6000 years of history

[RonE]

6000 years of recorded history, it seems to me that if there were gods (or God), by now we would all know. Science has found no place for god in any hypothesis explaining the laws of nature.

We are presented with two alternatives, either there are no gods or they are hiding, playing tricks on us trying to test us, but really why would such powerful beings need or want to do that. Occam’s razor points us to the obvious answer, simple… no one is there.

Let’s move out of kindergarten and make believe, let’s feed the poor and starving, let’s put hate and war out of business.

What say you?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 7 by ttruscott]

If faith is not credible then what is the proof it is not credible

Faith is the assumption of truth when evidence is absent (sometimes in contradiction to evidence). This absence of evidence is evidence of absence of truth. So faith in itself is evidence of falseness. Therefore, faith is not a road to truth, but instead a road to falseness.

Peace

There might be places and people who will work with you on this version of faith but it is not the Christian version and we will not be bound by it nor pay it any heed. Secular non-believers never use words the same as the faithful do to be able to create their straw man attacks. If you feel you must attack Christianity, at least attack what we really believe, not a fallacy that seems to make your case stronger.

Here is the Biblically defined believer's faith:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence / essence of what we hope for and the conviction of what we do not see, that is, what has not been proven yet.

Christianity is based on the EVIDENCE of
1. the Bible as one of the most important books for all the world,
2. the life of Jesus as one of the most influential people in all the world
3. the experience of indwelling of the Holy Spirit as recognized in the anecdotal evidence of the greatly changed lives of the converted.

Your disregard of this evidence as not good enough for proof does not magically deny its existence as evidence! Even Christians do not claim this evidence is proof.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

My actual quote was "Science has found no place for god in any hypothesis explaining the laws of nature".

...

The obvious 'place' for GOD is as the creator of those laws. Do you mean science has found no 'need' for GOD to explain the laws perhaps?

Peace, Ted

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 12 by dianaiad]

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.[1] It can also be defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6] Wikipedia

Personally I go with the first definition as it is more directly related to the issue at hand.

For me, faith is hope. Hope isn't needed when you have proof (how ever it's defined) so when you have any type of prood, you don't have hope/faith you have knowledge. It's not about trust because for trust I need to have some type of proof - I don't randomly trust things 'just cause'. Once you have trust or any iota of proof you stop having faith. At least that how it works for me.

[ttruscott]

...

This absence of evidence is evidence of absence of truth.

...

Black swan fallacy - people who had seen black swans but were unable to collect the evidence were faced with just this accusation for 100 years, "there are no black swans or there would be evidence of them!" until one was shot and presented.

The absence of evidence is meaningless if there is no competing theory with evidence... the evidence may not be collected yet or it may be available but ignored or even disparaged and the presenters vilified until no one is wiling to re-present it any more.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

Black swan fallacy - people who had seen black swans but were unable to collect the evidence were faced with just this accusation for 100 years, "there are no black swans or there would be evidence of them!" until one was shot and presented.

Perhaps then it is time for someone to "shoot and present" one of the "gods" they claim exist (or present other compelling evidence -- something more than conjecture, opinion, testimonial and ancient unverifiable tales)

The absence of evidence is meaningless if there is no competing theory with evidence... the evidence may not be collected yet or it may be available but ignored or even disparaged and the presenters vilified until no one is wiling to re-present it any more.

Religionists might take a clue from the black swan proponents. If something is real, provide the evidence (a dead swan, for example, or a dead god if you wish) SOMETHING more than mere conjecture, opinion, testimonial and unverifiable tales (modern or ancient).

No one is expected to produce a competing theory with evidence in the face of claims that Leprechauns influence the gold market or that Peter Pan flies through the air.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 5 by dianaiad] Come to think of it, have their been ANY atheist utopias? Any that have been successful and non-violent either in their inception or their governance?

Japan actually all though there is a technical caveat to that. That is shinto, buuuuuuuuut it is culturally just excepted as a tradition very very very few Japanese actually believe in shinto.

"(1993), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15% reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000."

surveys on religion in japan typically vary between 70-85% nonreligious.

