As atheist ads hit London’s buses on Tuesday, one faith-based think tank says they will only get people thinking more about God.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Akira Suemori)Professor Richard Dawkins, the author of non-fiction book 'The God Delusion', poses for photographers in front of a London bus featuring the atheist advertisement with the slogan 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life' in London, Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009. The campaign supported by professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association is a response to evangelical Christian advertisements running on buses in June 2008. For the campaign 800 buses featuring the slogan are running across the country and 1000 advertisements are posted on the London underground railway system.
The ads by the British Humanist Association carry the slogan “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” They are to appear on 30 of London’s bendy buses.
The posters are the atheist response to a number of high profile Christian advertising campaigns on London buses and billboards, notably ones run by the Alpha Course, whose posters ask, "Is this it?" and "If God did exist, what would you ask him?"
The atheist ads have been publicly endorsed and partially financed by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, who told the BBC that the ad campaign was designed to make people think, an action he said was “anathema to religion.”
The public theology think tank Theos has welcomed the campaign, saying it will encourage more people to think about the existence of God.
"We think that the campaign is a great way to get people thinking about God. The posters will encourage people to consider the most important question we will ever face in our lives,” said Theos Director Paul Woolley.
"The slogan itself is a great discussion starter. Telling someone 'there's probably no God' is a bit like telling them that they've probably remembered to lock their front door. It creates the doubt that they might not have done so.”
Woolley said that a new Theos research study, due to be published next month, had revealed that there were as many people finding God in Britain today as there were people losing their faith.
“So this campaign is speaking into a very live debate,” he said.
Mike Elms, a fellow of The Marketing Society and former chief executive of ad agencies Ogilvy & Mather and Tempus/CIA, said that the campaign could play a role in the revival of Christianity.
"For too long, the British public has been able to dodge the 'God choice' - is there or isn't there? - by scribbling ‘C of E’ on their hospital admission form,” he said.
“But now atheists are challenging us to make that choice one way or another. The atheist campaign opens the door toward a very public debate on the existence and nature of God."
The head of Church Army, Mark Russell, has also previously expressed his support for the ads in his blog, "Mark Russell’s reflections."
"I love that the advert says 'probably,'" he wrote, "so it seems the atheists are not sure if there is a God or not!! I hope people will take time out from the busyness of their everyday lives and think openly about the issues."
RSS
READY : Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:01 AM
Subject: SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ME THEN ???
"Thus Saith The Lord GOD, Creator Of Heaven and earth and The Father Of JESUS CHRIST, My Son, The Lord. My Holy Book, The Perfect Holy Bible, is Written for you TODAY, yet ye deny that I even exist, Saith The Holy Spirit. Therefore, Saith The LORD, even JEHOVAH By My Son, Saith God; therefore, I could not possibly be able to blow out the power to your locations and then bankrupt your corrupt organisation Saith The Angel of destruction Of The LORD, sent upon you. I could not possibly be able to Reveal this New Fact in Advance to you as I simply don't exist, Saith God. I could not become your enemy and torment and vex your every plan Saith The LORD God of Heaven and earth, because I don't exist, Saith The Father, Author of The Most Holy Bible.
Therefore, Behold, I AM and all herein is NOW Ordained, that when Complete ye may verily Believe that I AM and Repent, Believe The Gospel and be Baptized, for surely Hell awaits ALL who wilfully deny and refuse The Salvation By My Son, even JESUS CHRIST The Lord. Yea Saith The Lord JESUS CHRIST, verily indeed. So Saith The Father, With The Son, By The Immaculate Holy Ghost. Thus Saith The Eternal Amen." Selah and Alleluia
Here is the Confirmed END of this corrupt and evil institution, for all the wickedness it has spawned since 1896. This is NOW unstoppable, even the Supernatural Tenfold Decimation of your beast.
For the individuals, so sold out to Satan, take shelter in The Ark Of The Church and do it FAST : The Whirlwind of the Living God is Coming upon you and when Complete, be thankful your lives have been spared by the Mercy Of Christ, and THEN Repent and Believe and be Baptized; yet, SOONER rather than LATER.
In The Immaculate Name Of The Lord JESUS CHRIST Himself, Alive in Heaven NOW - Amen
Exodus 23: 20 - 22
Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
"I AM JEHOVAH AND JESUS COMBINED,
Even God Himself that Speaketh
unto thee ALL Today, Saith The Lord."
THE WORD OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST -
The TRUE Holy Gospel Of Mark : 16 : 15-16
"And he said unto them,
Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned."
PLEASE WARN EVERYONE IN THE HUMANIST
ORGANISATION ABOUT THIS PROPHECY - From HENCEFORTH NOW : THIS PROPHECY CANNOT BE BROKEN
In The Immaculate Name Of The Lord JESUS CHRIST Himself, Alive in Heaven NOW - Amen
truthseeker,
Again you prove my point meticulously. Quoting the bible, especially all the parts that tell me to "fear" and if I don't fear I'm going to hell. This is what turns most non-religious people away from religion. Why should we fear god if he forgives us if we just ask for forgiveness? If he loves all of us, why fear him? The bible is the perfect example of an attempt at brainwashing. You just read to the uneducated masses a book that threatens them with an eternity spent in hell if they don't give their life over to your "god". You fill the book with stories, yes stories, of people who went against god and were stricken down to drive your point home. As for your engine comparison, nice try. I didn't ask you to describe god, I asked you to prove one exists. I can prove there is such a thing as an engine by walking out to my garage and lifting the hood. As for your god, no one has ever, or will ever have any tangible proof that he exists. But in the meantime, go ahead and try to scare the pants off of anyone not smart enough to think for themselves by threatening them with eternity in hell. Here's one of my favorite quotes that sums up what an ever increasing number of Americans think about religion. The rest can be found at this site: http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm "Religion easily has the greatest b...s..t story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good b...s..t story." Enough said.
