Christianity - A respectful dialogue

[Valden]

So as previously mentioned, we know in our heart that God exists.

I do not belong in that "we"
Also, you completely ignored my first reply to you.

Some people might object: that humans have a sensus flyus spaghetticus monsterous which allows them to know that the proposition "The FSM exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

And yet chances are, they're just kidding.

This objection fails, because no one seriously claims the FSM exists. It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson.

Exactly, they're joking.

Now perhaps the Muslim could make a similar claim about Allah. But why not indeed! Just because there are people who are mistaken doesn't invalidate one bit what I believe! That there are creationists doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution!

You have yet to provide any evidence besides your personal opinion.
Still waiting!

Some people might say that I might be the one who is mistaken. But in the absence of a defeater, I see no reason why I should reject my belief in God, the same way that I don't see any reason to reject the belief that the world is real, even if some people believe the world is an illusion.

You're more then welcome to pretend the world is nothing but an illusion.

But at the end of the day, if you want to convince anyone, you're going to need evidence to back up your position. Otherwise....

Edit---

It is a harsh assessment that nonbelievers are wicked, but according to Christian theology, us humans are broken, which is why Christ died on the cross, to atone our sins.

If God wants a relationship with all, and some humans don't believe in Him, the corollary is that there must be something wrong with the nonbeliever.

You're assuming that "God" is the Christian god.
"God" could easily have a "relationship" with us, without there being anything wrong with anyone, let alone non-believers.

[Feck]

MMM time for a fractal very pretty must have been designed



Oh sorry not respectful enough ?................ah well what can you expect I'm wicked ....oh no I'm one of gods broken creations .....Forgive me
The op gets worse the more you think about it Demanding respect from the wicked

[Tigger]

One reason why I didn’t inhabit Richard Dawkins's site for too long, apart from the removal of the off topic section to which I had gravitated, was precisely this sort of thing. I got sick and tired of seeing theists’ “arguments” about why we should believe in their sky fairy based on personal opinion and delusion. The fact that this opposition to common sense just continues on its ridiculous, blind path despite the facts is totally anathema to me.
Carry on, I'll watch.

[statichaos]

"Respectful dialogue" would tend to indicate an actual respectful give-and-take of ideas. Instead, what we have is you making an unfounded assertion, others responding in ways ranging from respectful disagreement to outright dismissal, and then you making an additional assertion built upon the first one without responding to any of the arguments against it.

You're building your house upon sand, here.

[Chinaski]

[Valden]

[goodboyCerberus]

oops, double-post

[goodboyCerberus]

image

Wow, I do that so much.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility….

Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you they have dragons in their garages—but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths after all…

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself: On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence”—no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it—is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

[thedistillers]

Some skeptics often accuse Christians of not providing evidence, but rarely do skeptics provide justification for what they believe, or don't believe, and often make assertions that are not logically proven or supported by evidence, and simply assumed to be true.

It seems to me that behind the question: "where's your evidence", there is the belief that our belief must be supported by evidence to be rational. May I ask why should I accept this claim? Where's the proof? Where's the evidence? There is virtually no philosopher today to adhere to this idea. Indeed a lot of our core belief about the world are not supported by evidence. What is the evidence that the world is real and not an illusion? What is the evidence the world was not created 5 minutes ago in the state it was 5 minutes ago? What is the evidence other people than me have a mind, and are not just programmed robots? As far as I can see, none.

If I simply know that God exists, the same way people have the conviction the universe is real and not an illusion, what good reason is there to reject that belief? The only reason I see that I would reject that belief is if I don't want God to exist. And indeed it seems to me that atheists hate the idea of God, and hate the idea of being morally accountable.

Now if some people believe there is no such thing as a sensus divinitatis, they are entitled to their opinion, but I'm wondering on what basis skeptics accuse theists of being irrational. Whatever slogans, or principles, the skeptic uses (like the one "Calli" is using), has that principle been proven with empirical evidence? Has it been proven with logic?

[statichaos]

Some skeptics often accuse Christians of not providing evidence, but rarely do skeptics provide justification for what they believe, or don't believe, and often make assertions that are not logically proven or supported by evidence, and simply assumed to be true.

