NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question for NSG's Christians here. Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God? Why can't they simply be happy for the path they have chosen and be happy that other have found spiritual fulfillment in other faiths? It just seems like they cannot accept the fact that maybe there isn't a "one true way" to God?

So far, the only explanation I've come up with is that they're not as secured in their faith as they like to be, so if they try to convert others, then that gives them a false sense of security.

Thoughts?

Because we have free wine and secret discounts at Target. Hey if you join now, I'll give you 30% off your next purchase! Enter code Jesuspower at checkout!

geez wil.

what kind of loving person lets their neighbor risk eternal damnation by not filling them in on the one true way to heaven?

its akin to letting them step into the street when they have not noticed that the light has changed.

yeah its the problem of believing that only the exactly correct belief gets one into heaven. that even a small error of belief is deadly.

this reflects the entire history of christianity from the new testament onwards. i dont suppose its going to change any time in the future.

Because we have free wine and secret discounts at Target. Hey if you join now, I'll give you 30% off your next purchase! Enter code Jesuspower at checkout!
you must not be a southern baptist.

you must not be a southern baptist.

For a modest conversion I can be! "GOD HATES YOU BURN IN HELL MAY I SMITE THEE WITH THE HOLY WORD OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE!" Free Chicken Biscuit at Chick Fil A with every condemnation!

You seem to have a tendency to ask questions about religion that even the most preliminary research and basic understanding of dogma would answer easily.

The reason Christianity, as a general rule, is a proselytizing religion is because the fundamental tenant of their faith (denominations and personal preference differ, of course) is that salvation only comes through belief.

If, on the other hand, your question is a general "gee, why are some people dicks?" the answer seems self evident.

For a modest conversion I can be! "GOD HATES YOU BURN IN HELL MAY I SMITE THEE WITH THE HOLY WORD OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE!" Free Chicken Biscuit at Chick Fil A with every condemnation!
hmmmm

maybe you have been drinking that free wine tonight...

For a modest conversion I can be! "GOD HATES YOU BURN IN HELL MAY I SMITE THEE WITH THE HOLY WORD OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE!" Free Chicken Biscuit at Chick Fil A with every condemnation!*Fights back with non-belief* Haha! I am not AFRAID of your pitiful attempts to describe Hell, for I am already serving my sentence! No, sir, let me be the first to welcome you to the REAL HELL! It's a place we realistic people call EARTH. Would you like to join us in this realm that is not complete fantasy? :D

Because some of us Christians are insecure in our faith?

I believe that God, being a kind and merciful God, as well as all-knowing (I hope *gulp*), will make the right decision of what to do with us, and that (hopefully) won't be "Let's see, hating, intolerant fools that believe in me, free ticket to heaven... Kind, generous, people who don't believe in me... BURN! BURN! MUHAHAHAHAHA!"

Its due to the way that Christianity was formed. The founders of the religion decided that its believers should have 100% faith in the existence of the Christian deity, where as other religions such as Pastafarianism teaches that there's a 99.9% chance that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Thus we reject dogma and accept the 0.1% possibility that our god may not be the true god.

*Fights back with non-belief* Haha! I am not AFRAID of your pitiful attempts to describe Hell, for I am already serving my sentence! No, sir, let me be the first to welcome you to the REAL HELL! It's a place we realistic people call EARTH. Would you like to join us in this realm that is not complete fantasy? :D

LET ME DESCRIBE HELL. THE BURNING FLAMES DEVOUR YOU AS YOU ARE FORCED TO WATCH ROSIE O DONNELL! FROM THESE FLAMES YOU WILL SEE THE WHORE OF BABYLON, KIM KARDASHIAN!
*passes out from free wine*

From my experience, religion tends to thrive off of unhappy people. If someone is unhappy, they're more likely to hide in a fantasy world (e.g. a world with an invisible dude in the sky who can fix things).Obviously, the correlation isn't 100% correct, but if [insert supermodel you have a huge crush on] wants to make love to you everyday, why would you need a different life?

LET ME DESCRIBE HELL. THE BURNING FLAMES DEVOUR YOU AS YOU ARE FORCED TO WATCH ROSIE O DONNELL! FROM THESE FLAMES YOU WILL SEE THE WHORE OF BABYLON, KIM KARDASHIAN!
*passes out from free wine*<.<
>.>
*maniacal laughter* The wine wins again!

For a modest conversion I can be! "GOD HATES YOU BURN IN HELL MAY I SMITE THEE WITH THE HOLY WORD OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE!" Free Chicken Biscuit at Chick Fil A with every condemnation!

That would explain the franchise built right inside the Westborough Baptist Church.

that would explain the franchise built right inside the westborough baptist church.

lmfao!

So far, the only explanation I've come up with is that they're not as secured in their faith as they like to be, so if they try to convert others, then that gives them a false sense of security.

Thoughts?

Like others have said, they believe they're saving souls. In many cases, they're forced to evangelize by their parents or church elders, whether they honestly care about your soul or not, but that's the ostensible reason.

Interestingly, the oldest and second-oldest Christian denominations (Orthodox and Catholics) don't evangelize, even if leaders of nations have used those faiths to bludgeon others into submission. Evangelicalism is a fascinating phenomenon - I'm not quite sure exactly what its origins are, aside from a quirky sense of obligation gleaned from a source that most Christians interpret differently. You usually get the straight dope on religion from former members of churches, rather than current ones - asking an ex-evangelical historian would probably be the best way to figure it all out.

asking an ex-evangelical historian would probably be the best way to figure it all out.

Know any? lol. Because I just find this an interesting phenomenon. I mean from what I've noticed only Christianity and Islam do you see this kind of thing happening, where you have this kind of recruitment for people to join their religion.

Know any? lol. Because I just find this an interesting phenomenon. I mean from what I've noticed only Christianity and Islam do you see this kind of thing happening, where you have this kind of recruitment for people to join their religion.

Probably because that of the more populated religions, Islam and Christianity are proselytizing religions, where as most of the other more common religions (IE buddhism, judiasm, and hinduism to name some) aren't. It's fundamentally a dogmatic reason. Islam and Christianity are proselytizing religions, so it's no surprise that they do it. Others are not, so they don't.

It's sorta like asking "why is it that only apples are shaped like apples?"

I mean from what I've noticed only Christianity and Islam do you see this kind of thing happening, where you have this kind of recruitment for people to join their religion."Just preparing for the next Crusade, Boss!" :D

Probably because that of the more populated religions, Islam and Christianity are proselytizing religions, where as most of the other more common religion (IE buddhism, judiasm, and hinduism aren't). It's fundamentally a dogmatic reason. Islam and Christianity are proselytizing religions, so it's no surprise that they do it. Others are not, so they don't.

It's sorta like asking "why is it that only apples are shaped like apples?"...That...didn't help at all. They recruit people because they're recruiting religions? This explains...what? :p

...That...didn't help at all. They recruit people because they're recruiting religions? This explains...what? :p

That's exactly the point, and explains the question he asked. Christianity and Islam have, as part of their dogma, as part of their religious tradition and practice, proselytizing. Others don't. So if the question is "gee, why is it only proselytizing religions that proselytize" then the answer becomes self obvious.

Now if the question is why SOME religions are proselytizing religions and some are not, that's a fairly complex question, involving a fairly comprehensive understanding of history and culture and ancient practice and religious evolution, much of which is beyond me.

And maybe I'm giving the OP a bit too little credit, and the question was more directed in that way, but if so then it was badly phrased. The answer to his simple question is a simple answer. Why does he usually only observe attempts to seek converts from christians and muslims? Because christianity and islam are proselytizing religions. Others are not.

Probably because that of the more populated religions, Islam and Christianity are proselytizing religions, where as most of the other more common religions (IE buddhism, judiasm, and hinduism to name some) aren't. It's fundamentally a dogmatic reason. Islam and Christianity are proselytizing religions, so it's no surprise that they do it. Others are not, so they don't.

It's sorta like asking "why is it that only apples are shaped like apples?"