To uivandal,
I wanted to give a final comment to your last posting, since I have more important things to do than to get into a theological argument with you. Each individual's salvation ultimately depends on his/her ability for critical and logical thinking, and being able to weigh the pros and cons of any belief system and how it ultimately affects them. As to your instruction to 'prove' God apart from mentioning scripture is as silly and illogical as to ask someone to describe how an automobile's engine works, and not be able to mention: valves, pistons, and camshafts. As to the 'proving' part, you seem to have conveniently ignored how I mentioned to you that God revealed himself to my mind by His Spirit. As to the Bible having been written just by men, you need to read a book called 'Theomatics' by Del Washburn, and to also realize that God's warning to all those who mock and hate His Word is clear: "Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed; but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded." (Proverbs 13:13). As for your comment of my story being a 'fairy tale' it's expected, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (I Corinthians 1:18). Now as far as your comment of you not fearing Hell doesn't surprise me in the least bit, for "The fear of the LORD is the BEGINNING of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7). And last but certainly not least, to your comment of leading an "honorable life", all I can say to that is: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." (Proverbs 12:15), and even more harshly: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12). Enough said.
truthseeker777,
Thanks for proving my point. I have yet to have anyone prove the existance of god without trying to throw a bible verse in there. Guess what, god didn't write the bible, a bunch of men did. All I want is even the smallest bit of proof. Not a story, not a fairy tale about some "supernatural code". Just show me one person who has physically seen god, or heard actual audible words from god that anyone standing nearby could have heard. When you get some physical proof, let me know. Until then, you go on believing whatever will help you sleep better at night, and I'll keep living an honorable life (not because I'm scared of going to hell, but because it is the right thing to do).
To uivandal:
Im responding to your post because I don't want you to think that we 'Christians' are afraid to prove our position. You claim that you want proof, well guess what, so did I. I began my desperate search for the Truth through science, more specifically 'physics'. I studied Einstein's general theory of Relativity and the Quantum theory with a passion, and understood both these subjects. In a turn of events in my life I came to realize science wasn't going to save my soul. This is when of my own free will I decided to finally dig into the Holy scriptures for myself, as I wasn't going to trust or take the word of any man as to what the Bible itself teaches. After 3.5 years of desperately seeking God and his truth through his Word, on March 25,1995 I received the powerful baptism of the Holy Spirit which opened both my eyes and understanding. You see the 'Bible' is written in dimensions, and it's supernatural 'code' is only revealed to those who desperately search for it. Now I have merged the scientific with the scriptures proving beyond any doubt, they are one and the same. I challenge you to read my book. Jesus himself stated: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)
It's amazing that since my last post, 2 people gave it the thumbs down, but no one attempted to prove me wrong. Typical response when I ask "christians" to prove there is a god. Lots of stone throwing, but no proof!!!
Here's a challenge to all you beleivers. Prove that there is a god without quoting the bible. If you can prove to me that there is actually an all-seeing, all powerful god, I will go to church every Sunday from now till the day I die. I want actual proof, not "I prayed and my prayer was answered", or "it's a matter of faith", or "according to this verse in the bible..." etc. I want actual physical proof!!! Any takers? I doubt it, I'll probably just get a bunch of negative responses telling me how uneducated I am. Look forward to being proven wrong.
I find it very sad that man tries so hard to deny God's obvious existence in order to justify his own sinful lifestyle. That in itself is bad alone, but the fact that they zealously try to propagate their humanistic world view to indoctrinate others is outrageous. Im glad that im putting an end to all this scientific debate about God's existence once and for all with my new book. The scientific community will literally follow the Bible and it's message with more zeal and understanding than the religious one; and come to know and understand JESUS!
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~52525.aspx
Evidently Mr/Ms. Free, you missed the entire nature of the add, which was based on critically analyzing the premise of god existence & not merely presuming it to exist regardless.
How about an ad that says, "There is Only God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
agentorangex, sorry for the delay in responding.
thanks for the last response in which you acknowledge the possibility of supernatural. You indicate quite rightly that the logical possibility, plausibility, or even nescessity of a supernatural does not in itslef nessecitate "God" unless of course one plays semantics and says whatever that supernatural is we will simply call that god. That being said as you must know I beleive that it can be shown both logically and empiracally that the supernatural must exist. I also believe that it the nature of this can be somewhat explored by applying rational inferences and extensions to the evidence for its existence. would love to discuss more but must go now hope to continue in future and on additonal posts. Matrix despite being a movie is a good thought experiment for the old vat in a brain hypothesis which is helpful in eliminating false leads in this matter.
Some might like to read this interview with Richard Dawkins concerning the bus, it was featured in the LA Times (go on, you know you want to, you little tykes...)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-dawkins-qa12-2009jan12,0,3974830.story?page=1
Viking,
"Do you agree with this?"
Sure, it's logically sound. Though, for a given proposition, before it's determined which one is true, or best supported based on evidence which is true, any possibilities for the proposition would have to be included as possible. I understand the inverse of A principle.
Felix could be anything, but to determine its nature requires using evidence to define first what felix is not (falsification), then after removing the outliers we can reasonably begin to know what Felix truly is. Mostly we can know what felix isn't in relation to its nature, & based on this evidence we can assign a probabiliy of its nature.
By providing in the beginning only 2 options of existence, & then premising it forward it's basically begging the question. I am not saying the supernatural isn't possible, but the nature of a hypothetical supernatural could equally be 'The Matrix' s opposed to 'God'. The supernatural is something for which no limits of the mind can bound, so any number of possible supernatural realms are possible.
I'll respond later, duties call.
Viking,
"Here is an example of why that research can not ultimately demonstrate what you are proposing."
I stated earlier that I think we have free will, at least to a limited extent anyway. Either way, neuroscience is young, it's tentative for such a heavy question, but has some answers for limited questions. It's fair to say that this study while demonstrative of the will of a conscious being, it would also imply that a person who's brain is unresponsive to outside stimuli due to injury wouldn't be able to comprehend let alone will themselves to voluntary or involuntary control of their limbs. All it shows is the mind/matter are one.
They would in affect be more like a person who's had a stroke & their have difficulty controlling themselves. They might not even recognize them self in the mirror. Ever watched Momento? It's based on examples of people who suffer from a brain injury disorder.
Agentorangex,
As an aside in regards to "as I showed the matter/mind correlation studies show the natural world to be explicitly linked, one can't be conscious outside of material mind."
This has been accepted a fact of the arguments for several hundred years. Descartes presumed this to be the case without any neuroscience. Since it is already and accepted fact its confirmation through neuroscience doesn't impact the question.
Viking,
"you mean ordered not rational."
Ordered = rational, no? =) I am not stating it's a giant mind in itself, please don't confuse. Rather, I am trying to say that it works in orderly, systematic, (one might say predetermined) manner.
After all, you're saying philosophical naturalists refer to the material world as behaving in a non rational (non conscious, forward thinking) way. But what I am saying is that in science (in tradition w/ being naturalistic in its philosophy), its method presumes that nature is orderly/rational in that it & all things in it can be discerned via analysis via studying the principle of cause & effect. This assumes, at least at the micro -level of determinism. But, this determinism is viewed in an after the fact retrospect fashion, one in which Biologists like Gould, Miller & others often refer to the 'rewinding the tape of the Universe' & playing it again & the results would invariably be different as there exists very high levels of variability within & based on contingency of previous outcomes extracting full on determinism from big bang to now is illusory.
