"steal ethics from the christian world view?"  An explanation is warranted.

"Morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force."  Yeah well, tell that to the Banks.

Morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force."  Yeah well, tell that to the Banks.

it is not morally wrong to collect a debt.

it is morally wrong to steal.

after the left figures out that difference, we might let them run our country again.

it is morally wrong to steal. after the left figures out that difference, we might let them run our country again.

What has been stolen from you by Democrats?

What has been stolen from you by Democrats?

It appears to be courage.  

It appears to be courage.  

Your idea is as good as mine. 

I assumed that he was referring to paying taxes and the fact that other people have equal secular and religious rights which is an inconvenient situation when he desires to act without limits.

Individual freedom, religious liberty, some property rights, some gun rights, access to capital, life for the preborn, human dignity.  

What individual freedoms have been taken from you or anyone else?

When has anyone lost religious liberty (the right to believe in god and the right to worship) as guaranteed in the First Amendment? Your religious rights are not a weapon to be used against people that you disagree with, just because of the First Amendment's protections.  The fact that Jesus told instructed to act opposite thet you do is more proof that they are not sincere relgious beliefs, but an attempt to abuse the First Amendment's protections.

What property rights have been infringed?

When have your gun rights been infringed?

How have you lost acess to capital?

Who has been forced to have an abortion against their will? A fetus is a parstsite and as such a had no rights until it is living separately from the mother's body. This has been explained to you many times but still, you ignore reality. 

When has your human dignity been infringed?  

What individual freedoms have been taken from you or anyone else?

None. It's all just hyperbole and/or paranoia.

He will possibly claim that paying taxes is a violation of his rights, as well as not being permitted to use his religious beliefs as a weapon to treat others as second class citizens.

He will possibly claim that paying taxes is a violation of his rights, as well as not being permitted to use his religious beliefs as a weapon to treat others as second class citizens.

Doesn't he already claim that in some form or another?

religious liberty,

Be afraid XX51 !

Be wery afraid!

because if word get out that you believe in god-- and worse yet protelytze such on a public forum such as NT-- the government Thought Police will come to take you away!

Don't believe me? Ask Alex Jones...and he wouldn't lie!

(OMG-- what's that knock on yer door -- quick-- hide under the bed! The Libruls are coming to take your religion away!!!)

When has your human dignity been infringed?  

I applaud your generosity of spirit but disagree with your premise.

I applaud your generosity of spirit but disagree with your premise.

I'm not sure that I am following where this is going. I feel that I should say I am sorry for whatever I said. 

There are some here who would do it in a heartbeat 💗 if only they could....

Are you referring to us nasty amoral secular progressives?

Are you referring to us nasty amoral secular progressives?

No, he's just projecting.  The fact is, XX would like to turn the country into a Christian version of  Afghanistan under the Taliban.  

Morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force."  Yeah well, tell that to the Banks

Or...to the IRS!

(Fourth Amendment prohibition vs, arbitrary search and seizures...)

Or...to the IRS!

And rampant asset forfeiture abuse.  

1. Start with the assumption of no God

Yet another individual trying to redefine atheism (lack of belief due to insufficient convincing evidence).

1. Start with no assumptions
2. Observe a claim that a particular god exists
3. Evaluate the evidence supporting the claim
4. If you find the evidence convincing you are a theist.   If not, you are an atheist.
5. (repeat 2 to 4 for the balance of your life)

Yet another individual trying to redefine atheism (lack of belief due to insufficient convincing evidence).

Her ideas/beliefs on how she became a Christian are very questionable, especially considering her academic achievements. There is more to this story then we currently know.

friendlyatheist.patheos

Yet another individual trying to redefine atheism

Atheists don't seem to be too reticent to define faith in whatever way suits them.

Atheists don't seem to be too reticent to define faith in whatever way suits them.

What is your definition of religious faith, if you believe that it is being wrongly defined by non-believers? 

you believe that it is being wrongly defined by non-believers

For one thing, you just love to claim that people of faith believe something based on no evidence. That is incorrect.

For one thing, you just love to claim that people of faith believe something based on no evidence. That is incorrect.

What information do you have the supports the claim that a sentient religious creator does exist? The Bible is a unsupported claim and not a proof. Your religious belief that the Bible is true is also logically unsupported. 

Atheists don't seem to be too reticent to define faith in whatever way suits them.

What definition of faith should atheists use?

Typically the word 'evidence' is diluted in meaning to be 'anything that I personally find to suggest the existence of God'.    If one uses that as their meaning for 'evidence' then the existence of Earth and its many wonders (biological and not) and/or the awesomeness of the known universe is considered evidence of God.   

Atheists, in contrast, typically use evidence in a more formal sense (typically as a short-hand for scientific evidence).

So what is this "evidence," especially for a god?

logically

I guess logic eludes you.

We've been over this a million times (that's a scientifically accurate figure btw).

The word "evidence" is not limited to the scientific method.

There is more than one way to reason a thing out.

Not everything lends itself to investigation via the scientific method. It may well be that most things don't. Certainly. God does not.

So . . . stop demanding it! 

Atheists, in contrast, typically use evidence in a more formal sense

I would say you use it in a more limited sense than it is typically used so that you can go around claiming "there's no evidence." Basically, you're changing the definition of a word so you can use it against people. it's either dishonest or ignorant. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, so I'll explain.

Relevant evidence is anything - an object, a measurement, a testimony, an observation, etc. - that tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

You can have opinions about what evidence is more useful or valuable compared to some other evidence, but you don't get to just change the meaning of words and say "there is no evidence" just because you don't like the evidence or you disagree with the conclusion someone draws from it.

In other words, you don't have to believe what I believe, but don't tell me there's "no evidence."

The scientific method is the best means of obtaining objective, empirically valid evidence. Testimonials and such are subjective and anecdotal which can be more prone to error and can lack validity or credibility. Mere belief falls in that category and is not credible evidence. Neither does belief equal fact. So until there is objective, empirical evidence, then there is "no (real) evidence!

The scientific method is the best means of obtaining objective, empirically valid evidence.

That doesn't make it useful for every inquiry. In fact, it severely limits its application.

So until there is objective, empirical evidence, then there is "no (real) evidence!

Then you have invented your own definition of what evidence is and you are doing it to confirm your own beliefs. But like I have said elsewhere: believe what you like.

The scientific method I'd the most useful and reliable means of aquiring evidence. Anything else is like  settling for less. And I did not make up any definition. Perhaps if you understood the difference between subjective and objective evidence, you would understand objective evidence better reduces the chance of confirmation bias.

Making my point!

The word "evidence" is not limited to the scientific method.

I stated that (and more) in my post.   Why instruct me on what I just stated?:    ↴

TiG @3.3.7  ☛  Typically the word 'evidence' is diluted in meaning to be 'anything that I personally find to suggest the existence of God'.  If one uses that as their meaning for 'evidence' then the existence of Earth and its many wonders (biological and not) and/or the awesomeness of the known universe is considered evidence of God.   Atheists, in contrast, typically use evidence in a more formal sense (typically as a short-hand for scientific evidence).

Seems like clear language to me.

So . . .stop demanding it! 

If someone makes an extraordinary claim, you can bet it will be challenged.   If you cannot rise to the challenge and can only supply what is at best weak evidence, then your claim remains unsubstantiated.   That should be an indication that maybe the belief is unfounded.

I would say you use it in a more limited sense than it is typically used so that you can go around claiming "there's no evidence." 