^this.

As far as evangelicals v. orthodox/catholic it's because of Calvin and his doctrine of sola scriptura. Most evangelical churches rely on Calvin's thoughts on most matters and since they don't do the whole tradition thing but the whole Bible only thing and the Bible says to recruit, they do so.

I have a question for NSG's Christians here. Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God? Why can't they simply be happy for the path they have chosen and be happy that other have found spiritual fulfillment in other faiths? It just seems like they cannot accept the fact that maybe there isn't a "one true way" to God?

So far, the only explanation I've come up with is that they're not as secured in their faith as they like to be, so if they try to convert others, then that gives them a false sense of security.

Thoughts?
It has little to do with Christianity, and everything to do with human behavior in general. We tend to want to make others be like us, no matter what we are, for some reason. (Perhaps because it's some odd version of the reproductive instinct making us want to spread ourselves in any way possible?)

Unfortunately, it tends to go hand in hand with xenophobia, or at least arrogance that one's beliefs, etc are superior to everyone else, because it's them.

This is true even of some of our most compassionate people, though in different ways. For instance, I think we all ought to try to cooperate and work together in unity, as one species, and am willing to make efforts to push the species in that direction, because I believe this to be better for everyone.

Contrast that to someone trying to convert everyone to their religion to save them from their religion's version of Hell.

It's essentially the same behavior, just expressed in a different way.

*clears throat*

I don't often contribute to religion threads, and I won't really start now. Suffice to say that the College I'm staying in for the summer is actually a centre for Opus Dei, which is just about the most extreme version of Catholic Christianity you can get.

And though they're all a bit weird, and don't really seem happy to me, the ones I've talked to are intelligent and engaged people who you can actually discuss things like the financial crisis with in detail and without it ending up in a "no, all bankers are really evil" thing. And though I have once been asked to keep the noise level down because they were doing one of their countless rituals, I have never been approached in any way to be converted, convinced or even informed of the presumed virtues of their religion.

Given that OD has a reputation for particularly eager and aggressive recruitment, maybe the question isn't one of trying to convince others, but of Christians seeing people who look to them like they could benefit from hearing about their religion. They would be wrong, but to me that seems like the most likely explanation.

I have a question for NSG's Christians here. Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God?

Thoughts?
I think maybe they just have nothing to do on their Saturdays and want to get away from the wife and kids.

It just seems like they cannot accept the fact that maybe there isn't a "one true way" to God?

All monotheisms stemming from Mosaic law cannot accept that.

Exodus, 20,3. Exodus, 22,19. Exodus, 23,24-33.

Simple as that.

All monotheisms stemming from Mosaic law cannot accept that.

Exodus, 20,3. Exodus, 22,19. Exodus, 23,24-33.

Simple as that.

Ouch.

Well, not to worry. If God is like that, I will overthrow Him.

Ouch.

Well, not to worry. If God is like that, I will overthrow Him.
I don't think so.

"God will smite the crap out of you or send an awesome minion to do it for him if you piss him off" - The Whole of the Old Testament

I don't think so.

"God will smite the crap out of you or send an awesome minion to do it for him if you piss him off" - The Whole of the Old Testament

Maybe. Yet, God would be a contradiction unto itself were he like that. Which is why ANYONE would be able to overthrow Him.

Maybe. Yet, God would be a contradiction unto itself were he like that.
Not really. God can be as two-faced as a person, which is made pretty clear in the Bible and all.

Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody gets to the father but through me."

Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody gets to the father but through me."
Job said "He has torn me in his wrath and hated me;
he has gnashed his teeth at me;
my adversary sharpens his eyes against me."

And in another passage Elijah (or possibly Elisha, I forget now) raises about 4 hit dice of undead minions to aid them, which is pretty good.

And in another passage Elijah (or possibly Elisha, I forget now) raises about 4 hit dice of undead minions to aid them, which is pretty good.

Only 4?

Amateur.

Job said "He has torn me in his wrath and hated me;
he has gnashed his teeth at me;
my adversary sharpens his eyes against me."

And in another passage Elijah (or possibly Elisha, I forget now) raises about 4 hit dice of undead minions to aid them, which is pretty good.

Job, Elijah, & Elisha had nothing AT ALL to do with Christianity. Christ did.

I have a question for NSG's Christians here. Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God? Why can't they simply be happy for the path they have chosen and be happy that other have found spiritual fulfillment in other faiths? It just seems like they cannot accept the fact that maybe there isn't a "one true way" to God?

So far, the only explanation I've come up with is that they're not as secured in their faith as they like to be, so if they try to convert others, then that gives them a false sense of security.

Thoughts?
I don't know. Why is it so important for some atheists to try to convince Christians that the idea of a sky fairy is stupid and there is no old man in a throne in the side, and the idea of a virgin birth is just 2000 years of cover-up for some pregnant chick?

All monotheisms stemming from Mosaic law cannot accept that.

Exodus, 20,3. Exodus, 22,19. Exodus, 23,24-33.

Simple as that.

Exodus 20:3
You shall have no other gods before [or besides] me.

Exodus 22:19
Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death

Exodus 23,24-33
Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. Worship the LORD your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.

I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines [Mediterranean], and from the desert [Negev] to the River [Euphrates]. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.

And this is supposed to say WHAT ?

I don't know. Why is it so important for some atheists to try to convince Christians that the idea of a sky fairy is stupid and there is no old man in a throne in the side, and the idea of a virgin birth is just 2000 years of cover-up for some pregnant chick?Because the world (the Christian world that is) has lived in denial and chosen ignorance long enough, don't you think.

Job, Elijah, & Elisha had nothing AT ALL to do with Christianity. Christ did.Then why does Jesus meet with Moses and Elijah? Mark 9, Matthew 17, Like 9. Surely to establish a continuation from the old, um, prophets. Christianity has taken over those and thus they have everything to do with Christianity.

Then why does Jesus meet with Moses and Elijah? Mark 9, Matthew 17, Like 9. Surely to establish a continuation from the old, um, prophets. Christianity has taken over those and thus they have everything to do with Christianity.

I stand corrected. There were several visitations to old testament characters including Abraham by what some theologians say was Christ. The old testament always points towards the coming of the Messiah. I was hoping not to get into a six month Bible Study, and simply answer the original question with the words straight "from the horses mouth". Being able to quote Job, or Elijah, or anyone from the old testament does not come close to answering the question about why Christians believe their answer is the only one. They believe it because Christ Said it. Simple.

Because the world (the Christian world that is) has lived in denial and chosen ignorance long enough, don't you think.
Oh. I just thought that some atheists were just as rude as some Christians in cramming their beliefs down other's throats and being as mocking as possible about it.

I'd say "my mistake" if it hadn't been so handily proven a moment ago, thanks.

I don't know. Why is it so important for some atheists to try to convince Christians that the idea of a sky fairy is stupid and there is no old man in a throne in the side, and the idea of a virgin birth is just 2000 years of cover-up for some pregnant chick?

To be sure, Kat, those Atheists do NOT promise or wish Hell upon non-Atheists.

Bearing in mind:

1- I'm not an Atheist.

2- I KNOW you don't think like the "some Christians" in the OP.

To be sure, Kat, those Atheists do NOT promise or wish Hell upon non-Atheists.

Bearing in mind:

1- I'm not an Atheist.

2- I KNOW you don't think like the "some Christians" in the OP.
No, they just come across as smug and treating all people of faith as ninnies.

No, they just come across as smug and treating all people of faith as ninnies.

Which is arguably better than wishing eternal suffering on them...

Look. If "mainstream" religions AND Atheists stopped assuming theirs is the only way, the world would be a better place. As to why they started doing so, I have no idea. Though one can also argue that the Atheists are more reactive.