There is no teleology in inferred in science, as it attempts to study the material relationships, not presumed intention where one may not/doesn't exist. This is where philosophical naturalism & supernaturalism really differ, in their differing pursuits of reality & how it's to be understood. I don't think I need to mention which we use, nor which is best applicable both in reductionism & demonstrative fruits of its efforts. We wouldn't be talking in this manner otherwise.
These fruits, if nothing else, demonstrate which method of introspection gets results, so clearly the naturalistic view, regardless if's it's the end all be all best method of all possible methods is not to be ignored when attempting to discover reality. Why, so easily, give up on a method of analysis which fruits are so apparent in retrospect & in contrary to the alternative? Now that would be irrational.
Agentorangex those last few posts I tried to include a long cut an paste on the free will issue didn't work well. Okay lets go back to the issue you identify as a hurdle before further progress.
You've still failed to show how rationality (disillusioned or not, regardless of our limited understanding of it) couldn't derive from non rational material forces. Until this hurdle is cleared, there is no point in going forward with a priori for which can't be supported. Otherwise, you're in a position of decrying 'red is red b/c it's red!' without a comprehensive relation to other colors.
Okay first I don't understand your reference to the color issue at all. Setting that aside lets go back to the issue of rationality. Lets try it this way.
If A is the exact contradiction of B, and we show that A is incorrect then by the rules of logic B is correct.
For example if we have two statements
A:Felix is a cat
and
B:Felix is not a cat
and we show that it is not correct that Felix is a Cat then we know that Felix is not a Cat.
Do you agree with this?
Viking,
"why do we consider any proposition plausible. The rule generally are two fold one is it logically consistent (rational) and two is it consistent with our experience (empirical). Well we have already shown that the naturalist proposition is not rational"
All you've shown is that the mind itself *might* not behave rationally, not that it is. The corelation I attemped earlier indicates that the cause & effect within the matter of the brain & its enviroment determine to a great deal how it behaves in turn. It's
the matter, neurons, etc. are not a free wheeling objects on its own agenda, its actions fall in accordance with outside stimuli for which it has limited control over (hormones). IE, The brains actions don't exist in a vacum, they exist as an effect (from cause) of outside stimuli, from the natural world. In this sense saying one has complete free will/choice in all instances is wrong, they would have limited ones at best.
You've still failed to show how rationality (disillusioned or not, regardless of our limited understanding of it) couldn't derive from non rational material forces. Until this hurdle is cleared, there is no point in going forward with a priori for which can't be supported. Otherwise, you're in a position of decrying 'red is red b/c it's red!' without a comprehensive relation to other colors.
It only appears to be logically inconsistent if one considers that matter in motion can't culminate in rationality in the first place. You're basically saying rationality can't exist outside of supernaturalism for naturalism can't account for the processes of the mind, but as I showed the matter/mind correlation studies show the natural world to be explicitly linked, one can't be conscious outside of material mind.
falsify this prediction by failing to
raise your arm? But if you can falsify any prediction
about your arm, and if the prediction is derived perfectly
from a comprehensive knowledge of your
body’s constituent micro-particles, then your mind
must be free. In a crucial sense, then, the denial of
free will is predicated on our ignorance of the very
causal laws that supposedly show that free will is impossible.
For once these allegedly binding laws of nature
were compiled and capable of making falsifiable
empirical predictions, it would be child’s play to falsify
them forthwith. Surely if human behavior were unfree,
then science could in theory at least predict when
I am going to raise my hand. And why should the
equations be unable to compensate for the subject’s
knowledge of the prediction? And yet, it is very hard
to believe that upon the proclamation of these alleged
causal laws, that I would find it any harder to falsify
them than I would find it to falsify e.g. the reader’s
prediction about when I will raise my hand.
Nor would it help if these scientific laws were probabilistic
rather than deterministic. It is child’s play to
falsify the prediction that I will raise my right hand
now with certainty. Is it any harder to falsify the
claim that I will now raise my right hand with probability
.3? Simply by deciding not to raise it, couldn’t
I instantly make the probability equal to zero?
Agentorangex,
Here is an example of why that research can not ultimately demonstrate what you are proposing. This is an excerpt from a discussion of the arguments regarding free will by a gentleman named Bryan Caplin.
D. A Thought Experiment Showing the Freedom
of the Will
Fourth, try the following thought experiment. Our
brilliant neurophysiologists come up with an equation
that they claim will predict all of our behavior. The
equation is so good that it even incorporates our reaction
to the equation, our reaction to knowing that it
incorporates our reaction, and so on indefinitely. Suppose
that the equation says that the next thing that you
will do is raise your arm. Do you seriously believe
that you couldn’t falsify this prediction by failing to
raise your arm? But if you can falsify any prediction
about your arm, and if the prediction is derived perfectly
from a comprehensive knowledge of your
body’s constituent micro-particles, then your mind
must be free. In a crucial sense, then, the denial of
free will is predicated on our ignorance of the very
causal laws that supposedly show that free will is impossible.
For once these allegedly binding laws of nature
were compiled and capable of making falsifiable
empirical predictions, it would be child’s play to falsify
them forthwith. Surely if human behavior were unfree,
then science could in theory at least predict when
I am going to raise my hand. And why should the
equations be unable to compensate for the subject’s
knowledge of the prediction? And yet, it is very hard
to believe that upon the proclamation of these alleged
causal laws, that I would find it any harder to falsify
them than I would find it to falsify e.g. the reader’s
prediction about when I will raise my hand.
Nor would it help if these scientific laws were probabilistic
rather than deterministic. It is child’s play to
falsify the prediction that I will raise my right hand
now with certainty. Is it any harder to falsify the
claim that I will now raise my right hand with probability
.3? Simply by deciding not to raise it, couldn’t
I instantly make the probability equal to zero?
Agentorangex, Hi again you state that
with respect to the neuroscience studies, Science as a mode of methodological analysis asserts that Nature is rational (symmetry in physics would be an example)
I think you mean ordered not rational. I think if you check no naturalist scientist would say that nature is rational. In fact just the opposite. If you are saying that rationality is an innate feature of the universe then you would be moving from naturalism into a belief system where the entire universe itself is somehow a giant mind. I don't think that you could provide empirical support for that proposition.
Hi steve20 thanks for the link,
Viking, with respect to the neuroscience studies, Science as a mode of methodological analysis asserts that Nature is rational (symmetry in physics would be an example), & therefore possible of questioning & reasoning based on evidence.