Again, you could just read what I wrote in the post to which you replied:

TiG @3.3.7  ☛  Atheists, in contrast, typically use evidence in a more formal sense (typically as a short-hand for scientific evidence).

Yes, when skeptics use the word 'evidence' we almost always are referring to formal evidence (i.e. that which would pass as scientific evidence).

... you don't get to just change the meaning of words and say "there is no evidence" ...

The meaning of 'evidence' relative to religious claims is extremely consistent.   When a skeptic asks for evidence you know full well that the evidence asked for is formal evidence (i.e. that which would pass as scientific evidence).   There is no change of meaning, no moving the goalposts — it is well known.   And if this is news to you then let me be the first to publicly inform you of this fact.

In other words, you don't have to believe what I believe, but don't tell me there's "no evidence."

Your whole post is predicated on you pretending to not understand what a skeptic means by 'evidence'.   You now know what it means.

So if you read:  'where is the evidence for that claim?' you know that this in particular means:  'where is the formal, scientifically valid evidence for that claim?'    And in that sense, there is no evidence for any god.  If you disagree, please be the first person in history to deliver the evidence.

Typically the word 'evidence' is diluted in meaning to be 'anything that I personally find to suggest the existence of God'.    If one uses that as their meaning for 'evidence' then the existence of Earth and its many wonders (biological and not) and/or the awesomeness of the known universe is considered evidence of God.    Atheists, in contrast, typically use evidence in a more formal sense (typically as a short-hand for scientific evidence).

Was Tacos correct that I was using the word "evidence" incorrectly? From my perscpetive, he wants to play fast and loose with the definitions to allow himself wiggle room for his religious beliefs and then attempts to call out others for being incorrect when they notice his linguistic and logical sleight of hand. 

In my opinion Tacos indeed wants to dilute the meaning of the word ‘evidence’ so that personal claims serve as evidence of God.

n my opinion Tacos indeed wants to dilute the meaning of the word ‘evidence’ so that personal claims serve as evidence of God.

That would confuse and negate the existence of the words faith and belief.  This tactic of his goes to the heart of what a language is because a language only functions where there are concrete and universally understood definitions of a word.  It is impossible to teach, record and transfer information between two people or two cultures when the meanings are malleable depending on what is being discussed or who is speaking. 

 To state that he is trying to construct a strawman is very obvious.

We've been over this a million times (that's a scientifically accurate figure btw). The word "evidence" is not limited to the scientific method.

Is this definition also incorrect? If there is evidence of something that it should be obvious to anyone, regardless of their beliefs.  If you have to be a member of a certain religion or sect to accept the evidence that you want to put forth then that isn't evidence but is instead religious belief or faith. You do not want to use other of those words because they lack logical support.

noun

When a skeptic asks for evidence you know full well that the evidence asked for is formal evidence (i.e. that which would pass as scientific evidence).

I see no reason why that should be true. That might be what you want, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to the inquiry. You also don't speak for everyone making the inquiry. You are not the voice of all skeptics. 

The fact is your mind is closed to certain types of evidence, apparently because you are aware that opening your mind to other possibilities would change the conversation, and your can't afford to risk your beliefs that way.

In my opinion

And in my opinion, you are both wrong. Also, in my opinion, your minds are closed to other ways of approaching the problem. That's why talking to you guys is so pointless.

Was Tacos correct that I was using the word "evidence" incorrectly? From my perscpetive, he wants to play fast and loose with the definitions

I have at least supplied a definition. I think it's a pretty good one.

The main thing you are doing is taking issue with my definition, but mostly through a kind of emotional characterization of that definition. 

You have not explained how or why any specific alternative would be more viable and appropriate to the inquiry.

I see no reason why that should be true. That might be what you want, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to the inquiry. You also don't speak for everyone making the inquiry. You are not the voice of all skeptics. 

They asked for evidence but you want to put forth religious beliefs and faith and call it evidence.   Do you see how your actions are intellectually dishonest? You also destroy your credibility when your evidence cannot be supported when they go to investigate the claim?  

 The fact that you are acting this way tells me that you know very well that there is no evidence but you also want to cling to your religious ideas, even if it means that you are not completely honest with others.

Your own religion commands you to tell the truth.  Are your actions as an example of Christian morality? 

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief

That's basically what I said. You clearly are not satisfied with this standard.

Note that the definition sends "tends to." It does not say "proves" without a qualifier. Evidence makes a thing more or less likely to be true. We tend to place higher values on evidence that accomplishes this to a greater degree, but the strength of one piece of evidence does not reduce the value of all other evidence to zero. It is part of human reasoning to take a body of evidence and reach the best conclusion we can. When you close your mind to certain kinds of evidence, you limit the conclusions you can reach.

They asked for evidence but you want to put forth religious beliefs and faith and call it evidence.

No, the reverse is true. My belief and faith are based on the evidence.

You also destroy your credibility

I'm not trying to sell you on my credibility because I don't think your mind is open enough to bother with worrying about it. Your assessment of my credibility, therefore, doesn't mean much. Frankly, your need to even express it says a lot about why you take part in these conversations. It's not to seek truth. It's to "win" at something.

your evidence cannot be supported

It's not "my evidence." It's just evidence and I think it's well supported. Believe what you like.

The fact that you are acting this way tells me that you know very well that there is no evidence but you also want to cling to your religious ideas, even if it means that you are not completely honest with others. Your own religion commands you to tell the truth.  Are your actions as an example of Christian morality? 

I really can't do anything to this mess but roll my eyes. Wow.

No, the reverse is true. My belief and faith are based on the evidence.

Faith and belief are subjective, unlike evidence which is to be objective. Subjective evidence is an illogical idea.  What evidence that all people accept is your beliefs and your faith based on? The Bible is a claim and not evidence.

What "evidence " do you have? Mere belief is not evidence. There's no actual empirical evidence to support the existence of any god. But if you have it, then by all means, present it.

omg it never ends

Where is the evidence of a sentient religious creator existing that you claim to have, instead of trying to play the religious victim card that you are being trolled or that people refuse to accept rational evidence? 

Hilarious.  But it doesn't change the fact that you lack any substantial or valid evidence to support any claim for a god, beyond little more than wishful thinking.

Faith and belief are subjective, unlike evidence which is to be objective. Subjective evidence is an illogical idea.

Faith and belief are not evidence and I would not present them as such. They are conclusions. People reach different conclusions on the same evidence every day. Like I have said. Believe what you will. 

That's your opinion. If that's what makes you happy, go with it. I can't stop you nor would I try.

Do you really want that or are you still trying to "win?"

"Conclusions" based on faith or belief are more like best guesses or wishful thinking. Drawing up such a "conclusion" based on nothing more is intellectually lazy at best.

No opinion. Simple fact.

So what if it's "prove it?" That is a reasonable expectation for any claim made, especially ones made that lack any evidence.

That is a reasonable expectation

It's not reasonable when no evidence is acceptable to even be considered. Your mind is closed.

Faith and belief are not evidence and I would not present them as such. They are conclusions. People reach different conclusions on the same evidence every day. Like I have said. Believe what you will. 

How can faith and belief possibility be a conclusion? What cogent arguments support a religious belief or faith?

It's not reasonable when no evidence is acceptable to even be considered. Your mind is closed.

His mind isn't closed, despite your attempt to portray it as such. Religious beliefs and faith are not objective evidence, so others do not accept belief and faith as evidence. We are logical and as of now, there is no information to empirically support the existence of a sentient religious deity existing. If you have new information then please present it so we can examine it and come to our own conclusions. 

How can faith and belief possibility be a conclusion?

In the same way that lack of faith or lack of belief can be a conclusion. 