Oh. I just thought that some atheists were just as rude as some Christians in cramming their beliefs down other's throats and being as mocking as possible about it.You see, atheists have no beliefs to put in anybody's throat. They just say that the throat owners' beliefs are complete crap. That is not a belief, but a conclusion, sugar. :)

You see, atheists have no beliefs to put in anybody's throat. They just say that the throat owners' beliefs are complete crap. That is not a belief, but a conclusion, sugar. :)
Some atheists do tend to float around on a cloud of their own self-satisfaction and are more than willing to attempt to take away people's beliefs, ideas which enable those people to be happy in a lot of cases. I can't see how that is any better than having a religious nut hooting at you because you don't share their beliefs.

That is not a belief, but a conclusion, sugar. :)

I'll bite.

Give me the logical path through which you reached the "conclusion" that there is nothing beyond the veil.

You see, atheists have no beliefs to put in anybody's throat. They just say that the throat owners' beliefs are complete crap. That is not a belief, but a conclusion, sugar. :)

Wrong. Some atheists believe that there is no god. That is a spiritual belief that, like theism, has a basis in faith rather than observation or logic.

Also, not all religious beliefs are complete crap. Process theology and liberation theology are two examples of religious thought that have merit. The first because of its reconciliation with modern scientific theory, and the second because of its support for human rights in the developing world.

As for the OP, the idea of The One True Way seems to me like a social unifier. In other words, it's an easy way for a community to separate folks into Us and Them, and also make it easier to unify a community into concerted action. Unfortunately, it also makes it easier to slip into sectarian violence.

I like you r name, by the way.

Some atheists do tend to float around on a cloud of their own self-satisfaction and are more than willing to attempt to take away people's beliefs, ideas which enable those people to be happy in a lot of cases. I can't see how that is any better than having a religious nut hooting at you because you don't share their beliefs.Happiness is no criterion in the evaluation of a belief system. The latter's connection to reality is. I cannot believe in the biblical god in the same way that god's adherents cannot believe in other gods: because there is no evidence and I cannot trust those who gave us the stories about that god. ;)

I have a question for NSG's Christians here. Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God? Why can't they simply be happy for the path they have chosen and be happy that other have found spiritual fulfillment in other faiths? It just seems like they cannot accept the fact that maybe there isn't a "one true way" to God?

So far, the only explanation I've come up with is that they're not as secured in their faith as they like to be, so if they try to convert others, then that gives them a false sense of security.

Thoughts?

If they believe that their way to God is the one true way, then God(omnibenevolent fellow that he is) would want them to enlighten others about this and save them/help them save themselves.

Wrong. Some atheists believe that there is no god. That is a spiritual belief ....There is no such thing as a belief in a nonexisting entity, and it takes no spirituality to not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either.

There is no such thing as a belief in a nonexisting entity, and it takes no spirituality to not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either.
Then we dunk ourselves into the argument of proof or not, which is a hideously cyclical argument.

There is no such thing as a belief in a nonexisting entity, and it takes no spirituality to not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either.

The belief that the entity does not exist is based in faith.

Unless you have some sort of evidence that god does not exist?

Exodus 20:3
I'd say it's quite relevant.


Exodus 22:19

Actually, my copy (italian, ed.Paoline, imprimatur CEI, AD 1963) at Exodus 22:19 says (I'm translating from italian): "Who gives sacrifices to other gods, and not only to the one Lord, shall be put to death".
So, relevant.


Exodus 23,24-33
And this is supposed to say WHAT ?

Holy war against the infidels.

24."Do not worship the god of theirs (them being the people of Caanan etc), not serve them: do not act like them, instead destroy them completely and break their idols". 25."Serve instead to the Lord, your God: and he will bless your bread and your water; and I shall remove maladies from you all." ...27."I shall send ahead of you my terror; I shall route every population where you will go; and I shall make so that all your enemies flee before you". 28."I shall send ahead of you hornets who will chase the (unsure of translation here) Evei, Caananians and Etei away from you." ...32."Do not make alliances with them or with their gods". 33."Do not let them inhabit your country, so that they cannot induce you to sin against me. If you were to do so, you would be serving their gods, and that would be a great sin."


Mosaic law says: "our God is the ONLY TRUE God, and everybody else is a heathen infidel who must be fought, and their believes destroyed".

Quite relevant, I'd say.

The belief that the entity does not exist is based in faith.Nope. It is not a belief. It is the conclusion that because the claim of that entity's existence lacks all evidence whatsoever and there is no logical, empirical, or other basis to raise that claim in the first place, the belief in that entity's existence is not justifiable. As I said, it's just like not believing in the Easter Bunny.

Eostre's followers would be unhappy to hear that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostara)

Nope. It is not a belief. It is the conclusion that because the claim of that entity's existence lacks all evidence whatsoever and there is no logical, empirical, or other basis to raise that claim in the first place, the belief in that entity's existence is not justifiable. As I said, it's just like not believing in the Easter Bunny.

But lacking any evidence for or against surely the logical viewpoint is Agnosticism?

But lacking any evidence for or against surely the logical viewpoint is Agnosticism?

Quite.

I'm RATIONALLY agnostic, and atheist as guess. Meaning that, on the purely rational level, I don't think that the existance of a god can be proven true or false (agnosticism). I also GUESS that there's no god (it's the simplest solution! Ockham's razor, entia non sunt multiplicanda prae necessitatem, etc), but I have no proof for it, and I admit that. It's not as strong as a positive belief (I could change my mind if I'm proven wrong, via logical argument AND material evidence), still we could say it's some sort of belief.

But lacking any evidence for or against surely the logical viewpoint is Agnosticism?Evidence against is not required when there is no evidence for.

The belief that the entity does not exist is based in faith.

Unless you have some sort of evidence that god does not exist?

Of course he has evidence god doesn't exist. He's never seen god. Nobody he knows has seen god. Nobody he knows has heard god speak, or seen god do anything. Evidence only means some thing that has the tendency to make something appear more or less probable. The fact that nobody has seen or heard from god is something that indicates god might not exist, thus is evidence for the non existence of god.

Unless of course you mean PROOF that god doesn't exist. The problem is, it's a useless definition then, for the reasons the OP stated. Is it "faith" to believe that there's no tooth fairy? What about Santa Claus? What about faeries and dragons and unicorns?

In a very abstract way, since we can't prove that they don't exist, and have no more evidence for their non existence than we have for god's non existence. Except that we find it perfectly acceptable and normal for adults to not only not believe in them, but quite strongly believe they DON'T exist, for no other reason than not having seen or heard them before. And not only do we not believe in faeries and dragons and unicorns and santa claus and the tooth fairy, but we give a bit of a strange look and a laugh to any adult who does.

Yet I'm not exactly sure where the difference lies. We find it ok, and common place, to think a little odd of any adult who professes a strong belief in faeries and dragons and unicorns and santa clause and the tooth fairy, but when it's another equally supernatural, equally unseen unheard and unfelt entity, which we now call "god" and the situation changes a lot, doesn't it?

The fact is, you can't provide any more evidence that santa claus doesn't exist than I can that god doesn't exist, but I doubt you believe in santa clause. More to point, I highly doubt you give any real credence to the beliefs of those who do. You'd probably find them immature, childish, and foolish. In fact I think you'd find immature, childish, and foolish people who believed in a great number of things you're quite sure do not exist.

Atheists just add one more thing to that list.

Nope. It is not a belief. It is the conclusion that because the claim of that entity's existence lacks all evidence whatsoever and there is no logical, empirical, or other basis to raise that claim in the first place, the belief in that entity's existence is not justifiable. As I said, it's just like not believing in the Easter Bunny.

Do you mean scientific evidence?

I ask this because science assumes that the supernatural does not exist. Therefore, it would be impossible to even come up with scientific evidence for the existence of god.

There is also no logical, empirical, or other basis for believing that god does not exist. So, to claim that god does not exist is also not justifiable.

Evidence against is not required when there is no evidence for.

There is plenty of evidence for. It's purely a question of what standard you'll accept on a personal level.

For some it's enough to hear a chap in a black dress saying God exists, for others nothing less than a personal visit from God will do.