I would also like to add for clarification that the results from the studies indicate a correlation between mind/matter & cause & effect for which your most recent description on how biological, environmental causes results in the X in the equation. Under this view, it makes the notion of choice look illusive if not ultimately quasi true at best.
Agentorangex,
we have touched on empiricism before and I (as it seems you do place great stock) in empirical evidence. So lets see if we can find some empirical evidence for the supernatural after all. First we must see if we agree on what empirical evidence is.
Let's start with Wiki's definition as a starting point (they don't seem to have a religious bias)
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment[1], as opposed to theoretical.
Would you agree with this definition?
agentorangex,
Hi again. You state in part,
"Perhaps rationality itself is an illusion" and
"Naturalism itself all beliefs including naturalism itself (along with belief in the scientific method etc.) are "ultimately non-rational"
Unfortunately, this seems to be the case
Of course this is the case for naturalists and is one of the reasons that metaphysical naturalism rather than methodological naturalism is a self defeating argument.
You go on to state,
but this notion of irrationality would equally apply to all other beliefs, even the supernatural. So it's sorta moot I think.
This of course is not the case. )
Lets assume for a moment the opposite a priori proposition from naturalism. This being that the natural universe is not the sum total of all reality and that there is in fact something beyond the natural universe. Why would we consider this proposition plausible. Well why do we consider any proposition plausible. The rule generally are two fold one is it logically consistent (rational) and two is it consistent with our experience (empirical). Well we have already shown that the naturalist proposition is not rational meaning that it is not logicaly consistent. Not let us show that it is not consistent with our experience (empirical either). Once we demonstrate that we have a strong reason for believing that the contradiction supernature is true just as a matter of logic.
But beyond that we can also demonstrate that contrary to the claims of naturalists a supernatural belief system is both rational (logicaly consistent) and empirical (consistent with our experience). Also you will see that even naturalists despite what they say they believe actually act in daily life and even their arguments as if their arguments are wrong and supernaturalism is correct.
You know,my dear old mum always said ,its always best to get it straight from the horses mouth(I would add God bless her soul, but she's not dead). So read Ariane Sherine's(the lady behind the advert)own words...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5488849.ece
The Australian slogan made me laugh.
BW
Steve
Viking,
"Your certainty of the sun rising is a simple consequence of consistent experience not of rational reasoning."
This doesn't sound right. Wouldn't the notion of 'rational reasoning' be explicitly linked to consistent experience? After all, if one isn't referring to experience for their rationale for a proposition, it wouldn't be logical, but a decry from authority.
"You did not reason out from propositions logically"
He gave an alternative, the supernova being highly unlikely given our experience, & so one can logically conclude the sun will rise w/ the nearest possibility to 100%, that it might as well be certain.
As for rationality, I will be tentative, we might be unable to grasp the overall abstract cumulative effects from a group of neurons firing to indicating a predetermined actions by individuals, at least as of now. But studies have shown a strong correlation between certain mental illnesses & brain/matter disability, along with analysis' of the brain demonstrating which parts of the brain reacts in accordance w/ certain emotions, modes of thought, & especially while under different levels of stress. This fits with the naturalism view of mind/matter being linked as one. It might show overall predetermination, yet, but the correlation is indisputable.
If neuroscience is simply the last gap for god/supernatural to hide in, then I wouldn't hold your breath too long. Science has, over the centuries continually shrunk the gaps, & this doesn't appear to be any different.
"if you accept this proposition then you are conceding that none of your own thoughts are at bottom rational or have any certainty."
This 'non certainty' would seem to support 'free will/choice', in the abstract top level, but at the very lowest material actions in the brain/matter, these are not within our control nor a matter of intention nor choice.
We don't actively choose when certain hormones are released via puberty, such as a male you might know of the *cough* oddity of how the male sex organ seems to have a mind of its own at times. Did you 'choose' to be straight, or do you have a genetic predisposition to finding the opposite sex attractive? This wasn't something you 'chose' either, it's genetically bound. In this sense, we're partially slaves to our genes, but we still reserve the choice to obey them or not. This is often, I think, interpreted by theists as the issue of sin, thought variations exist dependent on religion on what is & isn't sin.
DP,
"I don't know. I thought my post was kind-o simple."
I really don't think Steve was reffering to you or your post, I take it he's recalling the dialog between Viking & I in general & the past 200+ years of philosophical thought on the matter.
Viking,
No worries about it being late, the feeling is mutual.
"For naturalism is certainly a belief, and it is certainly true that naturalism entails that all beliefs are ultimately nonrational"
This still doesn't get at the heart of what I asked, being why non rational acting matter in motion can't equate to a rational thinking mindset. Perhaps rationality itself is an illusion. Deep.
If our very method of belief/thinking is derived irrationally, then no matter how how rational we interpret nature to be, it might be all for not. Natural or supernatural, they all would come under this.
In the end, this may be something for which we also can't empirically know. Though, in itself it doesn't then support the supernatural as an alternative hypothesis explanation. it just posits the mind/matter issue you aforementioned. An unsolved logic puzzle doesn't therefore become evidence for the supernatural, it's just perhaps beyond our comprehension temporarily.
"in the sense that belief-formation analyzed to its simplest causal components is a mindless, mechanical process under naturalism."
This almost makes it sound like the material mind is mindless, or on auto pilot, basically self refuting. What I would say is, that at the lowest common denominator anyway, it's material based in our thought processes (chemical neurons & such), but the culmination is elusive as it seems to conflict w/ the notion of determinism as one might expect by simply sing the 'matter in motion' principle. I think, high variability, of mind material processes would lead to (culminate) in complexity in such an abstract way, in which we'd call it a 'belief'. The only analogy that comes to mind is are fractals, in which small math variables culminate for an abstract comprehensive repeating image.
We should note that our brains, if we take the evolutionary route, is one in which arose in social groups & where mere genetically bound instinctual survival traits wasn't the whole equation of our (or our immediate ancestors) actions.
Its very inception of beginning to end in a thinking process isn't supernatural in nature, but natural. natural/material based. Neuroscience has shown this much already.
"Naturalism itself all beliefs including naturalism itself (along with belief in the scientific method etc.) are "ultimately non-rational"
Unfortunately, this seems to be the case, but this notion of irrationality would equally apply to all other beliefs, even the supernatural. So it's sorta moot I think.
"well ain't that a kicker."
Yes, I agree, it's a pickle.
DP,
"In my case, I have seen"
Here again you're referring to ones own subjective view, & not an objective one on what is & isn't improbable. From a single perspective, it may appear highly improbable, but across many numerous people the odds change. Additionally, the necessary element of coincidence can't be ignored.
"We're talking about always being able to find a job that met my needs even when others were not able to find a job."