His mind isn't closed, despite your attempt to portray it as such.

You're hilarious. I'm not trying to "portray" anything. It's simply the conclusion I have reached based on the available evidence. i.e. it's what I believe.

there is no information to empirically support the existence of a sentient religious deity existing

No there isn't. As I have explained to you many times, I can't even imagine what that would look like. Also, I have asked you many times what it would look like and you have never been able to explain it. So, as has been explained to you many times, you should probably stop insisting on inappropriate types of evidence.

You're hilarious. I'm not trying to "portray" anything. It's simply the conclusion I have reached based on the available evidence. i.e. it's what I believe.

You want to put forth ideas stemming from religious belief and faith and still claim that it is evidence. 

What evidence did you use to reach your conclusion, presumably that you believe the Abrahamic god exists?  Could I use those same faith-based subjective evidence and use to claim that Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, and Thor exist?

Going personal is not an argument.   And presuming is usually foolish (as is true in this case).

It is remarkable (not in a good way) that you do not realize that skeptics in general mean ' formal evidence ... typically scientific ' when we use the term ' evidence '.    Yes some skeptics might use evidence in a loose, diluted sense as you desire, but it would be surprising since skeptics seek to be convinced and tend to not simply accept as true that which people claim as such.

Pretty much how the word 'skeptic' is defined:  " A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions ."

Make an actual argument then.   You are not going to convince anyone of anything by simply complaining about closed minds.   Deeming others to be flawed is no substitute for an argument.

Could I use those same faith-based subjective evidence

You keep saying this backward and I keep explaining it and you keep ignoring the explanation. I won't explain it again after this. There is no faith-based evidence. The faith is based on the evidence.

You are not going to convince anyone of anything

I'm not really trying to.

Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin anyone's day with that revelation.

by simply complaining about closed minds

It's not a complaint. Just an observation. I have said in multiple places that I invite you to believe as you will. You don't owe me or anyone else a certain belief.

Deeming others to be flawed

That sounds more like your own insecurity talking.

You haven't even presented any evidence. So it's laughable to think I'm closed minded. I'm open to actual evidence. But mere belief is not evidence of anything.

There is no faith-based evidence. The faith is based on the evidence.

I get that you can't base evidence on faith, so no, "faith-based evidence" makes no sense. But I believe epistte was intending to say "evidence-based faith".

"Could I use those same evidence-based subjective faith and use to claim that Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, and Thor exist?"

"What evidence did you use to reach your conclusion, presumably that you believe the Abrahamic god exists?"

So what is being rightly asked for is the evidence you base your faith on and how it differs from the "evidence" other people use to base their faith in Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Odin or any other deity ever believed in by man. You claim it is "faith based on evidence" but continually refuse to provide even a single atom of evidence.

Evidence: noun - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Is there an "available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" when it comes to your belief in the Abrahamic God? If so, I believe that's all Gordy or anyone else has been asking for. The only reason they keep asking is because you've failed to provide any, you're asking them to take your claim of evidence on "faith", which, as we can see, is fraught with conflictions and contradictions.

Oh please Gordy. Spare us all! We have had these conversations so many times. Much evidence has presented in many conversations. This conversation is about how unacceptable all the evidence is to you and these others - mainly because it's not of a certain type. It's also about the idea that faith and belief are based on the willingness to analyze those types of evidence and reach conclusions based on that analysis. It's not about analyzing a specific piece of evidence at this time, but I think you already knew that.

I believe epistte was intending to say

Do what you like, but I don't recommend trying to interpret what other people are intending to say. That's my two cents. Plus, it makes conversations harder to follow.

"Could I use those same evidence-based subjective faith and use to claim that Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, and Thor exist?"

No, because the evidence is different.

You claim it is "faith based on evidence" but continually refuse to provide even a single atom of evidence.

That's simply untrue. I'm just not going to bother with the effort in this particular conversation. We're down enough rabbit holes as it is.

I believe that's all Gordy or anyone else has been asking for.

Again, interpreting others is an iffy proposition. And I don't agree anyway.

You haven't even empirically supported in the slightest of the existence in what you believe, much less prove it. The rest of your statement is just paranoid nonsense!

You keep saying this backward and I keep explaining it and you keep ignoring the explanation. I won't explain it again after this. There is no faith-based evidence. The faith is based on the evidence.

Please post that evidence that you base your faith on. 

So what is being rightly asked for is the evidence you base your faith on and how it differs from the "evidence" other people use to base their faith in Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Odin or any other deity ever believed in by man. You claim it is "faith based on evidence" but continually refuse to provide even a single atom of evidence.

Thank you. I'm relieved to discover that others understood where that argument was headed. 

But they want to deny the existence of our belief and try to suppress any expression there of.  

I am absolutely positive that you believe in god is every cell of your body but relgious belief is subjective and is not emptical evidence.  There is a heirachy of knowledge and religious faith and belief are at the bottom.

The difference is that we don’t try to interfere in their expression of disbelief or miso theism.  

I do not hate god because I do not hate what doesn't exist. 

I'm not really trying to.

Then what is the point of posting?

That sounds more like your own insecurity talking.

Yet again no thoughtful commentary, no argument, no rebuttal, nothing but derogatory personal comments.    

relgious belief is subjective and is not empirical evidence

Maybe instead of stating they have evidence of their God in their hearts they could just say "I believe in my God based on that feeling, that something, that, how do you say, je ne sais quoi?".

GOD Himself could appear before them, perform some miracle, and they STILL would question His existence and claim that there simply is no evidence.

Why do you conclude that?

There is a massive difference between giving no evidence other than personal claims and empirical evidence of a power that ostensibly created the known universe.   I have offered several scenarios for impressive evidence of the creator of the universe in other articles.   

Note:   no empirical evidence of scientific quality vs. substantial evidence of scientific quality are on opposite sides of the scale.

Oh please Gordy. Spare us all! We have had these conversations so many times. Much evidence has presented in many conversations.

What evidence? All you've ever presented is personal belief or opinion. As has been explained, that is not actual evidence.

This conversation is about how unacceptable all the evidence is to you and these others - mainly because it's not of a certain type.

Then you do not understand what constitutes actual valid evidence.

It's also about the idea that faith and belief are based on the willingness to analyze those types of evidence and reach conclusions based on that analysis.

You have yet to present any such evidence.

It's not about analyzing a specific piece of evidence at this time, but I think you already knew that.

Evidence should be analyzed. Present it, then we can analyze it. That's how the validity of evidence is determined and how it leads to certain conclusions.

That's simply untrue.

Really? You have been repeatedly asked to present evidence. List it!

There is no faith-based evidence. The faith is based on the evidence.

There is no evidence period. Just belief and wishful thinking.

It's simply the conclusion I have reached based on the available evidence. i.e. it's what I believe.

Belief does not equal fact. Neither does it establish a solid conclusion. It's highly subjective.

you should probably stop insisting on inappropriate types of evidence.

What exactly is your idea of "appropriate" evidence?

GOD Himself could appear before them, perform some miracle, and they STILL would question His existence and claim that there simply is no evidence.

And you make this assumption, because...?

I don't know how many times it has been explained to you.

And you still don't get it! Oh well.

Maybe instead of stating they have evidence of their God in their hearts they could just say "I believe in my God based on that feeling, that something, that, how do you say, je ne sais quoi?".

 I would not oppose that statement because it cannot be questioned by others when a person believes in faith.

No, because the evidence is different

How?

That's simply untrue. I'm just not going to bother with the effort in this particular conversation.