But lacking any evidence for or against surely the logical viewpoint is Agnosticism?

are you agnostic as to the existence of the easter bunny? Do you accept the possibility that there MIGHT be an easter bunny? Do you respect the beliefs of those who believe there IS an easter bunny, because, absent strong proof to the contrary, we can't be certain there ISN'T an easter bunny?

Or do you pretty much accept that the whole easter bunny is a lot of nonsense, and not really respect the view of any mentally capable adults who still believe he exists?

Of course he has evidence god doesn't exist. He's never seen god. Nobody he knows has seen god. Nobody he knows has heard god speak, or seen god do anything. Evidence only means some thing that has the tendency to make something appear more or less probable. The fact that nobody has seen or heard from god is something that indicates god might not exist, thus is evidence for the non existence of god....

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There is plenty of evidence for. It's purely a question of what standard you'll accept on a personal level.

And if we're dealing with purely subjective standards, there's plenty of evidence against, too.

are you agnostic as to the existence of the easter bunny? Do you accept the possibility that there MIGHT be an easter bunny? Do you respect the beliefs of those who believe there IS an easter bunny, because, absent strong proof to the contrary, we can't be certain there ISN'T an easter bunny?

Or do you pretty much accept that the whole easter bunny is a lot of nonsense, and not really respect the view of any mentally capable adults who still believe he exists?

Oh I'm as athiest as they come.

I just accept that athiesm is a belief system, just like religion.

There is plenty of evidence for. It's purely a question of what standard you'll accept on a personal level.

For some it's enough to hear a chap in a black dress saying God exists, for others nothing less than a personal visit from God will do.

Hmm. Yes.

I grew up atheist. I said that only a personal visit from god would suffice. Then I had a personal revelation. I was not happy about it. It complicates everything. Atheism was far simpler.

And if we're dealing with purely subjective standards, there's plenty of evidence against, too.

Of course. Again, it's down to what one accepts on a personal level.

My point is with all this evidence floating about the most logical viewpoint is Agnosticsm until one side or the other comes up with a killer blow.

Having just reread my first post on this, I cocked it up, sorry.

santa clause

Is he the person who decides if lawyers have been naughty or nice, as per legal fine print? :D

Do you mean scientific evidence?

I ask this because science assumes that the supernatural does not exist. Therefore, it would be impossible to even come up with scientific evidence for the existence of god.

There is also no logical, empirical, or other basis for believing that god does not exist. So, to claim that god does not exist is also not justifiable.

More specifically, science makes no separation between the natural and the supernatural. Science posits, questions, tests, revises, questions, tests, etc.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Bullshit it's not. A pithy phrase thrown out by people who don't want to make their own argument.

Let's say I'm on trial for...something. And a material fact is whether or not I own a dog. And I have claimed, that yes, in fact, I do own a dog. The other side, however, having searched my apartment found no dog food, no dog toys, no dog hairs, no dog waste in or around my building, and, most importantly, no fucking dog. What do you think a judge would do, when the opposite side tries to bring this in, and my lawyer stands up and proclaims "your Honor, you can not admit this, this is not evidence, for after all, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!"

I'll tell you, he'd be laughed at, and then it would be submitted. Why? Because absence of evidence is most CERTAINLY evidence of absence. It's not PROOF of absence, no, but evidence? Absolutely.

Evidence means ANYTHING that has the tendency of showing a statement to be more or less likely to be true. Something that is, in any way, helpful in proving or disproving a statement. So if our statement is "god exists" and there's no evidence to indicate that god does exist, then the absence of anything that shows god exists has the tendency to show that the statement "god exists" is false. If there is nothing indicating something exists, this is evidence that it does not.

Just as the complete lack of anything in my apartment that in any way shows a dog lives there can be taken as evidence of the fact that a dog does not, in fact, live there. Proof? No. Evidence? Absolutely.

More specifically, science makes no separation between the natural and the supernatural. Science posits, questions, tests, revises, questions, tests, etc.

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

See number three.

Snip.

Okay. What about "Absence of proof is not proof of absence"?

Bullshit it's not. A pithy phrase thrown out by people who don't want to make their own argument.

Let's say I'm on trial for...something. And a material fact is whether or not I own a dog. And I have claimed, that yes, in fact, I do own a dog. The other side, however, having searched my apartment found no dog food, no dog toys, no dog hairs, no dog waste in or around my building, and, most importantly, no fucking dog. What do you think a judge would do, when the opposite side tries to bring this in, and my lawyer stands up and proclaims "your Honor, you can not admit this, this is not evidence, for after all, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!"

I'll tell you, he'd be laughed at, and then it would be submitted. Why? Because absence of evidence is most CERTAINLY evidence of absence. It's not PROOF of absence, no, but evidence? Absolutely.

Evidence means ANYTHING that has the tendency of showing a statement to be more or less likely to be true. Something that is, in any way, helpful in proving or disproving a statement. So if our statement is "god exists" and there's no evidence to indicate that god does exist, then the absence of anything that shows god exists has the tendency to show that the statement "god exists" is false. If there is nothing indicating something exists, this is evidence that it does not.

Just as the complete lack of anything in my apartment that in any way shows a dog lives there can be taken as evidence of the fact that a dog does not, in fact, live there. Proof? No. Evidence? Absolutely.

According to your logic, the complete lack of evidence for the nonexistence of god would could then be taken as evidence of the fact that god does, in fact, exist.

Okay. What about "Absence of proof is not proof of absence"?

well, sure, ok. I'll grant you that. But then then the problem with that is that we can't really PROVE anything (Descartes' attempts not withstanding). I can't prove that there is no god. But then I can't prove there's no Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairy, no prancing unicorns in magical fields just beyond my peripheral vision. I can't prove that the floor beneath my feet won't spontaneously and inexplicably sublimate leaving me plummeting to the center of the earth, or that I am not, in fact, hooked up to the Matrix.

We can't really prove anything, which allows us to live life in one of two ways. Either constantly afraid that the floor is going to spontaniously disappear beneath our feet, OR accept that if we haven't seen any evidence of something happening...it probably won't. The floor probably won't vanish, this probably isn't the matrix. Unicorns and dragons and faeries probably don't lurk over the next hill. And we go on with our lives based on our assumptions that this is true.

Atheists just add one more "probably not" to the list of unlikelies.

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

See number three.

Bollocks.

According to your logic, the complete lack of evidence for the nonexistence of god would could then be taken as evidence of the fact that god does, in fact, exist.

one could, but for that damned difficult bit of proving a negative. "we haven't seen anything to say that he doesn't!" is a lot like saying "well, we haven't seen anything that demonstrably indicates that he DOESN'T have a dog!", leaving one to wonder what such a thing would be. The dog can't provide evidence for his own non existence, so such evidence must be extrinsic, and one is left wondering what extrinsic evidence could exist for such a claim.

one could, but for that damned difficult bit of proving a negative. "we haven't seen anything to say that he doesn't!" is a lot like saying "well, we haven't seen anything that demonstrably indicates that he DOESN'T have a dog!", leaving one to wonder what such a thing would be. The dog can't provide evidence for his own non existence, so such evidence must be extrinsic, and one is left wondering what extrinsic evidence could exist for such a claim.

Proving a negative:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

Proving a negative:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was "damned difficult" :p especially in large sweeping statements about what it is we are trying to prove the negative of

I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was "damned difficult" :p especially in large sweeping statements about what it is we are trying to prove the negative of

And it is qualitatively impossible to prove the existence, or lack of existence of god.

Which is why I said that the claim ¨god does not exist¨ is based on faith rather than logic or empirical evidence.

But lacking any evidence for or against surely the logical viewpoint is Agnosticism?

Agnosticism is really an avoidance of the question. It is an answer to the epistemological and not the existential question. As for what conclusion should be drawn in the absence of evidence, well, the scientific method, which borrows much of its methodology from basic statistics, is to assume the null hypothesis and look for evidence to contradict it. In other words, start with the premise of disbelief in a god or gods and then look for evidence to the contrary. As there are an infinite number of things that we could believe in, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, it is more logical to assume that these things are nonexistent and wait for sufficient evidence in order to believe that they are. It is the basic notion of burden of proof.