It seems to me that behind the question: "where's your evidence", there is the belief that our belief must be supported by evidence to be rational. May I ask why should I accept this claim? Where's the proof? Where's the evidence? There is virtually no philosopher today to adhere to this idea. Indeed a lot of our core belief about the world are not supported by evidence. What is the evidence that the world is real and not an illusion? What is the evidence the world was not created 5 minutes ago in the state it was 5 minutes ago? What is the evidence other people than me have a mind, and are not just programmed robots? As far as I can see, none.

If I simply know that God exists, the same way people have the conviction the universe is real and not an illusion, what good reason is there to reject that belief? The only reason I see that I would reject that belief is if I don't want God to exist. And indeed it seems to me that atheists hate the idea of God, and hate the idea of being morally accountable.

Now if some people believe there is no such thing as a sensus divinitatis, they are entitled to their opinion, but I'm wondering on what basis skeptics accuse theists of being irrational. Whatever slogan, or principles, the skeptic uses (like the one "Calli" is using, has that principle been proven with empirical evidence? Has it been proven with logic?

Hey, thedistillers? Before we move on to the rest of your points, would you do us the favor of directly addressing just a few of the points that were made in response to your previous posts? You advertised a dialogue in the thread title, but I'm kind of getting the sense of a monologue, here. Maybe even a full-fledged one-man show starring thedistillers as himself, written, directed, and produced by thedistillers.

Thanks in advance for your response to this.

[thedistillers]

I do feel I'm addressing the majority of people with my replies, is there anything specific you would like to me to answer? It would be too long to reply to each participant, but seeing you insist I will gladly answer to whatever question you might have.

[statichaos]

You will have to point to where the difference between these two come in.

The difference is that I have never met a person who seriously believe the FSM exists, so there is no need for me to pay attention to this God.

This is true for other religions as well. So if your view was right you would be risking A LOT by not accepting Muhammed as the true prophet.

Life is a risk. It's very dangerous out there.

Now since there excist no valid evidence for ANY god excisting, none whatsoever, the default position must be atheism.

That's a non sequitur; that you personally don't see any evidence for God, it does not follow that God does not exist.

This seems like a good place to start. I don't see any questions, but these points haven't been addressed by you to any significant degree.

Well. How do you find out if something is true then? Just wanting it to be true and "feeling it in your heart" isn't going to make it true. You're going to have to ask for evidence at one point. I have at times seriously believed from the bottom of my heart that there were monsters in my closet, that I have seen ghosts, that I had magical abilities, that I could affect objects and other people's thoughts by the power of my own mind, etc. I admit I was a child at the time, but I truly believed. I can see how none of these things are true, and are merely wishful thinking brought upon by fairy tales and the world/people around me. All made up concepts. If I were going to state that any of these preposterous claims were true I'd HAVE to resort to finding evidence.

So no, that there is no evidence does not necessarily mean that there is no god, but it gives a DAMN good indication that this is the case. Do you not find it a bit strange that during the last hundred years of scientific enlightenment and asking for evidence to there being a god we have found NONE? What we have is a wish for a god in some people, we have a feeling, we have established religions actively trying to convince people to believe in it. But we have nothing, absolutely nothing, in the real world that indicates a supreme being interfering with our lives.

And due to this lack of any evidence it is almost 100% certain that there can be no such thing. Sure, we can leave the possibility open, but how does that help us. If we have a 0,000000000000000000001 probability per god the chances are still pretty weak. So why insist on this based only on wishful thinking and a "feeling in the heart"?

[thedistillers]

Well. How do you find out if something is true then?

I don't think there is a way to find out if what we believe is really true. I think there are many core beliefs that we assume to be true in the absence of a defeater. And in my opinion, it's a perfectly rational way to deal with reality.

Do you not find it a bit strange that during the last hundred years of scientific enlightenment and asking for evidence to there being a god we have found NONE?

Considering God is an immaterial entity, I do not find it strange at all. Why do you expect evidence for the existence of God?

And due to this lack of any evidence it is almost 100% certain that there can be no such thing.

I don't see how it follows? And to answer statichaos, I feel "Normal" reply is exactly the type of reply I addressed in my last post.

[Mac_Guffin]

...God is an immaterial entity...

The boogeyman is also an immaterial entity. Do you believe in the boogeyman?

[statichaos]

"Immaterial entity" proves nothing. You're just getting back to the FSM there. And stating that one is more likely to be true than the other due to the beliefs of a number of people is simply an appeal to numbers. That's a bit like saying that the Earth was flat when enough people believed that it was.