I literally said you "refuse to provide even a single atom of evidence" and you claim that's not true but then immediately explain why you refuse to provide a single atom of evidence. "I don't refuse to provide evidence, I'm just not going to bother to provide any evidence because it's too much work"... How is that a reasonable argument?

I only step in and "assume" what someone else is saying when their argument is very apparent but is being deflected by intentionally obtuse refutations that misrepresent their stated argument.

Exactly right. In fact, we see that very thing happen over and over again in scripture. Some people just don't want to believe. Oh well.

Please post that evidence that you base your faith on.

Why?

Yet again no thoughtful commentary, no argument, no rebuttal

I'm pretty sure there's nothing I could say on any topic that you would not use this line (or similar). You do it a lot.

nothing but derogatory personal comments

You're imagining things. 

Well you clearly got it wrong with me.   I cannot speak for anyone else, but your method of analysis completely failed on this data point.

You're imagining things. 

Psychoanalyzing another member is going personal (e.g. "That sounds more like your own insecurity talking.")

Much better to make a rebuttal on content rather than use ugly tactics such as going personal.    That is, if one has an actual rebuttal or argument to offer.

Psychoanalyzing another member is going personal

I find that funny. You love to talk about what other people are thinking, what their thought process is, and on and on. It's totally ok for you. But hey, if you think I did something wrong, go right ahead and flag it. 

Do you by any remote chance have any value to add to content of the discussion?   Or are you going to keep pushing the envelope to see how many times you can get away with personal derogatory comments?

Why?

I'd like to see it, if you think that it qualifies as evidence of a sentient religious creator. 

Please.

I haven't made any derogatory comments as far as I know, so I don't even know what you're talking about. Like I said, if you have a problem with a comment, I suggest you flag it. 

For what purpose?

Agreed.   But given nobody in recorded history has formally evidenced a sentient creator (resorting instead to faulty logical arguments) I expect a very weak answer if one is even provided.

For one, it would be somewhat topical.  But primarily your bluff is being called.   My guess is that you do not even hold a pair in that hand.   Show your cards.

For what purpose?

I'd like to read them. What else could possibly be done with them except to read them? 

I have to wonder why you are so hesitant to share them with others if you are so convinced in your mind that they are evidence of a sentient creator? 

My guess is that you do not even hold a pair in that hand.   Show your cards.

That is certainly one way to state the obvious.

For one, it would be somewhat topical

I disagree and I have already said why.

But primarily your bluff is being called

Then you are interested for the wrong reason. Like I figured: not worth it.

My guess is that you do not even hold a pair in that hand.   Show your cards.

As I figured, this is a game to you. I'm not interested in playing. If you are ever serious, let me know and I will be happy to talk with you about it personally.

That is certainly one way to state the obvious.

And now your intent also is made clear. If you are ever truly interested in seeking God, I am sure that I and others here would be happy to have a real conversation with you about it. deleted

You know quite well that your claims would be picked apart and exposed and you are desperate to save face after your adamant and aggressive replies to the contrary 12 hours ago. 

Why did you take part in this debate, especially in the manner that you did, if you knew that you could not or would not show your evidence? Did you think that you would be able to get away without posting your previously claimed evidence of a god?

 Your current behavior will not be forgotten the next time you make similar religious claims. 

[deleted]

I'm honestly impressed at how mad they are that I won't give them the internet entertainment they crave.

Much evidence has presented in many conversations.

No actual evidence has been presented.  And any "evidence" presented could just as easily be used to prove that Zeus is the god everyone should be worshipping.  I don't care what you believe, but stop pretending anyone has presented evidence, because nobody has.

An obvious card hand metaphor taken literally to engage in more deflection.   

If you are ever serious, let me know and I will be happy to talk with you about it personally.

That is demonstrably false given I routinely engage on this topic with the serious, impersonal and non-emotional intent to expose both sides of the argument — to make full use of the dialectic.   There are very few individuals who will engage in a religious discussion / debate for very long.   Invariably the exchange devolves into ugly tactics:  deflection / meta / feigned obtuseness and more.    The reason is because religious exchanges necessarily challenge beliefs.   Very few have the ability to check their emotions at the door and very few can directly and honestly address the challenges with something more than ' I just believe '.

Your posts speak for themselves;  IMO it is unlikely that you would actually participate in a serious discussion / debate on a religious matter.   

Your posts were included in what I read.

And thus you got it wrong when it comes to me.   As I noted.

You saying that is incorrect, does not make it so. 

In fact, from that source it actually, by definition,  makes it not so. 

Some people just don't want to believe.

Some people need to believe in fairy tales.  

I'm honestly impressed at how mad they are that I won't give them the internet entertainment they crave.

Oh, but you do and in spades. 

From absurd to

No, I know. It's fine. But apparently everything I quoted that I was responding to was on-topic. Go figure.

In my opinion Tacos indeed wants to dilute the meaning of the word ‘evidence’ so that personal claims serve as evidence of God.

Isn't that the SOP in general for bible thumpers?

Logic,  noun:  reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Episette is using the term precisely as defined. 

Atheists don't seem to be too reticent to define faith in whatever way suits them.

Things that never happen seem to be a particular deflection strategy of yours, Tac.  

Atheists don't seem to be too reticent to define faith in whatever way suits them.

Actually it's the phony faith bit that's so easy to spot.  People of real faith don't go around making up stories of fake conversions or getting all sweaty about atheists.  They go about their business and don't need to use props or lies of how this or that PROVES they're right.  I obviously don't happen to share their faith but I have great respect for people who don't need all these external supports, such as always trying to use government or courts to make it easier to impose their beliefs, or symbols or rituals on others.  It's no coincidence that these are almost always the same people who like to put their alleged patriotism on show and I think the same motivation applies---for display purposes only. 

But they want to deny the existence of our belief and try to suppress any expression there of.  

Name even ONE law that has been passed that denies your right to worship as you please? We'll wait. 

 Ignore the meaninglessness of a Godless universe."

I did manage to glean one bit of useful information out of this, good advice.

Ignore the meaninglessness of a Godless universe.

Again I need no god to give me meaning. I find my own joy in everything I do, no god required. If something goes wrong in my life it's not any magical deities fault. Conversely, if something goes well it's not divine intervention. How are we supposed to take credit for our faults and successes if it's all the whim of a magical entity?

If someone needs a god to have meaning, then that is to be pitied.

Some people think atheists should be pitied.  What is the point of being denigrating in this situation? 

I've had theists say they pity me for being an atheist. But atheists aren't the ones who need belief in an imaginary friend to find meaning in their lives.

If someone needs a god to have meaning

It doesn't need to be about having meaning at all. When you find out greater truths in the universe, it expands on existing meaning. That is a thing to be celebrated.

If someone needs a god to have meaning, then that is to be pitied.

It's not my place to make them feel bad (like many of them try to do me) but I do pity them for needing the crutch of religion to get them through life.

When you find out greater truths in the universe, it expands on existing meaning.

Like a graviton is both a particle and a wave? In quantum physics duality is truly mind blowing stuff!

That is a thing to be celebrated.

I agree we should be celebrating math, mechanics and physics much, much more than we do. 

I agree we should be celebrating math, mechanics and physics

I think I do a pretty good job of celebrating them all.

Which "truths" are you referring to?

Exactly 

Some people think atheists should be pitied.  What is the point of being denigrating in this situation? 

Why should a person who doesn't believe in god be pitied? I have a lot of joy in my life from learning and the experiences of daily life.  That idea that I am only a mindless marionette in a religious deities toy box is both depressing and insulting.