That being said, I embrace the philosophy of ignosticism. That is, I believe that god is so poorly defined a concept, that it is really impossible to talk about whether or not "god exists" as a proposition. We must look at a specific definition of god if we are to discuss the likelihood of existence or nonexistence. Some definitions of god (god is nature, god is the universe, etc.) are almost guaranteed to exist, even though such "gods" seem to be a rather hollow victory for the theist. Other gods (a celestial teapot, god is the FSM, etc.) are almost guaranteed to not exist, even though their existence cannot be strictly disproved. As the different definitions of god run the entire gamut of likelihood, one must ask for a specific definition before they are willing to discuss existence. Definitions abound, which makes the discussion even worse. If you were to ask 100 people to define god, you would get 5000 answers, so it is impossible to discuss the existence of god in broad terms, it must be examined on a case-by-case basis. That being said, there is no evidence to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being and there is actually evidence against such a being if we give it the additional property of being omnibenevolent. It is poor statistical reasoning to say "Well, we can't prove or disprove the existence of god, so it must be 50/50!"

Agnosticism is really an avoidance of the question. It is an answer to the epistemological and not the existential question. As for what conclusion should be drawn in the absence of evidence, well, the scientific method, which borrows much of its methodology from basic statistics, is to assume the null hypothesis and look for evidence to contradict it. In other words, start with the premise of disbelief in a god or gods and then look for evidence to the contrary. As there are an infinite number of things that we could believe in, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, it is more logical to assume that these things are nonexistent and wait for sufficient evidence in order to believe that they are. It is the basic notion of burden of proof.

I think I covered this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14339280&postcount=67

I don't know. Why is it so important for some atheists to try to convince Christians that the idea of a sky fairy is stupid and there is no old man in a throne in the side, and the idea of a virgin birth is just 2000 years of cover-up for some pregnant chick?

Well, this ones easy enough...
Because its fun.
That's my reason anyways.

Oh. I just thought that some atheists were just as rude as some Christians in cramming their beliefs down other's throats and being as mocking as possible about it.

I'd say "my mistake" if it hadn't been so handily proven a moment ago, thanks.

Also this /\

Which is why I said that the claim ¨god does not exist¨ is based on faith rather than logic or empirical evidence.

again, I think we're haggling over the definition of evidence. I disagree that there is no evidence that god does not exist (mainly because I disagree with the assertion that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", it certainly is). I will agree with you that there's no PROOF that god does not exist, namely because, as you said:

And it is qualitatively impossible to prove the existence, or lack of existence of god.

Which is, of course, true. The problem is, once we go down that road, it's qualitatively impossible to prove the existence, or lack of existence, of unicorns, fairies, santa claus and the tooth fairy. In fact, I'll stand by my assertion that it's absolutely impossible to prove anything. Your link previous posits, erroniously, that I can prove the statement "there are no aliens in my bathtub" by looking in my bathtub and seeing no aliens, thus proving the statement.

Except that's still not proof, just very, VERY strong evidence, since we have not PROVEN that my senses were working correctly. After all I only "see" what my eyes tell my brain to see, perhaps they were mistaken. Possible, after all. Thus even the fact that I don't see something is not proof that it's not right there.

So, if we're going to go down the line that the statement "there is no god" is a statement of faith because it can't be proven to be true, then sure, ok. But then again, EVERY statement of fact we EVER make, be it "that man has blond hair" or "it is Wednesday" or "I am eating a sandwich" is inherently a statement of faith, faith that our senses and mental capacities are working the way they are, and that if I see the sandwich, feel the sandwich, and taste the sandwich, it's probably a sandwich and I'm probably eating it.

So sure, the statement that god doesn't exist is, essentially, one fundamentally based on faith, but so is any definitive statement about everything. And when someone says "it's Wednesday" we don't walk up to them and chide them, pointing out that they can't PROVE it, and shouldn't make such definitive statements of fact without proof, and it's dumb of them, and they should say "well it MIGHT be wednesday, but it might not be" or point out that if they're willing to believe it's wednesday, they might as well believe it's thursday, same thing, since you can't prove either one. We make a million statements of fact every day, and we can't prove a single one of them. Why were you not on the "Bye bye europe, russia and iran" thread pointing out that we shouldn't make such statements that europe, russia and iran exist, because we haven't proven them to exist.

That'd be asinine. But when suddenly the question of god gets invoked, the usual rules don't seem to apply, and everyone gets so sensitive. Nobody gets into a tizzy when people make statements of technically unproven facts every single day, but when one of the statements is not "hey, it's wednesday" but rather "hey, there's no god" suddenly people seem to mind.

Which is, of course, true. The problem is, once we go down that road, it's qualitatively impossible to prove the existence, or lack of existence, of unicorns, fairies, santa claus and the tooth fairy. In fact, I'll stand by my assertion that it's absolutely impossible to prove anything. Your link previous posits, erroniously, that I can prove the statement "there are no aliens in my bathtub" by looking in my bathtub and seeing no aliens, thus proving the statement.

That's not a perfect comparison, though. Santa is a physical human/elf who flies in a sled everyone Christmas and delivers presents. He lives at the North Pole. The tooth fairy is a small creature who takes the teeth children have lost and replaces them with money in their sleep. All of these can be empirically tested. (Is there a house at the North Pole? Footage of a fairy at night?) Once the evidence suggests these things don't exist, of course, you can easily say "well, Santa doesn't physically deliver the presents," or, "the tooth fairy is invisible," but then your changing your definitions.
With God, we can empirically prove there is no wizard in the sky, at least not in the one near earth. We can even prove some of the stories about Him are not literally true, e.g., evolution. But the definition of God is always changing (thanks in large part to people discovering there is no sky-wizard or Garden of Eden), and so it can't really be empirically tested.

Know any? lol. Because I just find this an interesting phenomenon. I mean from what I've noticed only Christianity and Islam do you see this kind of thing happening, where you have this kind of recruitment for people to join their religion.

Never met any Hare Krishnas?

That's not a perfect comparison, though. Santa is a physical human/elf who flies in a sled everyone Christmas and delivers presents. He lives at the North Pole. The tooth fairy is a small creature who takes the teeth children have lost and replaces them with money in their sleep. All of these can be empirically tested. (Is there a house at the North Pole? Footage of a fairy at night?) Once the evidence suggests these things don't exist, of course, you can easily say "well, Santa doesn't physically deliver the presents," or, "the tooth fairy is invisible," but then your changing your definitions.

I already addressed that argument, directly following the part that you quoted, so I will repeat what I said:

Which is, of course, true. The problem is, once we go down that road, it's qualitatively impossible to prove the existence, or lack of existence, of unicorns, fairies, santa claus and the tooth fairy. In fact, I'll stand by my assertion that it's absolutely impossible to prove anything. Your link previous posits, erroniously, that I can prove the statement "there are no aliens in my bathtub" by looking in my bathtub and seeing no aliens, thus proving the statement.

Except that's still not proof, just very, VERY strong evidence, since we have not PROVEN that my senses were working correctly. After all I only "see" what my eyes tell my brain to see, perhaps they were mistaken. Possible, after all. Thus even the fact that I don't see something is not proof that it's not right there.

as you said, at best, evidence can suggest that it's not true, just never PROVE it. We can't PROVE my eyes saw correctly, we can't PROVE that the videotape recorded correctly. We make assumptions. Assumptions backed by evidence. We assume that if I see, feel, and taste a sandwich that I am eating a sandwich.

I already addressed that argument, directly following the part that you quoted, so I will repeat what I said:

I wasn't talking about the veracity of empirical evidence; I'm going to assume that it's true for the sake of this post (You're right, though, that you can't trust your senses 100%.) What I was saying was there is a pretty static definition of Santa, about who he is and what he does. If you empirically prove that there isn't a man who delivers presents to houses, you have to either discard or modify your Santa definition. Most people just discard it. God, on the other hand, has a much less obvious definition. You can prove the world was not created in seven days, you can prove there was no flood, you could even, in theory, prove Jesus did not rise from the grave three days after being crucified. But people will continue to believe in something they call God, they'll just modify their definition.
To use an analogy that will probably work less well in print than it did in my head, imagine you're trying to shoot a target. It doesn't matter how accurately the arrows fly if the target is moving away from them; you won't hit it. Same with trying to verify God's existence. It's a moving target. Santa and the tooth fairy are mostly stationary ones.