So yeah really only really a few religious beliefs in Japan yet the enjoy an incredibly lower crime rates, a good economy, low unemployment, good education, and a variety of other benefits. If you could call that an Atheist utopia I would. In fact the downfall of religion in Japan was largely due to the religious extremists themselves that started and extended Japans military efforts in WWII. So you have a government that does not wage war low crime rates good economy low unemployment non-religious government.


NExt post we can move on to Sweden another largely non-religious country

then Vietnam(tricky one to tackle but there is a good argument.)

then czech republic

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 5 by dianaiad] Come to think of it, have their been ANY atheist utopias? Any that have been successful and non-violent either in their inception or their governance?

Japan actually all though there is a technical caveat to that. That is shinto, buuuuuuuuut it is culturally just excepted as a tradition very very very few Japanese actually believe in shinto.

"(1993), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15% reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000."

surveys on religion in japan typically vary between 70-85% nonreligious.

So yeah really only really a few religious beliefs in Japan yet the enjoy an incredibly lower crime rates, a good economy, low unemployment, good education, and a variety of other benefits. If you could call that an Atheist utopia I would. In fact the downfall of religion in Japan was largely due to the religious extremists themselves that started and extended Japans military efforts in WWII. So you have a government that does not wage war low crime rates good economy low unemployment non-religious government.


NExt post we can move on to Sweden another largely non-religious country

then Vietnam(tricky one to tackle but there is a good argument.)

then czech republic

Daniel, first, you are describing secular societies, not atheist ones. That is, what these nations have is freedom to disbelieve, not directed disbelief.

If you want to point out more secular societies, you certainly may...and I'll agree with you that secular societies (those which actually provide freedom of religion...and the freedom to believe, or not as one wishes) tend to be better.

But they are not 'atheist.'

Albania was atheist. Maoist China was. N.Korea (sort of) is.

Your challenge is to show us an ATHEIST utopia.

............and just as a BTW, Japan has had her problems, financially, and not all that long ago. As well, the reason she is a peaceful nation now is because we clobbered her. You know, 'won the war? '

After that, Japan was not allowed (and still isn't, though now she isn't all that unhappy with the whole thing) to have a military force capable of waging war on anybody. One generally has to be peaceful in that circumstance.

Japan rather likes this. They get the protection of a big military force, but since it's not theirs, they don't have to pay for it. Given their culture, their ambitions, their work ethic and their sheer brain power, I think it is very wise that we keep it that way.

..........but Japan is not an 'atheist utopia,' and that's what you need to give us.

[1213]

...What say you?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:18-22

[ThePainefulTruth]

We are presented with two alternatives, either there are no gods or they are hiding, playing tricks on us trying to test us, but really why would such powerful beings need or want to do that. Occam’s razor points us to the obvious answer, simple… no one is there.

But it isn't obvious. We have no clue whether God created the universe or not. All we reasonably know is that God, if It exists, does not interact or intervene. And your "playing tricks on us" is very disingenuous and short-sighted, since there is no evidence for that either, at all.

You use Carl Sagan as your avatar. Did you know he said this: “To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.�

So well put...both propositions are riddled with doubt, because there is no evidence for either; there is nothing for Occam's razor but a vacuum. Our only alternative is agnosticism, while holding a hope for one or the other. And, btw, there is a reason God might want to do that, to spawn beings with moral free will, which would require that It not be evident. Why else would God put 13 billion years between us and It? What else could God not do instantly, if there is a God?

Speculation: If there is a divine presence, why would there be more than one? How could there be? Angels and multi-gods come from the same place the God of the Bible came from, man's mischievous imagination. There couldn't be more than one with any less credibility than that God could be divided. Like Truth, God could have several aspects, but It would still only be One, with one self-aware consciousness. We are the many mortal (less than divine) self-aware consciousnesses.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 26 by 1213]

they became fools,

If I were to refer to someone on this forum as a fool I'm sure they would get quite upset and report me and probably get me slapped by a moderator. But, we seem to overlook this offense when done through scripture (bible babble). I find that quite offensive, hopefully you can restrict the BB to the huddle in the future. As others on this site have observed when a theist resorts to scripture you know 1)they have nothing to offer 2)further conversation with them is pointless.