The only theistic god that I could ever believe in is the god of deism because it is the only one that could in any way be logically defensible. 

I think I do a pretty good job of celebrating them all.

Well then maybe you can tutor the other religious conservatives I've talked to who seem to distrust everyone of them.

I understand. I've met some of those types of people. Likewise there are many people who think that I'm not allowed to be both a person of faith and someone who likes science.

1. Start with the assumption of no God

Well that's a given. We have to be taught to believe in things we have zero empirical evidence of.

2. However, also start with Christian morality

Why? How are "Christian morals" different than any other religions moral codes or even secular or humanist moral codes? Morality is subjective, and that subject is humanity. What is considered good for humans is considered moral while inflicting pain on humans is considered immoral. Every valid moral law in the bible was preceded by other religions by thousands of years, even the "golden rule" had been in use for at least 3,000 years before the bible was ever written.

3. Remove the bits you personally don’t like

You mean the condoning of slavery? The laws telling parents to stone their disobedient children to death? The bizarre laws about not mixing fabrics or not eating pork or shellfish?

4. Proclaim that it's self-evident

If she means proclaiming morality is self evident, how could it be anything but if it was adopted by disparate cultures separated by thousands of miles and even oceans but came to the same conclusions when it comes to morality? "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" was the law in Egypt going back to at least 2040 BC. "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." was an ancient moral code from China and "One who is going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts" was an ancient Yoruba moral code from Africa.

5. Ignore the meaninglessness of a Godless universe.

Okay, this is the most hilarious of this woman's ignorant assumptions. Apparently the argument is that unless there is a grand creator who knows us and has a purpose for us, then the universe is "meaningless". What a sad, self centered, pathetic world view. If you're waiting on something else to give your life meaning, then I can only pity you. If someone convinces you that the flying spaghetti monster, or any other deity, has a plan for you and will some day use you to stir his galactic marinara sauce or "exist in it's presence in bliss for eternity", it really only gives comfort to those with monumentally shallow and hollow lives. It gives comfort to those who refuse to accept that everything we know of in this universe dies, even stars and galaxies, but those who aren't mentally capable of accepting this fact take the off ramp to comfy fantasy land where they imagine, with zero evidence, that they will live on forever after our mortal bodies decay. They won the universal lottery and were born, got to live on this planet and experience being self aware, but that's now not enough so they have to invent ways to imagine they live on long after death despite all evidence.

Truly, "ignoring the meaningless of a Godless universe" is exactly what the religious do. They ignore reality because its apparently too painful for them to deal with. They ignore facing their own mortality, they waste their chance to find their own meaning in life by having someone else's meaning forced upon them as youth as they are likely indoctrinated in whatever random religion is most popular in the region they were born. Those who have never actually contemplated a universe without a prime mover have chosen to stay in the shallow end of philosophy because they're often simply too scared to swim out in that deep end, they're not confident in their ability to swim without being able to see the bottom.

Truly, "ignoring the meaningless of a Godless universe" is exactly what the religious do. They ignore reality because its apparently too painful for them to deal with.

So, in your opinion, the meaning of life is death? That'll be fun at parties.

So, in your opinion, the meaning of life is death? That'll be fun at parties.

The "meaning of life" can't truly be contemplated without accepting the inevitability of death. By inventing fantasy based on completely unfounded conjecture simply to be "fun at parties" seems incredibly hollow and sad.

2. However, also start with Christian morality

Christians lost the moral high ground when they voted for trump. Sorry. 

Christians lost the moral high ground when they voted for trump. Sorry. 

Although I myself am not a Christian, I recognize that there are a great number of true Christians in the US and I do respect them.

However, those who call themselves Christians who voted for Trump knowing about his immoral background regarding his wives, if none other of his immoral acts, which their own God would not condone or approve of in any way, I can not accept them as being true Christians. They are only CINO's who talk the talk, but, who prove by their own actions and words, do not walk the walk, and have no wish to.

While they may fool some of the people around them, they can not fool the one they claim to worship and follow. And that is all that really matters. 

MOO

Should Christians abandon that to please others?

That is up to them to decide, not me.

However, how many times should they be expected to forgive the same person for the same sin, when that person shows no intention of giving up their sinful ways? 

Even the Creator can run out of patience with those who show no remorse or desire to redeem themselves of their sins.

But, that is not a question for me to answer, as I am not a Christian and make no claim to be a perfect human in any way.

Forgiving a Trump who sought us out

That would depend on why he sought you out. However......I don't think it was to ask for your forgiveness. Asking for forgiveness usually is accompanied by a show of remorse for their sins, and thus, far, by his own actions, Trump has shown no remorse.

But, "to each their own" said the Maid as she kissed the cow.

That is a graceful way to respond. Thank you.

You are welcome. And it was meant in sincerity. 

I try hard to not impose my beliefs on anyone, and I see that you do the same.

Cheers! (smile)

[deleted]

I respect people who aren't Christians who don't tell Christians how to act.

Does that apply to wanting certain "Christians" to stop lying about atheism? 

Should Christians abandon that to please others?

Right back atcha re: atheists.  XX seems desperate to try to convince  or get some kind of  admission some kind of admission from us.  Are you as well? 

Should Christians abandon that to please others?

Oh, that ship sailed eons ago for the so-called fundamentalist "Christians" who are really more like unhinged zealots, i.e., our domestic version of the Taliban.

Should Christians abandon that to please others?

What a bizarre question.  Who's asking Christians  to abandon "forgiveness," which from where I sit most of the public and extreme Christians  in this country has voluntarily jettisoned that grace long ago.  

Part of the Christian faith is being able to forgive others.

So it would seem, therefore, that you are arguing that Trump is not a Christian?

(I agree BTW...)

Which "Christians"?

Any 

Which lies?

All

There's that Reagan quote coming to mind AGAIN!

Please spare us yet another example of his dementia.  Leave the poor man's memory alone. 

It CERTAINLY isn't anything I am arguing.

I think that may be  the first time I think I've seen you use anything close to good judgment.  

Wasn't this article and points just seeded by the same person less than a month ago.

It's pretty much always the same article, over and over - just different author and wording.  But same idiotic message in the article.

You're probably right katrix.  Although I was positive I had seen it before, maybe they're all just blurring together

Although I was positive I had seen it before, maybe they're all just blurring together

That's it.  XX is obsessed with us atheists and he dumps one of these things on the NT (and who knows how many other sites) at least once a month.  He's got real problems. 

Many progressive atheists hate it when one of theirs leaves that religious belief system for the saved side...

1.) Atheism/agnosticism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief.

2.) Her thinking is sloppy and she still has not offered up anything but emotions that a god exists. I doubt that she was ever an unbeliever. Religion just wasn't important to her at that point when she assumed that she was an atheist. 

She’s not the first and won’t be the last atheist to convert to being a believer

So what? People change their beliefs, who cares. Religious people will become atheists, some atheists will become religious.  It is utterly meaningless to the validity of any god(s) belief/religion.

first and won’t be the last atheist

She was never an atheist to begin with.  In her own words she never really had any fixed position on the matter until she met and married a Christian man.  There's your "conversion."

Many progressive atheists hate it when one of theirs leaves that religious belief system for the saved side...

Jesus saves..

But wouldn't it be better to go beyond mere saving...and actually invest?

For example, Verizon stock currently pay a dividend of 4.2%. And eventually, with the rollout of 4G, the stock price should rise as well. Wouldn't it pay to invest (in a stocklike VZ ...or for that matter several other good stocks) rather than just save your money under the mattress? And currently Bank savings accounts aren't much better.