I don't know. Why is it so important for some atheists to try to convince Christians that the idea of a sky fairy is stupid and there is no old man in a throne in the side, and the idea of a virgin birth is just 2000 years of cover-up for some pregnant chick?

Because many of us live in countries where belief in sky fairies and parthenogenesis is given a privileged position in our Constitutions, along with subsequent privileging of believers?

There is plenty of evidence for. It's purely a question of what standard you'll accept on a personal level.The validity of evidence is not influenced by personal standards. Only standards that are independent of subjective perspectives are valid. There just is no globally acceptable evidence for God (let alone proof), otherwise that question would have been answered a long time ago. The point is that any search for God would require a clear definition of what you are looking for in the first place. That is lacking to begin with. Then there is no way to make sure that such an entity exists, you know with reproducible testing and all. Hence no evidence.
But on what basis does one assume that God exists? Personal "experience"? In that case one must be able to exclude all other causes for the perception. Because others have told you so or your holy book says so? In that case the sources must be verifiable by independent other sources (that do not trace back to the same origin). If, say, the Bible claims something, then there should be cross references in Egyptian, Levantine, Mesopotamian sources about the events and persons, and especially when it comes to the supernatural stuff. You see, when the Jews claim that they have been singled out by God to be "his people", they better have some non-Jews to back it up. Or if Joseph Smith jr claims to have been instructed by an Angel to write strange books on the origins of Native Americans the he better have a non-Protestant confirm the Angel experience. After all, claiming divine guidance for oneself is always just bogus. If I were to make such a claim without real evidence to show, I'd end up in a mental institution (or I'd get really rich). That should go also for the authors of the various holy books. If indeed there is evidence for God, can I please see it? Right now? Please?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Right. Absence of evidence is still no evidence and any claim based thereupon is worth nothing.
However, evidence of an alternative is evidence of absence.

Because many of us live in countries where belief in sky fairies and parthenogenesis is given a privileged position in our Constitutions, along with subsequent privileging of believers?

Then start a revolution instead of whining to people who happen to believe part of the same things without being even a national from your country. People that believe but do not push it are NOT part of the problem.

Then start a revolution instead of whining to people who happen to believe part of the same things without being even a national from your country. People that believe but do not push it are NOT part of the problem.

Sam Harris disagrees. His claim is that religious moderates make the political and social scene safe for extremists.

Sam Harris disagrees.

Who is he to disagree with ME? :p

Edit: Done some research. He's a MORON.

Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Religion

Elementary memetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Religion

Elementary memetics.

Religion and Tubgirl are the same thing?

That explains a lot.

That being said, I embrace the philosophy of ignosticism. That is, I believe that god is so poorly defined a concept, that it is really impossible to talk about whether or not "god exists" as a proposition. We must look at a specific definition of god if we are to discuss the likelihood of existence or nonexistence. Some definitions of god (god is nature, god is the universe, etc.) are almost guaranteed to exist, even though such "gods" seem to be a rather hollow victory for the theist. Other gods (a celestial teapot, god is the FSM, etc.) are almost guaranteed to not exist, even though their existence cannot be strictly disproved. As the different definitions of god run the entire gamut of likelihood, one must ask for a specific definition before they are willing to discuss existence. Definitions abound, which makes the discussion even worse. If you were to ask 100 people to define god, you would get 5000 answers, so it is impossible to discuss the existence of god in broad terms, it must be examined on a case-by-case basis. That being said, there is no evidence to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being and there is actually evidence against such a being if we give it the additional property of being omnibenevolent. It is poor statistical reasoning to say "Well, we can't prove or disprove the existence of god, so it must be 50/50!"

plus you have the problem of shifting goal posts.

if someone says that they believe in the god of the bible and you show them that the things that god does in the bible, the very definition of that god found in the bible are false, then suddenly its OH NO, god is something different than that!

you cant "win" because no one will stick to their own definition let alone all have one that they agree on.

so yeah, its silly to talk about GOD until you nail down who is this god person anyway?

Who is he to disagree with ME? :p

Edit: Done some research. He's a MORON.

How is he a moron? Because he doesn't speak in fluffy and nice terms and doesn't beat around the bush? Because he comes right out and says it? The truth is, believing a proposition for which there is no evidence is not something which warrants a badge of honor. And the truth is, the extremists, the people who kill abortion doctors or suicide bomb groups of people, are, in some way, more theologically justified than people who cherry pick the Bible or the Koran. These extremists actually truly believe what their books say, rather than selectively interpreting the books to be more modern than the really are. The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, these books really do instruct you to kill infidels and apostates. It's not a coincidence that somewhere on the order of 30% of young British Muslims believe that apostates should be put to death, and I can only imagine what the older population believes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571970/Muslim-apostates-threatened-over-Christianity.html

[EDIT] I had heard from somewhere that around 60% of British Muslims believed that death was an appropriate punishment for apostasy, but since I could only find data on young British Muslims, I retract that statement.

so yeah, its silly to talk about GOD until you nail down who is this god person anyway?

Didn't the Romans already try that? :p

My personal belief is that if there is a god, is he really so big headed as to need us to grovel for his favour everyday? If so then fuck that, i'd rather burn in hell. :p

How is he a moron? Because he doesn't speak in fluffy and nice terms and doesn't beat around the bush? Because he comes right out and says it? The truth is, believing a proposition for which there is no evidence is not something which warrants a badge of honor. And the truth is, the extremists, the people who kill abortion doctors or suicide bomb groups of people, are, in some way, more theologically justified than people who cherry pick the Bible or the Koran. These extremists actually truly believe what their books say, rather than selectively interpreting the books to be more modern than the really are. The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, these books really do instruct you to kill infidels and apostates. It's not a coincidence that somewhere on the order of 30% of young British Muslims believe that apostates should be put to death, and I can only imagine what the older population believes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571970/Muslim-apostates-threatened-over-Christianity.html

[EDIT] I had heard from somewhere that around 60% of British Muslims believed that death was an appropriate punishment for apostasy, but since I could only find data on young British Muslims, I retract that statement.

Good you retracted the 60% figure - as the Islam on Campus gives a figure of only 6% of Muslim students believed that apostasy should be dealt with according to Sharia Law

My personal belief is that if there is a god, is he really so big headed as to need us to grovel for his favour everyday? If so then fuck that, i'd rather burn in hell. :p

Worship isn't for him, it's for us. Only by admitting that we are barely functioning irredeemably foul piles of goo only having worth because God is a being of limitless compassion can we be saved. If we can't, we'll be tortured for all eternity. Because He loves us. :)

Worship isn't for him, it's for us. Only by admitting that we are barely functioning irredeemably foul piles of goo only having worth because God is a being of limitless compassion can we be saved. If we can't, we'll be tortured for all eternity. Because He loves us. :)

I love you LG. :)

again, I think we're haggling over the definition of evidence. ... Nobody gets into a tizzy when people make statements of technically unproven facts every single day, but when one of the statements is not "hey, it's wednesday" but rather "hey, there's no god" suddenly people seem to mind.

I already pointed out that science assumes that god does not exist, which would make it impossible for there to be scientific evidence for god. Looking for scientific evidence of god is equivalent to looking for odours with a magnifying glass.

...
But on what basis does one assume that God exists? Personal "experience"? In that case one must be able to exclude all other causes for the perception. .... After all, claiming divine guidance for oneself is always just bogus. If I were to make such a claim without real evidence to show, I'd end up in a mental institution (or I'd get really rich). That should go also for the authors of the various holy books. If indeed there is evidence for God, can I please see it? Right now? Please?