And this is a miracle how? Surely there are jobs out there which offer variables that meet your needs, all one needs is numbers of attempts to find what they need. If, you're already setting up a wall of requirements, which you were, for which *only these jobs will works* then you've already laid out the ground work of narrowing down applicable jobs & from then on can begin to network on acquiring them. No doubt some legwork was involved on your part, but go ahead, ignore this too as part of the equation.
My parents were booked on a flight in the Philippines but were able to get an earlier flight to have a few weeks they wanted in Manila before leaving the islands. The plane they were booked on was taken over by terrorists and destroyed."
Where's the miracle part come in? was it prayed for? If not (b/c it seems not here), then why would such favorable things occur regardless? Coincidence ring a bell?
"I got custody of my kids in SC in the 90's!"
Miracle enters where here? again, you were involved in authoring things in this story, it wasn't something which 'fell in your' lap for lack of better words.
"The list of how God protected me from the sins of my Their just happened to be unscheduled road work on the interstate at the exact time she was heading to court and it made her 2 hours late.
Hate to break it to you, but 'road work' happens all the time, & is often a reason for travel delay. You take it as providence, but it's mere coincidence of circumstances. She could've, had she really cared, ensured to be on time by checking the routes to court.
"if I had that same kind of "luck" I could go to Vegas and have all the money anyone could want!"
But oddly you wont do that.
"My entire life experience is not probable." Silly, everyone's entire moment by moment of their life is highly improbable. For instance, what are the odds I'd be hear now, right now, typing on this speaking with you giving my entire life's history? Very small, highly improbable. The notion is derived by our choices themselves which are highly variable.
Viking,
"you will find the problem of "color" (not race issues) very illuminating if complex"
I don't follow, elaborate & exlplain please.
Klutu, hi thanks for your response.
Yes of course I am suggesting that if Naturalism is incorrect then supernaturalism is correct. All naturalists (philisophical not ecological or nudist) hold by definition that nothing exists beyond the natural universe. Supernaturalism is the logical contradiction of Naturalism. Under fundamental rules of logic if a proposition is shown to be incorrect then its contradiction is by definition correct. Regarding the use of the specific quote and different versions of naturalisms. Within philosophy there are logical corrolaries of propositions. What I quoted was one such for naturalism. One way of discrediting an a priori proposition is to show that its logical corolarries are false.
In relation to selecting the correct deity. I did not in my arguments in this post suggest any particular deity choice. More to the point the bus ads in specific and naturalism in general does not argue that this or that particular religion is wrong but rather that the whole concept of supernature is incorrect. so that issue is really not relevant to the question at hand.
In regards to the issue of whether your belief based on consistent personal experience is rational. The concept of it being rational is based on the idea that you can make a choice between propositions or conclusions based on evidence and the intentional application of logic. The problem is that naturalism by definition says that you are fundamentally not rational. A naturalist position holds that you have no choice in what you conclude (or for that matter what you post here) rather casuality is deterministic.
I do not make this claim for them this is there claim as example a quote from the website Naturalism.org
" From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people think of as free will, being able to cause our behavior without our being fully caused in turn"
Of course behavior includes mental behavior thus according to the naturalists (not me) none of your propositions, thoughts, beliefs are rational. But then again according to them neither are their's.
Thanks for your clarification of your comments related to the use of the term probably and religious persons reaction to the denial of a deities existence. I think your earlier post on the ad rules is most accurate since according to my reading of the sponsors statements they were quite willing to omit probably regardless of public reaction.
viking
You seem to be suggesting that the only two options are naturalism as defined by the quote you gave and supernaturalism. Therefore if you can show that naturalism is wrong supernaturalism must be right. However naturalism has more than one definition and not all naturalist have the same idea of what naturalism is. So showing the first option is wrong does not automatically make your second option right. Also even if supernaturalism is right, how do you decide which god to pick, there are thousand to pick from. What evidence is there for one religion being right that only applies to that one religion and cannot apply equally well for all religions.
Re 'consistent experience' If you have consistent experience of something happening on a regular basis your entire life and have no reason to think it will stop happening then it is rational to reason that it will continue to happen. Just because I didn't come to that conclusion by working it out from first principles doesn't make my reason for being certain not rational.
My comments on peoples reactions to denial of a god was not in any way intended as evidence for or against any god, but just as an explaination why using 'probably' makes it easier in conversation when denying an existence of a god. Its just avoids the usual response of 'how can you be so certain'. I also added that thinking I was arrogant for denying their religion while not considering themselves arrogant for denying all other religions was hypocritical. Of course this makes no comment on whether they are right or not. A person could be arrogant and hypocritical and still be completely correct.
Steve20 thanks good night and have fun with the geology.
Thanks viking.
In a sense the moon "did" contribute to the early Earths internal heat source in two ways(which as noted is the basis for geological activity). The first was the moons formation, when a body the size of Mars impacted the early Earth at a shallow angle this sent material into orbit around the Earth which accreted to form the moon, this impact added to the Earths heat budget. The early moon being closer to the Earth would have resulted in the Earths internal heat increasing due to tidal heating though today this contribution is negligible. Tidal heat today is a major source of geological activity on some of the moons of the giant planets, such as Io which orbits Jupiter.
I think you can tell where my passion lies. Its getting late in the UK and I have to be up early for work so sleep night.
Steve20 the deeper truth I think you may be striking closer to is that faith can not be achieved through reason. However I believe that an openness to faith can be achieved through reason. I believe as did your countryman Lewis that for some people the application of reason to show the inherent self contradiction of Naturalism.
Hi Steve20,
Thanks for the info. As an aside doesn't the prescence of the moon somewhat permutate the geology of the earth.
Re the argument from reason. The basic argument can be summed up as a variant on Descartes famous statement as
I think therefore God is.
The complexities of the argument arise as part of the debate however this is the simplified form of it.
The coresponding proposition of naturalism is that The natural world is all there is therefore I only think I think.
Hi viking, thanks for the reply, I understand where you are coming from.
If anything I would say that whilst details can be complicated my chosen hobby (not sure it did not choose me)actually makes a certain aspect of the world very simple. All geology, plate tectonics, magma formation, deposition, what ever..is the result of one very simple thing and that is that the Earth is radiating its internal heat source, there that's it in a nutshell, that's the sole driving force for all the worlds geological features. The same with evolution by natural selection, yep detail can be complicated but at the end its a very simple idea that explains the bio diversity of this planet, take Kepler's three laws for planetary orbits, lovely and simple. Modern scientific ideas tend to simplify understanding how the natural world works(of course the devil is in the detail). It appears to me that the arguments for the existence for God have gone the other way as the world has been simplified, I can't help but feel that it has become just an argument over words, one that simply ends in stale mate.