The priniciple here? Its better to invest-- saving ain't worth much now-a-days!

Once in a while I will say something in these "debates" about God, but usually I don't , for two reasons . The first is that no one ever says anything in these debates that they havent said 20 or 50 or 500 times before, and the second reason is because I know that the existence or non existence of God is not provable. No one can prove God exists and no one can prove God does not exist. So it is a movie that we already know the ending to. 

Arguments about the existence of God really come down to what default is accepted. The default really decides the "winner" of this particular debate, which is why atheists always demand the default. They say "it is up to you to prove that God exists" and if you can't, you lose. If the believer says "no you prove God does not exist" , they will most likely be laughed at or ridiculed by the atheists.  I really see no logical reason for this. The default should be "we don't know" , it is a matter of faith. 

If you want to believe in God, thats ok, and if you want to believe there is no God, thats ok. 

I dont see how there is a lot more to say about it. 

If you want to believe in God, thats ok, and if you want to believe there is no God, thats ok. 

I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't see how there is a lot more to say about it.

I don't either, until a believer attempts to wheel out their belief in God as an excuse to discriminate or reject science or inject their faith into our laws by banning alcohol sales on Sunday, claim America is a "Christian Nation", deny the right of other religions to build their religious structures or demand their religions a privileged position by being allowed to operate tax free.

Imagine how people would react if there were atheist blue laws. Where our lack of belief was attempted to be injected into the laws of the Federal and State governments. Imagine if atheists tried to pass a law to not only tax Churches, but make religion subject to extreme tax rates. What if they banned the sale of bibles or any religious documents on Sundays. What if they tried to demand their right to refuse service to Christians at any public business. What if the administration hadn't sent this memo out: "Would any of the preachers and pastors and other religious leaders, who had come to hear the administration’s views on issues they cared about, like to meet the POTUS in person?" but instead sent this one "Would any of the atheists and other anti-religion leaders, who had come to hear the administration’s views on issues they cared about, like to meet the POTUS in person?" and then when the room was filled with atheists Trump said "“Now this is a group that has the real power,” he said. “They have influence without God.”. Instead Trump addressed a roomful of religious leaders and said "“Now this is a group that has the real power,” he said. “They have influence with God.”.

religionnews

I totally get what you are saying with everyone should be free to believe what they want, and there shouldn't be any more debate about it. Sadly, some have chosen to use their faith as a cudgel and attempt to inflict their faith on everyone around them which is what creates these debates and leaves nonbelievers continually asking for proof or evidence and the faithful just smirking saying "Well, you'll just have to take the fact that we know what's best for you on faith...".

The default really decides the "winner" of this particular debate, which is why atheists always demand the default. They say "it is up to you to prove that God exists" and if you can't, you lose.

That's because the onus of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim.

If the believer says "no you prove God does not exist" , they will most likely be laughed at or ridiculed by the atheists.

That's because atheists are employing a logical fallacy trying to shift the burden of proof.

I really see no logical reason for this. The default should be "we don't know" , it is a matter of faith.

That would be an honest answer when it comes to the question if god exists. So when theists are making the affirmative claim that god exists, then that is dishonest.

An error: I meant to say theists are employing a logical fallacy, not atheists. My mistake.

Nope.

Nope. A typo.  And since when did you become a fan of Freud, XX?

If you want to believe in God, thats ok, and if you want to believe there is no God, thats ok.  I dont see how there is a lot more to say about it. 

Except this :

The default should be "we don't know" , it is a matter of faith. 

The default IS we do not know.   That really is the point of the agnostic atheist.

An agnostic atheist (what most every atheist is) is not convinced that there is a god.

The agnostic atheist does not state there is no god (that is what the gnostic atheist does - irrational and unsupportable).   Rather the agnostic atheist holds that there is nothing, as of yet, that convinces them to move from the position: 'nobody knows if a god exists' to the position: 'a particular god exists'.

Most theists, however, do not hold the 'we do not know' position.    We can test this right here.   Ask a theist if s/he accepts the possibility that his/her god does not exist.   The agnostic theist will answer 'yes' but the gnostic theist will answer 'no!!'.   

I predict that in reality, you will mostly get 'no!!' answers or the question will be avoided entirely.   Very, very few theists in my experience will state that they recognize that they hold a belief in a god that might not exist.   That tiny bit of doubt is drilled into them as a crisis of faith -a spiritual weakness- succumbing to the temptation of Satan, etc.   They hold a 'my god exists' position coupled with '... and nothing will ever change my mind'.

That's because they are taught that it is a sin to doubt the existence of their god, even a tiny bit.  What better way to keep them from actually thinking about it than threatening them with hell if they do think about it? 

As I have oft noted, religions have evolved into masters of ensnaring minds.    They have several masterstrokes other than 'the slightest doubt is a sin / weakness / temptation by Satan'.   The best one is convincing people that faith (believing sans good evidence) is a virtue.   They indoctrinate young minds into thinking that believing in what the religion teaches —merely because they claim it to be true— is actually a good thing and the more you give up your critical thinking (at least when it comes to religion) the better you are.   Keep growing that faith because that is what God wants (and do not forget to give your generous offering to continue God's work).

Also note how when their beliefs or claims are challenged and logically explained or refuted, they continue to parrot the same empty claims with no logical explanation. Or they outright ignore or dodge any claims. It's intellectual laziness and dishonesty at  it's best.

Defending the indefensible necessarily requires going outside the bounds of direct, honest discourse.   Politics and religion have that in common.

Indeed. Some make empty or outrageous claims, then refuse or fail to back it up with any explanation or evidence, and bury their heads in the sand while parroting their claims when logical counter arguments are made.  Hence, the profound intellectual dishonesty on display. 

The default IS we do not know.   That really is the point of the agnostic atheist.

And we cannot know.  Maybe that's what separates me from being in this category of "agnostic" atheist.  If I follow your reasoning, the a.a. holds out the possibility of being able to know at some point?

If I follow your reasoning, the a.a. holds out the possibility of being able to know at some point?

Close.  The agnostic atheist simply accepts the fact that s/he does not know everything.   Thus, the agnostic atheist accepts the possibility that a god might indeed exist.   Whether or not the agnostic atheist will ever know this is not part of the consideration.

 Whether or not the agnostic atheist will ever know this is not part of the consideration.

But the "true" (i.e., non-agnostic) atheist  knows that he'll never know whether a god exists since he knows it's unknowable.  I've always considered agnostics as fence-sitters in the Pascalian mold trying to occupy that no-man's land between belief and disbelief. 

... knows that he'll never know whether a god exists since he knows it's unknowable ...

Define god and establish criteria for validating said god.   If evidence is uncovered that satisfies the criteria then you have your god.   It is knowable depending upon how you define 'god'.

The agnostic atheist (the super majority of all atheists) is not convinced a god exists but does not rule out the possibility.

Defining god is the provenance of believers, not atheists.  And searching for evidence for something that is, by definition unfalsifiable, is a logical impossibility.  I'm not clear on how you've determined that the "super majority" of all atheists hold out the possibility of the existence of gods. Is there really data on that?  

Defining god is the provenance of believers, not atheists. 

Yes.   I am referring to the word 'god' being defined before one can make any sense of it.

And searching for evidence for something that is, by definition unfalsifiable, is a logical impossibility.  

You cannot state that 'god' is not unfalsifiable by definition because that depends on how 'god' is defined.

I'm not clear on how you've determined that the "super majority" of all atheists hold out the possibility of the existence of gods. Is there really data on that?  