For every observation of phenomena, there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses that can explain the phenomena. Therefore it would be impossible to exclude all other causes.

It would also be impossible to know if someone's claims of personal divine revelation are a product of divine or supernatural origin as it impossible to scientifically test for such a origin. Therefore, any claim that it is definitely not divine in origin is a claim based on faith, not scientific rigour.

As for evidence of god, see my reply to Neo A above.

Right. Absence of evidence is still no evidence and any claim based thereupon is worth nothing.
However, evidence of an alternative is evidence of absence.

Only if we assume that all effects have only one cause, which we know is a false assumption.

Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God?
Why wouldn't it be important?

They have, after all found the One True Way to God. Surely they'd want everyone to find this Way as well?

Because they like to piss Wilgrove off.

maybe you have been drinking that free wine tonight...

My guess would be moonshine, actually.

I love the ad for "Holy War" in the middle of this thread. Not sure if anyone else sees it, but it's fitting. :)

I already pointed out that science assumes that god does not exist, which would make it impossible for there to be scientific evidence for god.

Actually, if god does exist in this universe then it is a natural phenomena and well with the bailiwick of science. If god "exists"* outside this universe then we may, possibly, maybe, some day be able to observe and examine it and anything else that "exists" out there, though I expect extra-dimensional/extra-universal investigations will call for whole new fields of science to become more than maths and speculation.



*It's rather impossible to say how the concept of existence as we understand it would apply to something outside our universe.

"Science assumes that God does not exist" is an absurd statement.
"Science" is not a person or a body of people. Logically, you could improve your statement, Gift of God, by saying:
"Some scientists assume" or even "Many scientists assume..."
Nor can you use the generalisation "Most scientists assume" unless you furnish proof that over 50% of scientists assume.

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

See number three.

"Science assumes that God does not exist" is an absurd statement.
"Science" is not a person or a body of people. Logically, you could improve your statement, Gift of God, by saying:
"Some scientists assume" or even "Many scientists assume..."
Nor can you use the generalisation "Most scientists assume" unless you furnish proof that over 50% of scientists assume.

See above.

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

See number three.
I'd wager there's many a scientist, and many more philosophers of science, who'd question assumptions 1, 4, 5 and 6.

I'd wager there's many a scientist, and many more philosophers of science, who'd question assumptions 1, 4, 5 and 6.

When we design experiments, however, we are forced to assume that those assumptions are true. If 1 wasn't true for example, experiments would not be repeatable.

When we design experiments, however, we are forced to assume that those assumptions are true. If 1 wasn't true for example, experiments would not be repeatable.
Well yes, induction. Though the problem of induction doesn't imply absolute order... I think. Could we not assume induction to be true in a chaotic system?

Moreover, I don't see why 4, 5 and/or 6 would have to be assumed for induction to be assumed.

EDIT:

By chaotic, I mean a system that isn't based on any underlying order. Could we not have, say, a system in which chaotic forces have produced a situation where a test-tube full of hydrogen pops always when a burning splint is inserted into it?

Didn't the Romans already try that? :p
*suddenly realizes why she couldnt find her last post*

*vows to never spam again*

anyway

the romans only killed an ersatz king of the jews. he was godded up until later.

Why wouldn't it be important?

They have, after all found the One True Way to God. Surely they'd want everyone to find this Way as well?

Yes, but some of us don't want to find the path. Yet, the missionaries keep on coming.....

Yes, but some of us don't want to find the path. Yet, the missionaries keep on coming.....

Then it's time for human sacrifices!

LOL. Actually, one guy was getting so damned annoying, and I mean trying to force himself into my house annoying, that I reminded him that here in Idaho, its quite legal to shoot someone if they won't leave when you tell them to.

LOL. Actually, one guy was getting so damned annoying, and I mean trying to force himself into my house annoying, that I reminded him that here in Idaho, its quite legal to shoot someone if they won't leave when you tell them to.

lol! What did he do or say after that?

First, he said something along the lines of, "You wouldn't dare!" Then, after I grabbed the rifle and shot near his foot, he ran, screaming something like "You're going to burn in hell!" I then went inside and had a beer and a cookie.

First, he said something along the lines of, "You wouldn't dare!" Then, after I grabbed the rifle and shot near his foot, he ran, screaming something like "You're going to burn in hell!" I then went inside and had a beer and a cookie.

Very nice. :)

One of the more entertaining parts in my life, I'll admit. But, in all seriousness, I respect that people of faith have the right to try and convert others. So long as they realize we have the right to tell them to go away. (Putting it nicely)

I don't know. Why is it so important for some atheists to try to convince Christians that the idea of a sky fairy is stupid and there is no old man in a throne in the side, and the idea of a virgin birth is just 2000 years of cover-up for some pregnant chick?

Because the world (the Christian world that is) has lived in denial and chosen ignorance long enough, don't you think.

Oh. I just thought that some atheists were just as rude as some Christians in cramming their beliefs down other's throats and being as mocking as possible about it.

I'd say "my mistake" if it hadn't been so handily proven a moment ago, thanks.
Win!! /thread

It just seems like they cannot accept the fact that maybe there isn't a "one true way" to God?

That's not a fact by any stretch of the imagination and certainly isn't a tenant of Christianity, but a practice of Christianity is to convert and minister to others.

Then start a revolution instead of whining to people who happen to believe part of the same things without being even a national from your country. People that believe but do not push it are NOT part of the problem.

You think violent insurrection is preferable to rational discussion? Are you for real?

"Science assumes that God does not exist" is an absurd statement.

True. The following statement would be more usable if you ask me: "The existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant when it comes to scientific progress."

Mind you, that probably irritates the orthodox even more.

You think violent insurrection is preferable to rational discussion? Are you for real?

What I meant was: Take the problem to THEM, not to the moderates. Whether in the form of rational discussion or violent insurrection, their call, really.

When in doubt: violent insurrection. Usually it doesn't solve things, but it keeps people busy.

Or am I mistaken with "When in doubt: absurd Japanese fetish porn" again?

What I meant was: Take the problem to THEM, not to the moderates. Whether in the form of rational discussion or violent insurrection, their call, really.

Brilliant! Except that most of the 'moderates' in the UK favour the status quo... Notice that Kat asked a general question, to which I replied by explaining why one particular group of atheists might feel the need to refute religious beliefs.

Whether you personally agree with the line of attack or not, it's undeniable that attacking the veracity of religious beliefs is a legitimate tactic for attacking their establishment. Until religion is no longer seen as the natural or 'default' option I can't see much hope for secularism in the UK.

Or am I mistaken with "When in doubt: absurd Japanese fetish porn" again?

Oh, absurd Japanese fetish porn, is there anything you CAN'T solve?

Oh, absurd Japanese fetish porn, is there anything you CAN'T solve?

Maybe we should unleash it upon the Middle East and Afghanistan? I'm pretty sure that there will be at least a minor response.

:hail:Schoolgirl porn:hail:
The Taliban would be so peeved!

I have a question for NSG's Christians here. Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God? Why can't they simply be happy for the path they have chosen and be happy that other have found spiritual fulfillment in other faiths? It just seems like they cannot accept the fact that maybe there isn't a "one true way" to God?

So far, the only explanation I've come up with is that they're not as secured in their faith as they like to be, so if they try to convert others, then that gives them a false sense of security.

Thoughts?
I'm not sure, but I think it's because they are emulating Jesus as a wandering preacher, and emulating the apostles who themselves went out into foreign lands to preach, emulating Jesus after he left (this world). Apparently, you're never supposed to stop telling people about it.

Quite.