Klutu, hi thanks for the response. I believe you were using certain in the common every day usage rather than the philisophical issue of certainty.
Your certainty of the sun rising is a simple consequence of consistent experience not of rational reasoning. You did not reason out from propositions logically that the sun will rise tommorow (setting aside that the phrase sun will rise is a vestigal mental artifact of pre copernican thinking). So this example has no relevance to the question at hand.
In relation to your discussion of the comparative reactions of persons to various statements of denial of the existence of a particular deity the emotional reactions of individuals bears of course no relevance to the merits of an argument and to introduce it as evidence of the opposite is as irrational as the emotional response itself.
Regarding Dawkins arguments. I have not read his book yet. However in my earlier post I did not as you may note attempt to critique the use of the term probably by contesting the position of naturalists such as Dawkin's. Rather I showed through the use of one of the widely accepted tenents of naturalism (quoting one eminent naturalist apologist) that the use of the term probably is inherently inconsistent with their own arguments regarding the nature of reality. Let me ask you if you accept one of the cornerstone orioisutuibs of naturalism (of which Dawkins is one) that being
"For naturalism is certainly a belief, and it is certainly true that naturalism entails that all beliefs are ultimately nonrational, in the sense that belief-formation analyzed to its simplest causal components is a mindless, mechanical process under naturalism.
(Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason: Richard Carrier 2004)
Please keep in mind if you accept this proposition then you are conceding that none of your own thoughts are at bottom rational or have any certainty.
On the other hand if you reject this proposition you reject naturalism and monism and by implication accept supernaturalism and dualism.
Dawkins and other naturalists can not with intellectual honesty have it both ways. Denying rationality as a fundamental tenent of their belief system and then claiming to have it when it is convenient.
There should be the word 'discussions' after 'philosophical' in my last post.
viking
I used "certain of this as anyone can be of anything" as in philosophical any claim to be certain is usually met (in my experience) with 'well you cannot be absolutely 100% certain'. Well I cannot be absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, it might go supernova overnight, but I consider the chance so remote and the odds of the sun rising tomorrow so close to 100% that I might as well assume it is 100% for any decision dependant on that. So I tend to use some form of 'as certain as possible' statement to preempt that.
Regarding certainty of non existence of a god. I can say 'I am certain that Zeus does not exist' without needing to clarify that I do not mean absolute certainty. However for modern religions saying, for example, that you are certain that Allah does not exist will be met with accusations of being arrogant and the statement of 'you cannot prove he doesn't exist', though I can no more prove that than I can prove Zeus doesn't exist and denying Zeus' existence is not arrogant. Hence use of 'probably' when denying existence of something, it avoids this hypocrisy. Lack of belief in something does not require absolute certainty, just a lack of any reason TO believe.
Even if you are right that they have no rational argument to back up their position, that doesn't stop them from being certain that they are right does it? Whether a person is certain and whether a person is right are two separate concepts and one does not guarantee or preclude the other.
(p.s In The God Delusion, Richard does give many arguments for his position, if you can show that not one of those arguments is rational I'd love to see that proof.)
"more complicated until only the intellectual elite can actually understand it?"
I don't know. I thought my post was kind-o simple. Never thought of my self as part of the "intellectual elite".
klutu, Hi its interesting that you indicate that Dawkins and those others involved are as "certain of this as anyone can be of anything"
This is a remarkable statement since the belief system of naturalism holds that all beliefs (including itself and a belief that there is no God) are inherently at bottom non rational (see earlier post quoting famous naturalist thinker). Thus by the rules of the system of thought which forms the belief that there is no God they nor anyone else can have any certainty of the truth of that belief. What they are really saying is we prefer not to believe in a God and are not convinced of the existence of one despite having no rational argument for that position. Seems paradoxical but if you actually read up on naturalistic philosophy and monism you will find this is the case. Good luck.
Regarding the use of 'probably' that was only included due to advertising restrictions. The ASA wouldn't let them run the ad without that word. Richard Dawkins and most involved are as certain as anyone can be certain of anything that there is no god. As most stories I've seen about this have made that clear I'd guess Mark Russell is aware of this. He wouldn't have deliberately ignored this fact to make a cheap and misleading gibe at atheists would he?
Hi Steve20,
I think that the increasing complexity of the argument from reason is very similar to the increase in the complexity of the other theories of how the universe works (evolution for example) Initially Darwin's concept of natural selection was fairly straightforward but as we have gained more and more detailed information in many areas the system of thought has been updated revised and become increasingly complex. The same is true I believe for your chosen field. In the same way as research into the consiousness, identity, intenionality, neuroscience, etc,etc. have expanded the arguments from reason and other arguments related to the underlying in-validity of materialistic naturalism have expanded and developed greater robustness and complexity.
On the other hand you will find if you read these papers that supernturalism allows that some beliefs are rational including the scientific method. It seems paradoxical (and is not what is commonly mispercieved about these philosophies) but when you really dig down and understand naturalism (which underlies atheism) and supernaturalism (which underlies theism) that's how it actually works out. Again good luck.
Is it me viking or has the argument for the existence of God over the past say 200 years just become more and more complicated until only the intellectual elite can actually understand it? Reading these posts it certainly seems that way, is this because as knowledge of the world etc.. has increased this is the natural consequence?
Agentorangex,
by the way here is an example of the argument for naturalism and against supernaturalim given by the foremost critic of the "argument for reason".
For naturalism is certainly a belief, and it is certainly true that naturalism entails that all beliefs are ultimately nonrational, in the sense that belief-formation analyzed to its simplest causal components is a mindless, mechanical process under naturalism.
(Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason: Richard Carrier 2004)
In other words according to Naturalism itself all beliefs including naturalism itself (along with belief in the scientific method etc.) are "ultimately non-rational"
well ain't that a kicker.
Agentorangex, I spent some time looking for an appropriate web based resource on the issue of why the naturalist belief system is inherently self defeating. The web site below is a secular one committed to a naturalist world view and so is clearly not biased in favor of a religious view. Nevertheless it includes the most current update on the rational argument for supernature. It is deep going and requires some background in philosophy and logic to really understand the arguments but the arguments are well annotated so you can look up unfamiliar vocab or concepts. It also includes references to some other seminal papers and research on the topic. Good luck.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/reason.html
"Though, possibility, doesn't denote probability, there is a difference & based on evidence we choose which is more probable for each proposition. We use logic & reason, not emotion of life everlasting, to determine the probability for such propositions. Thus why the sign reads 'probably'."