How many atheists do you know who would make the following claim (a claim, in effect, of omniscience)?:

There is no sentient creator of the known universe; such an entity is impossible; and there is no possibility that I am wrong about this.

Allow me a few edits:

There is no way to determine if there's a sentient creator of the known universe; thus the existence such an entity is impossible to prove; thus there is no rational or factual basis upon which to base this "creator's" existence thus and there is no possibility that I am wrong about this.

Politics and religion have that in common.

And while many will argue vigorously against it-- the fact of the matter us that the same is true with many in the field of Science as well. 

(Of course most scientists would freak out if you accuse them of basing their beliefs on faith-- after all, they've done experiments that prove their beliefs. Heck-- they use the scientific method* , for Chrissakes!

Of course the history of Science is that something had been proven to be a fact-- until some point in the future when it was disproven. And some new theory was then "proven" by the scientific method. (Until some time in the future when that was disproven...)

______________________________________________________

*Hopefully everyone here remembered to genuflect and made the Sign of The Cross (or maybe some other scientific symbol) at the mention of "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD".

the second reason is because I know that the existence or non existence of God is not provable.

Well, at least in that regard you've got one heckova lot more horse sense than a lot of other people we know!!!!

(Who shall remain nameless...heh :^)

A Magick Land, where a tremendous amount of people spend a tremendous amount of time saying a tremendous amount of  things when everything intelligent has already been said on and on and on-- and when there's really nothing else intelligent to say.

But does that stop people?

Of course not!

It reminds me of the "Infinite Monkey Theorem":

The   infinite monkey theorem   states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

(here's why its bullshit)

I would like to expand it:

If you could create a situation where  infinite number of social media users spend an infinite amount of time prostelytizing and expounding their arguments trying to prove or disprove something that not provable...you would have invented...The Internet!

(Welcome to The Internet...you can check out but you can never leave!

Clear this up for those that are 'so inclined.'  "God said it.  I believe it.  That settles it."

For those who may not be 'so inclined.'  Don't worry about it.

It's always good to hunt down separate sources for these examples of "miraculous conversions or atheists to believers" that XX loves to dump on us.  This article gives some interesting insights into Salviander's life story and her so-called "atheism."

Smart Christians – the curious case of Sarah Salviander

By Reasonably Faithless • Nov 14, 2015 • 31 comments

Former atheist astrophysicist, Sarah Salviander, explains her journey to Christianity.

That’s the title of an article that’s been going around on Facebook recently.  The article (linked to above) tells the story of an astrophysicist, one Dr Sarah Salviander, who grew up in a non-religious family, went on to study physics and mathematics at university, came to believe in God and eventually became a Christian.  Sarah now works in astrophysics research at the University of Texas.

For my Christian friends, Sarah Salviander’s story ticks all the boxes:

1. Christians love to talk about ex-atheists .   Oh yes, this person used to believe all the same stuff you believe, but then they realised they were wrong.  You should read this – it’ll set you straight!
2. Christians love to talk about smart Christians .   Oh yes, this person is an astrophysicist.  You can really trust her – she’s obviously very rational, and she realised Christianity was true.  You should read this – it’ll set you straight!

Ex-atheists

I’ve talked about ex-atheists before.  In a certain sense, every believer is really an ex-atheist  (nobody is born believing in God).  But beyond that technicality, I think it is obviously the case that some believers used to be conscientious un-believers.  Just like how some un-believers used to be conscientious believers (like myself).  Just like how some Muslims used to be Christians, and some Christians used to be Muslims, and some Mormons used to be Christians, and some Hindus used to be agnostics, and some agnostics used to be atheists, and…  you get the picture.

Many people change their beliefs about many things.  Sometimes people have good reasons to do so, and sometimes they have bad reasons (or no reasons).  I find it very interesting to listen to people who have changed their minds.  It’s not easy to change your mind about something big (changing career, political party, religion, acceptance of evolution, etc), so people who have changed their minds in a major way usually have a fascinating story to tell.  Sometimes you get the feeling the person had never really thought much about their previous position.  But sometimes you can tell the person had always thought deeply about the topic, and came to change their mind as a result of new information, or a new perspective.

But one thing is crucially important.  The mere fact that someone has changed his mind, and now believes X, does not lend any support to the actual  truth of X.  Because don’t forget that someone else has also changed her mind, and now disbelieves X!  The very fact that some believers have become non-believers, and that some non-believers have become believers, means that people can and do change their minds and end up with wrong beliefs.

The main thing to consider when someone tells you they changed their mind about X, and thinks you too should change your mind about X, is this:   What reasons did they have for changing their mind?   Are they good reasons?  Should such reasons convince other people?  I’ll examine the reasons for Sarah’s change of mind below.  Suffice it to say, I don’t find her reasons even slightly convincing.

Smart Christians

Dr Sarah Salviander is a Research Fellow in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Texas.   Her arXiv page lists 18 journal articles since 2003, mostly on black holes and quasars, and published in good journals.  She’s the real deal.

But what should we deduce from this?  There are definitely many smart Christians.  Should we deduce that Christianity is true?  There are many smart Muslims.  Should we deduce that Islam is true?  What about Hinduism?  Mormonism?  Buddhism?  Atheism?  Only five years ago, people pointed to  me as a “smart Christian”.  But now I’m an atheist.

In line with my comments about about people changing their minds, the existence of a well-educated or intelligent person who believes X does not lend any support for the actual  truth of X.  However, I  am  interested to hear the  reasons  such a person has for believing X.  I’m very interested to hear from smart Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Atheists, etc.   I greatly enjoy listening to people give the reasons (they say) they have for holding their beliefs.  Beyond mere intellectual curiosity, if a Mormon gave me really great reasons to think that Mormonism was true, I’d become a Mormon.  I want to believe what is true!  But so far, I haven’t been given any such good reasons (despite some very fun conversations with Mormons over the years).

The main thing to consider when someone tells you they believe X, and thinks you too should believe X, is this:   What are the reasons they believe?   Should such reasons convince other people?  Are they good reasons?  I’m now ready to examine the reasons for Sarah’s belief in Christianity.

Sarah’s reasons for belief

In the case of Sarah Salviander, the reasons she gave for coming to believe in Christianity are pretty terrible.  Please read the article for the full version (the link is at the top of this page), but here is how I summarise (with quotes from the article) her path from non-belief to belief:

1. Sarah’s studies in cosmology led her to be “astounded […], blown away, completely and utterly awed” by the order of the universe.
2. Reading a novel,  The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas (which Sarah describes as being about “forgiveness and God’s role in giving justice”), led Sarah to “realize that the concept of God and religion was not as philosophically trivial as [she] had thought”.
3. “All of this culminated one day, as I was walking across that beautiful La Jolla campus. I stopped in my tracks when it hit me—I believed in God!”
4. Although she was apparently a generic theist for some time (albeit, one who believed in a loving, perfectly just God, who caused people to suffer for the bad things they’d done, but ultimately used pain and suffering to build character), Sarah met and eventually married a Christian man.  “Somehow, even though I wasn’t religious myself, I was comforted to be marrying a Christian man.”
5. During a lonely year, while she was in a different state to her husband and all her family, Sarah read a book, The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.  “I was intrigued by the title, but something else compelled me to read it. Maybe it was the loneliness, and I was longing for a deeper connection with God.”
6. Sarah was very impressed by Schroeder’s book: it “proved to me that Genesis 1 was scientifically sound, and not just a “silly myth” as atheists believed. I realized that, remarkably, the Bible and science agree completely.”
7. But Sarah didn’t stop there.  “If Genesis is literally true, then why not the Gospels, too?”
8. “I read the Gospels, and found the person of Jesus Christ to be extremely compelling […] And yet I struggled, because I did not feel one hundred percent convinced of the Gospels in my heart. I knew of the historical evidence for their truth. And, of course, I knew the Bible was reliable because of Genesis. Intellectually, I knew the Bible to be true, and as a person of intellect, I had to accept it as truth, even if I didn’t feel it. […] So, I converted. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior.”