I'm RATIONALLY agnostic, and atheist as guess. Meaning that, on the purely rational level, I don't think that the existance of a god can be proven true or false (agnosticism). I also GUESS that there's no god (it's the simplest solution! Ockham's razor, entia non sunt multiplicanda prae necessitatem, etc), but I have no proof for it, and I admit that. It's not as strong as a positive belief (I could change my mind if I'm proven wrong, via logical argument AND material evidence), still we could say it's some sort of belief.
Same here, except that I put my bet on the opposite horse. I'm rationally agnostic and polytheist as guess. Rather than guess that there is most likely no god, I decided to guess that there is just as likely a potentially infinite number of gods as no god. And in choosing between the two likelihoods, I picked the one that offered more entertainment for me personally. :D

I'm not sure, but I think it's because they are emulating Jesus as a wandering preacher, and emulating the apostles who themselves went out into foreign lands to preach, emulating Jesus after he left (this world). Apparently, you're never supposed to stop telling people about it.
Quite.

It's an evangelical religion. As Judaism, for example, isn't.

Quite.

It's an evangelical religion. As Judaism, for example, isn't.
Yes. I just wish some of them would try to be less obnoxious about it. I realize that there is a long-standing wisdom in the advertising field that, if you annoy the customer just enough, they'll remember your brand name more clearly, but seriously, some god-peddlars need to learn what "no, thank you" means.

some god-peddlars need to learn what "no, thank you" means.

Or at least what "no, now get the fuck out of my house, you damn zealot moron" means. :p

Or at least what "no, now get the fuck out of my house, you damn zealot moron" means. :p

Why did you let them in your house to begin with, H2?

Yes. I just wish some of them would try to be less obnoxious about it. I realize that there is a long-standing wisdom in the advertising field that, if you annoy the customer just enough, they'll remember your brand name more clearly, but seriously, some god-peddlars need to learn what "no, thank you" means.

Currently as working as a Salesperson, this doesn't work and really there is no point wasting your time with people who are not interested or what I and my company like to call "time wasters". Leave them be and go on to the next person, law of averages and all that. Not that I am selling beliefs mind you, well I am but not in a religious sense.

LOL. Actually, one guy was getting so damned annoying, and I mean trying to force himself into my house annoying, that I reminded him that here in Idaho, its quite legal to shoot someone if they won't leave when you tell them to.

And people wonder why America is fucked. Really was shooting him going to solve your problems?

Why did you let them in your house to begin with, H2?

Never did. Nor am I ever impolite. I have my own ways to deal with people who harass me on the street, be it with their god, be it with flyers. :D

Sorry to be so negative all the time - there that said

Please note that the connection with "conversion of others" and church income

the churches not so concerned with money dont (as often) go after converts.
(seldom is any issue not affected by someones desire for wealth)

And people wonder why America is fucked. Really was shooting him going to solve your problems?

It would stop the guy from preaching...

Never did. Nor am I ever impolite. I have my own ways to deal with people who harass me on the street, be it with their god, be it with flyers. :D

Would you be one of those people we have a laugh about back at the office? Perhaps not I reckon as soon as you said "don't care" and I say "Ok, have a good day" and walk away you wouldn't try to give me some big lecture.

I have a question for NSG's Christians here. Why is it so important for some Christians to convince others (even others in the same faith, but different denomination) that they are the one true way to God? Why can't they simply be happy for the path they have chosen and be happy that other have found spiritual fulfillment in other faiths? It just seems like they cannot accept the fact that maybe there isn't a "one true way" to God?

So far, the only explanation I've come up with is that they're not as secured in their faith as they like to be, so if they try to convert others, then that gives them a false sense of security.

Thoughts?

yes, fanaticism generally tends to be rooted in personal insecurity. often about belief, though by no means limited to it.

Would you be one of those people we have a laugh about back at the office? Perhaps not I reckon as soon as you said "don't care" and I say "Ok, have a good day" and walk away you wouldn't try to give me some big lecture.

Maybe, though maybe not for the reason you think. Among other things, I have asked one of these people to prove to me that they and I existed, told a few that I don't and that I'm just a figment of their imagination, sang the first stanza of "Strawberry Fields Forever" to one and the second to the other who tried to approach me nonetheless after witnessing it, started a conversation with one ("Hello, how are you, my name is (name), and I wanted to talk to you about the (store) credit card..." - "Hey. How are you? I'm fine. I mean, I just moved, and all. What have you been up to?" - and so on), looked at one smiling without saying ANYTHING as if I were in a state of catatonia, and told a few that, before I gave them attention, they'd have to tell me the atomic number of Barium (56) or the capital of Macedonia (Skopje). IIRC, I did ask about Strontium (38) too. One DID tell me the atomic number of Barium. I applauded her and accepted the flyer. Fair is fair.

To cold callers, I asked one what was he wearing (I'm male too; he told me about his shirt and pants, prompting me to ask about his underwear), I pulled the Seinfeld one (Give me your number. No? I assume you don't want people cold-calling you. Now you know how I feel), yelled "HIDE THE STASH!" and told them I had to go once, and so on. Ah, yes, I once told them to hold and then sang "Für Elise" until I hung up. That wasn't my idea though. :D

I said I'm not impolite. I didn't say I don't have fun. You're free to laugh about me, as I sure am laughing about you and me. I don't give lectures. I give absurdities. :D

It would stop the guy from preaching...

Also breathing.....

Same here, except that I put my bet on the opposite horse. I'm rationally agnostic and polytheist as guess. Rather than guess that there is most likely no god, I decided to guess that there is just as likely a potentially infinite number of gods as no god. And in choosing between the two likelihoods, I picked the one that offered more entertainment for me personally. :D

Polytheist with infinite number of gods = infinitheist?

Damn, infinite gods=infinite sacrifices, infinite rituals, infinite commandements... I could accept that ONLY if the measure (in the Lebesgue meaning of it) of the set of the gods requiring rituals/sacrifices etc is zero.

Also breathing.....

If that's what it takes, so be it... ;)

If that's what it takes, so be it... ;)

Heh nice to note that you advocate the shooting of people that say things that you do not wish to hear! Now wheres that gun o mine!:D

Polytheist with infinite number of gods = infinitheist?

Damn, infinite gods=infinite sacrifices, infinite rituals, infinite commandements... I could accept that ONLY if the measure (in the Lebesgue meaning of it) of the set of the gods requiring rituals/sacrifices etc is zero.
You don't have to worship ALL of them. :D I only pay attention to three or four, and only on an as-needed basis.

Heh nice to note that you advocate the shooting of people that say things that you do not wish to hear! Now wheres that gun o mine!:D

Ah, but I don't say things I don't want to hear... :p

Ah, but I don't say things I don't want to hear... :p

I call that having a "selective ear". :p

Maybe, though maybe not for the reason you think. Among other things, I have asked one of these people to prove to me that they and I existed, told a few that I don't and that I'm just a figment of their imagination, sang the first stanza of "Strawberry Fields Forever" to one and the second to the other who tried to approach me nonetheless after witnessing it, started a conversation with one ("Hello, how are you, my name is (name), and I wanted to talk to you about the (store) credit card..." - "Hey. How are you? I'm fine. I mean, I just moved, and all. What have you been up to?" - and so on), looked at one smiling without saying ANYTHING as if I were in a state of catatonia, and told a few that, before I gave them attention, they'd have to tell me the atomic number of Barium (56) or the capital of Macedonia (Skopje). IIRC, I did ask about Strontium (38) too. One DID tell me the atomic number of Barium. I applauded her and accepted the flyer. Fair is fair.

To cold callers, I asked one what was he wearing (I'm male too; he told me about his shirt and pants, prompting me to ask about his underwear), I pulled the Seinfeld one (Give me your number. No? I assume you don't want people cold-calling you. Now you know how I feel), yelled "HIDE THE STASH!" and told them I had to go once, and so on. Ah, yes, I once told them to hold and then sang "Für Elise" until I hung up. That wasn't my idea though. :D

I said I'm not impolite. I didn't say I don't have fun. You're free to laugh about me, as I sure am laughing about you and me. I don't give lectures. I give absurdities. :D

LMAO, I wish I was sent to your door, if I had a few people signed up to the charity already I would have a great laugh with you. All very good ideas, I must remember them myself, why can't I get a few more people like you on my turf? Or more to the point why can't I get a few more people who are interested in the environment on my turf?