In my case, I have seen year after year of highly improbable things occur consistant with what the Bible says God will do for us. We're not talking about praying for something to be on the menu tonight and it being there. We're talking about always being able to find a job that met my needs even when others were not able to find a job. My parents were booked on a flight in the Philippines but were able to get an earlier flight to have a few weeks they wanted in Manila before leaving the islands. The plane they were booked on was taken over by terrorists and destroyed. I got custody of my kids in SC in the 90's! The list of how God protected me from the sins of my ex-wife is astounding. We were praying at the initial hearing that God would act. Their just happened to be unscheduled road work on the interstate at the exact time she was heading to court and it made her 2 hours late. Why then? Why there? The list just goes on.
In short, if I had that same kind of "luck" I could go to Vegas and have all the money anyone could want! My entire life experience is not probable. Still, it exists. This is why the Bible calls for us to be "witnesses" of our faith. We can argue all day about posibilities and probabilities but my life experiences speak for themselves.
sorry nodded off there is after midnight here. Going to turn in. Keep up the reading particularly Russel. I think you will find the problem of "color" (not race issues) very illuminating if complex. goodnight.
"Actually materialists"
Ok, I understand where you're coming from, in this sense yes. We are material based objects.
"Socratic rhetorical method"
I enjoy the dialog regardless, no worries. Mostly I respect what you do, your profession, and as you understand the difference of 'knowing' & 'believing' in something as it relates to philosophy. This I often find on here many confuse.
"(Descartes, Hume, hobbs, Kant, etc) have struggled with."
No doubt, such intrinsically deep & existentially heavy introspection requires the utmost caution in progress. Who knows where the rabbit hole leads. This might not be the ideal forum, though I relish moments like this, regardless if I've taken the right position or not, I seek the opposition for clarity. I've read some works in western philosophy, Augustine, Aquinas, & classic Greco roman era, but haven't got to modern ones like Hume, Kant, Mills, Russel, or others just yet.
"evolution are necesary but insufficient causative factors in explaining identity, rationality and free will."
Any books of suggestion? I think it's a bit premature to assert evolution is adequate either, it has limits for sure. Necessary yes, but I think there is more related to neuroscience which is going to explain more details than evolution or biology for the brain/mind issue. A recent book I picked up 'did man create god' dives into this question.
Agentorangex,
Actually materialists (I use the term in is philisophical sense not its lay meeaning) all identify human beings as objects not agents. I apologize about the questions all comming from my side I was attempting to use the Socratic rhetorical method to draw out your thinking on the matter. I am sincerely trying to get across a very complex issue that the greatest minds in history (Descartes, Hume, hobbs, Kant, etc) have struggled with. Admittedly I am trying to push you beyond the issues of discrediting fairy tales (santa claus, unicorns, etc.) to serious consideration of the nature of reality. I believe that if you will make this step as hard as it is you will come to the logical and rational conclusion that natural causes including evolution are necesary but insufficient causative factors in explaining identity, rationality and free will. I don't think this forum is adequate for me to do that but I hope to spark your interest in going further and thinking these issues through. Good luck
Agentorangex, your last post made me realize that you are not clear on the distinction between relations of ideas (1+1=2) and matters of fact (sun earth system) as different classes of knowledge (Hume father of empiricism). In relation to this you can see that 1+1=2 is in fact a relational idea and has no inherent physical reality (the universe doesn't do math)but rather only has reality to the extent their are sentient beings able to apprehend it.
Viking,
"are human beings essentially objects (results of deterministic forces of nature) or agents (beings with free will and self conciousness capable of acting in ways not completely determined by antecedent conditions and natural processes)."
I think breaking it down to simply 'objects' is a bit oversimplified. Only pyhcos identify themselves as an object, most normal people consider the self in a subject stance in which all other things are objects teh subject relates to directly.
Watched Forrest Gump, lately? Is it fate, or is life like a box of chocolates, or is it like Gump stated near the end that's it's a little bit of both? =) In this instance I don't see why it can't be a little bit of both. Why couldn't rationality, consciousness arise from natural processes? Act as I might, if I am involved in a serious accident & suffer brain trauma, my own concept of 'self' is likely gone, as is my choice of when to eat, drink, use the restroom & other nominal choices we take for granted. Choose as I might, I can't not think, the brain acts on it's own taking in data.
Personally, it seems like you're doing all the questioning, I am looking for the metaphysical connection to how we know (or can know) empirically the supernatural indeed exists, and so far, the balls been in my court.
Couldn't rationality be a derived evolutionary result of certain parts of the brain or its growth?
"This term implies a state of affairs or fact which is infinite in its permanacy.
I think, I should've used a different word than eternally, but this is the connection I wanted to convey. By eternal, I didn't mean in time, but in observation. Perhaps, a better one would be 1+1 = 2, which to an infant is beyond them, yet it's epistemological truth.
"Clearly the fact that the earth orbits the sun is not inherently eternal."
Well of course not, as apparently the universe will die (pick your choice), but in this context nothing is infinite, and nothing would be epistemological truth either.
The earth, as it relates to its orbit, goes around the sun, and not vice versa. I was attempting to make a point in that, what is empirically or epistimologically true, is true always, regardless if we as the observers acknowledge it or not, it's true. If we never knew it circled the sun and the universe died tomorrow, it would have still be true.
"In fact I am quite sure that the current sun earth system is not permanent and will alter dramaticly in the future."
Sure, it will alter, as the system is destroyed, eventually. I'm not going down the design of it or its theological implications, you're perhaps aware of it.
Agentorangex, another way of putting this question is
are human beings essentially objects (results of deterministic forces of nature) or agents (beings with free will and self conciousness capable of acting in ways not completely determined by antecedent conditions and natural processes).
"If as an empirical reductionist you elect the latter then logically you must conclude that you are not rational (by definition rationality is not simply a reactive artifact of natural processes)."
Couldn't rationality be a derived evolutionary result of certain parts of the brain or its growth? It's found in other animals, particularly those w/ larger brains, namely apes.
"If on the other hand you believe that you are rational, that you have a mind and the true ability to make choices including mental choices then you must explain where these come from."
The brain, where else? I'm sure you're aware other apes act in a rational manner, understand the notion of 'self' & equally are social in their communities. We're an extension of this quality. Why is that unfathomable? I am not sure why one must inject the metaphysical with it, we don't do this with other apes, so why us? I am not saying we're just glorified apes, we're special.
"Remember nature won't do since by definition natural causes are not rational"
I don't follow. I understand natural cause & effect processes aren't consciously or rational thought out processes, but instead, for lack of better analogy are chemistry/matter in motion. Why can't these amount to a nervous system/brain, which then takes in sensory data & thinks of itself as a subject, all other things objects, & acts in a rational, intention, choice manner based on its environment?