[The article continues beyond that.  Sarah shares some life stories from after her conversion, mostly revolving around a number of unfortunate hardships she suffered with her family.  She also reveals some extremely offensive views about suffering:  essentially, people are “made to suffer for the bad things [they’ve] done”, and there is always “a reason for suffering”.  This seems especially insensitive to the people who have lived a life of terrible suffering merely because of the place and/or time of their birth, and who never experience a silver lining of any kind.  Sarah also discusses her views of the multiverse (which I find extremely misguided).  Both of these topics might be worth pursuing in the future, but the purpose of this post is to examine Sarah’s reasons for coming to believe in Christianity.]

Points 1-3 describe a journey familiar to many – the wonder of nature makes many people think there is a God, some kind of creator.  I recall having such thoughts myself in my former life as a believer, though they weren’t what drove me to my belief; they served more as confirmation that there must be a God.  This part of Sarah’s story is also a bit thin on details – in particular, there is no real precise link given between points 2 and 3 above (there are no words in between the quote in point 2 and that in point 3).  But what interests me most of all is the path from generic theism to a very specific Christian theism .  It’s one thing to think there is “something out there”, but an entirely different thing to think that that “something” must be the God described in the Bible, with all those specific details thrown in.

Sarah doesn’t say a lot about her husband, but it’s important to note that this relationship would certainly have had a significant emotional impact on her decisions.  At this point, Sarah believed in some kind of God (but see point 4 above for some of the extra beliefs she had about God), and her husband believed in a very specific God.  Sarah clearly admired her husband’s personal qualities, and this would have warmed her towards Christianity.  Her husband also (presumably) believed his God would send Sarah to hell if she didn’t become a Christian, and these kinds of pressures would no doubt influence her thinking.

After reading Gerald Schroeder’s book, The Science of God , Sarah became convinced that the book of “Genesis is literally true”.  (The word “literally” is used in a pretty non-literal sense here, since Schroeder’s theory is that the first “day” of creation was 8 billion years long, the second day was 4 billion years long, etc – the thesis of Schroeder’s book is really that Genesis can be squared with our modern scientific understanding of the universe, apart from a few teeny little details like evolution.)

So, does Schroeder’s book constitute a good reason to think that “Genesis is literally true”? Most definitely not.  Here are several scholarly reviews of the book:

• Graham Oppy
• Mark Perakh
• Frank Sonleitner
• Richard Carrier
• T. J. Nelson

All the above reviews (and many others) are highly critical of Schroeder’s book, and do a good job of pointing out numerous blunders, ranging from incompetent mathematical calculations to factual misrepresentations of scientific theories.  Although I am not a physicist or biologist, I do have the mathematical expertise to evaluate the probabilistic calculations made by Schroeder (and others, such as William Dembski ), and, quite frankly, they are absolutely ridiculous (for reasons specified in the above reviews, and that I may cover myself in a future post).  In short,  Schroeder’s book constitutes a really terrible reason for believing in the literal truth of Genesis!   It’s amazing to think that Sarah didn’t realise how weak Schroeder’s arguments were, and apparently never looked up any critical reviews.

But it gets worse from there.  Imagine I told you that I came to believe (for whatever reason) in the truth of Richard Dawkins’ book,  The Blind Watchmaker.   And imagine I told you that, from this belief about Dawkins’ book, I deduced that everything written by Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris must be true as well.  I don’t need to comment on how preposterous that would be!  But this is pretty much what Sarah does as she moves from a generic theism to a specific Christian theism.

Sarah came to believe (for whatever reason) in the truth of Genesis, and then deduced that the gospels were true.  Think again about her words:  “I knew the Bible was reliable because of Genesis.”  Even though it hardly needs an explanation, let’s think about what’s wrong with this.

The book of Genesis was composed by unknown authors.  It’s a mash-up of numerous sources from a number of different traditions.  It was edited and redacted by unknown scribes, and eventually reached something like a final state somewhere around 500 BCE.  (See the excellent books  Who wrote the Bible?  by Richard Elliot Friedman, and The Bible unearthed  by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein – John Van Seeters  also has some interesting views).

The gospels, on the other hand, were written by people living half a millennium after the Genesis authors and editors.  The gospels were written in different countries and in different languages.  To think there is a direct causal link between the accuracy or inaccuracy of Genesis and the accuracy or inaccuracy of the gospels is staggering, especially from someone who values rigour in her academic work.

So that was it.   Somehow , Sarah was fooled by Gerald Schroeder into believing Genesis was literally true.  And then,  somehow , this led Sarah to believe the gospels must also be true.  Well, once you believe in the literal truth of the entire Bible, it’s not rocket science – Sarah became a Christian.

After describing her path from non-belief to belief, Sarah says “Maybe that sounds coldly logical.”  But I can hardly disagree with a statement more than I disagree with that one.  I just can’t begin to describe how disappointed I was at reading Sarah’s reasons for believing.  But not just because the reasons themselves were so terrible (Sarah can believe whatever she wants, for whatever reasons she wants).  The main reason for my disappointment was the fact that so many of my Christian friends just lapped it up.  They shared it widely, hoping it would have an impact on non-believers.  When I finally found the time to read the article, I found myself thinking:   This  was the article everyone wanted us non-believers to read?   This  was the article that would set me straight?   This article  would give me good reasons for believing in Christianity?

So why might you, a Christian, share an article like this?  If you can’t tell Sarah’s reasons for belief are terrible, then that’s very unfortunate.  But if you  can  tell the reasons are terrible, and still shared the article, then that’s probably even worse – are you deliberately spreading misinformation in the hope that you will trick someone into sharing your beliefs?  If you had to do that to spread your beliefs, then what would it say for the foundations of those beliefs?

As for me, I only want to believe true things.  If I came to realise that I didn’t have any good reasons to hold a certain belief of mine, and then came to realise that  no one had ever provided good reasons, and then came to realise that there were loads of good reasons not to hold that belief, then I really should abandon that belief.

And that’s exactly what happened in my own journey out of Christianity.  Through many debates with well-informed non-believers, I came to realise that I didn’t know of any reason for believing in Christianity that a reasonable person would be compelled to agree with.  Although I still firmly believed in the truth of Christianity at that stage, I embarked on a quest to discover reasons to believe in Christianity – good reasons, reasons that would convince non-believers (you don’t need to convince believers to believe, right?).  But despite devouring numerous apologetics books and lectures, I found that I was refuting Christian arguments left, right and centre.  I was also finding a stack of arguments against  Christianity that I could see had never been adequately addressed, despite the attempts of numerous apologists.  My purpose was never to actually refute Christianity itself (I was a Christian!) – I just wanted to weed out the arguments that didn’t work.  But eventually, nothing was left.

It’s conceivable that I might one day discover some really great reasons for believing (once again) in Christianity, in which case I definitely would believe.  But given the balance of evidence, which currently weighs so heavily against Christianity, I expect that is unlikely to happen.  And I can tell you one thing for sure: it won’t happen by Christians continually bombarding me with terrible reasons to believe in Christianity, even if they come from an astrophysicist.

source: skepticink