bullshit'.




Because these are common issues. You sound like a person who has no idea how religion operates. Yeah you were a tourist there, you had a good time, i get it. Go to the middle states and see what's going on there. They won't let abortion legal, won't let evolution be taught in schools, making Bible mandatory and compulsory in school etc etc. Forcing your beliefs on others is ok??

Fortunately outside of Oklahoma, other states have opposed to such laws, however that doesn't stop these bigots from pushing their agenda.

Let's not get into abortion because I find the pro-abortion at any time for any reason people just as abhorrent.

Jesus, does the entire middle east sound like a one off scammer to you?

I added that story in because it's amusing. Although it wasn't at the time. You need to clear away the red mist.

Cause you live in one of the freest and most secular country in the world. Try expressing an opinion on Christianity in Brazil, or certain parts of America or any Islamic country and see to how you go. Thank secularism that you are able to express an opinion in Australia (and many other OECD countries) and not be attacked or killed for it . But vast majority of the populations don't live there.

For someone who has lived and worked extensively in Africa, you would not want to be express an opinion about Jesus there.

We're on an Australian footy forum. If you want to argue with fundamentalists that a looking to punish you for being atheist that's fine. Are there any on this forum?

All religious people? i spoke about religion and the damage it does to which your response was 'don't need hurt peoples beliefs'. Again i am asking you why does religion get a special privilege?

Religion doesn't get any special privileges. Neither do you. You continually equate the little old ladies who go to church with fundamentalists. It's a recurring theme.

 

[sdfc]

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory.

What Is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts.

www.livescience.com

As it stands, it's the best and most plausible explanation of how life came about. Nothing in science should be taught as fact. It's based on evidence and the theory will change with the available evidence. So until it is falsified, it remains the dominant theory. Will it ever be able to be proven? No because that's not how science works. Will it ever be falsified? I can't see it happening but I don't dismiss the possibility. However until then it is entirely appropriate for abiogenesis to be taught in schools.

BTW - I don't think it was a few chemical reactions that lead to the establishment of life. It was most likely trillions upon trillions of them across the Universe and time until that one particular reaction went in the direction it did.

If you can show me where kids are also being taught the massive problems with the theory I'll concede it is not being taught as fact.

 

[evolved2]

I'll just repeat it again...

I'm not here to defend religion or saying science is wrong, I'm saying you're treating its unbridled success as if it's complete or it already knows everything (I know you will argue against it but it's exactly what you're doing here, you're presenting as a rationalist but you're more of a rhetorician. You're arguments can be summed in one sentence: "I already know how we know things... now show me your evidence using my criteria!"

Nah, that's an obvious strawman.

When you keep asking for "objective evidence" you've already decided what counts as objective. That's not a conclusion from data, that's your ego telling how supposedly another conscious being should behave.

That's a strange critique. How do you define "objective evidence," and how does your definition differ from the way I've been using the term?

Descartes, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty are all asking the question you keep sidestepping: what makes experience possible in the first place?

Before you can test reality, you have to appear within it. That appearance, consciousness, perception, qualia, that's what phenomenology examines. And it can't be reduced to lab measurements without dissolving the thing you're trying to explain.

You position yourself as a rationalist... but rationalism without self-examination just becomes empiricism with attitude.

IMO, the fact that you're not familiar with phenomenology and yet come here and still speak authoritatively on consciousness is... telling. There's a whole domain of philosophical inquiry you haven't engaged with yet. Which is fine, but maybe don't dismiss what you haven't studied?

When did I speak authoritatively on consciousness?

To put it more simply:

• you don't recognise the epistemological references...umm
• Ask for explanations on basic concepts...
• you fall back on New Atheist talking points

-you try to "win" rhetorically rather than engage philosophically

I would provide an explanation of basic concepts if someone asked for it, but that's just me. You can copy and paste a response from chatgpt if you like.

Basically a contradiction of your rationalism since you claim to have:
-Rational inquiry

• evidence based arguments only
• cross-examinations of the Bible... LoL

One of the main criticisms of the new atheists is their limited understanding of the bible, and I agree. Why do you laugh at my use of bible passages in a thread about Christianity?

But when challenged on your philosophical foundations, you...

• Don't know the philosophical background
• treat "agnostic" as an insult
• use tribal identity markers (Dan Barker quotes)
• avoid engaging with the meta-level questions

I'm assuming you don't know what you're doing, or that your following a script, the New Atheist Bible, word for word.

You've avoided nearly every question I've asked you in this thread.

Do you think you have a free-will?

I'm the result of nature and nurture, the same as all people.

Do you believe you are an "independent thinker?"

Independent from what?

 

[Total Power]

Let's not get into abortion because I find the pro-abortion at any time for any reason people just as abhorrent.

Not pro-anti debate, i am all for 'freedom of choice'. Not force your beliefs stemming from religion on others.

I am simply telling you how religion affects lives in SECULAR nations, not even going to third world countries.

We're on an Australian footy forum. If you want to argue with fundamentalists that a looking to punish you for being atheist that's fine. Are there any on this forum?

None what i said is about fundamentalists. Would you crack a joke about Islam in the middle east? no! similarly you won't do the same about Christianity in those places. Public flogging is really a thing in these places. Just google it if you don't believe me.

Religion doesn't get any special privileges. Neither do you. You continually equate the little old ladies who go to church with fundamentalists. It's a recurring theme.

I am not asking for special privileges. You can criticise agnosticism all you want, just like i can criticise religion. You have argued against evolution and i didn't take offense in it although i disagree with you. I have argued against Christianity throughout this thread as an absurd belief system. Your point 'you don't need to shit on other peoples beliefs'.... please! i find beliefs that tells me women are inferior and shouldn't talk in front of men or gays are sinners etc etc to be worthy of 'shitting'.