Rationality exists as part of the physical brain, go find a person w/ brain trauma & put them in front of a mirror & doubtfully they might recognize themselves. Ask them about their free will as they can't control & pee on themselves. Some things we lack control of.
"I find the evidence of my experience of these phenomena to be compelling of the alternative."
Such as what? What alternative is bearing more evidence than other apes which think rationally as well?
Agentorangex,
Ok on the one hand you say we are literally our brains and your rejection of any metaphysical component to self implicates an acceptance of empirical reducationism.
Now please apply logic.
If the self you think of is literally your brain then all phenomena must arise from that physical organ. If all mental phenomena are therefore the artifacts of biochemical processes (which by definition they would be in your conception) then all of your mental phenomena are simply products of these processes with origins seated in the natural causes of the universe not in any selfhood.
you can't logically have it both ways. You can't logically claim on one hand that you and all your works are simply the non rational products of a long chain of natural processes and at the same time hold to a belief that you are a rational being with free will. The two positions are logically exclusive of each other.
"One of the most significant of these is the mind/body problem. While complex the essential issue in this problem is do you think you have a mind."
Yes, I do. But I think the mind/conscious/spirit, what have you, is physically bound, not metaphysically bound. Once it ceases, all stemming artifacts from it cease. IE, we are literally our brains. However one attempts to explain it, it's something of a riddle in itself, so bear with me.
"Or in other words do you think you truly have thoughts, free will, and identity or all of these conceptions just neuro-chemical illusions or if you prefer natural artifacts that arise from the natural processes of the universe."
Deep. I would say I do have thoughts, intentions, an identity & free will, though these decisions & perceptions are physically bound to the brain, they don't/cant' exist outside of it. I think attempting to overly simplifying it down to small chemical neurons firing is a bit of a stretch as neuroscience is fairly young. Though, what we do know is the brain controls so much of who we are then changes to it physically via chemicals like drugs or brain trauma affects the persona. If I suffer severed brain damage my perception of 'self' would change, if it would exist at all. Additionally, the concept of putting oneself as being the subject in life would also change, as I doubt one w/ such damage could realize their existence as self. I'm not sure if 'illusion' is the best term, but it's an oddity.
As I'm open to choice in certain variable conditions in life, I would say I do have free will (choice), though some things are outside of my choice. Stimuli has shown that the brain is always active, both internally & externally, it's not something can put on hold temporarily like their breath. So in this sense, these would be chemical re-actions, much like the release of hormones, for which I have little choice.
Agentorangex,
Okay I think I understand what you meant by eternal epistimilogical truth by your example. I would suggest you are misusing the term eternal however. This term implies a state of affairs or fact which is infinite in its permanacy. Clearly the fact that the earth orbits the sun is not inherently eternal. In fact I am quite sure that the current sun earth system is not permanent and will alter dramaticly in the future.
Agentorangex,
I can't understand your last post in any reasonable sense. Rather than discussing what the views of other unknown persons whom I have no responsibility for or interest in defending could you please address the points I raised in my post regarding your understanding of yourself. Namely based on the evidence of your own senses and experience do you believe you have a mind, identity and free will. Or do you accept the inevitable implication of empirical reductionist belief that all your statements in these posts and every thought you think you have had and every choice you think you have made and your very self hood are in fact only illusions of such that arise through non rational natural processes?
"epistimilogical truth is eternal."
I guess a descent example for this would be how Sol (the sun) is the center of our solar system, while for a time centuries ago the earth (even some in early science) by some was considered to be the center. Both models were in their own right at the time fairly supported. Each view hinged on evidence, but determining which was true was contingent on what level of veracity future predictions could be made using each model. As it turned out, the sun centered model produced better, more accurate results & explained more & future phenomena (incorporated) better. Today our space satellites & expeditions confirm it, so it is beyond any reasonable doubt.
The epistemological truth is that the sun was always the center of our system (eternally), & it was only with more knowledge on our part was it determined beyond any reasonable doubt from our observation that this was the case.
Us as the observers not knowing of the epistemological truth that the sun was center place didn't change that it was. Our naive stance led along 2 paths of beliefs both supported by evidence, and as logic would dictate, both options are mutually exclusive so both cannot be true and one path of evidence supported one view better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Agentorangex,
I am not sure which beasts you are reffering to but I don't understand your point anyway since (besides my not being a literalist) they have no relevance to the core discussion of whether there is anything beyond nature.
by the way I think in regards to the Unicorn being in the bible you are thinking of mistranslations.
Viking,
"This is not a proper or logical comparative example."
I know it might be the best analogy, but it as does many other very mythical creatures appear in the bible (among other holly texts) was initially considered to be mythical in a sense as we only found the horns at the end and from this superstitious folk erected their mythical horned horse.
For whatever reason the KJV labeled them as such, as it did many other very odd creatures which we've yet to explain scientifically or shown to exist. I think you know the other beasts I am referring to.
Leave it to science to vanquish the mythical beast & demonstrate how fabricated it was though.
The problem w/ attempting to compare anything supernatural or natural, unicorn or not to the such an extensionally heavily concept of 'god' is that the believers themselves confess to not (no offense here) have a sound idea of the nature of god to begin with. From the onset then, if one can't qualify what 'god' is, empirically, then obviously it can't be compared to anything in a just manner, please consider that while I attempt to draw parallels. Additionally, b/c it cannot be defined, explained, we cannot honestly expect any sort of rational explanation for how it aught to act, some appologetics assert it works in certain ways, while others interpret it differently. It's a puzzle, wrapped in an enigma, & a concept so endlessly undefined & brimming with utter ambiguity that it leaves it entirely open to ones own subjective views.
agent, is it your personal view about God that because all prayers to God don't get answered that the possibility exists that there is no God?
Agentorangex, thanks for the response.
you state in part,
"Ok, how does one detect the supernatural? Science sets the supernatural aside so it as a method can function, as to do otherwise is counter productive (falsifiability being one issue)."
Now we are getting down to it. (by the way I agree with everything you said about the value and power of the scientific method and do not disparage it in any way. I only recognize its limits).
I believe that in looking for the answer regarding supernature we must look at the questions that are not answerable by the scientific method. One of the most significant of these is the mind/body problem. While complex the essential issue in this problem is do you think you have a mind. Or in other words do you think you truly have thoughts, free will, and identity or all of these conceptions just neuro-chemical illusions or if you prefer natural artifacts that arise from the natural processes of the universe. If as an empirical reductionist you elect the latter then logically you must conclude that you are not rational (by definition rationality is not simply a reactive artifact of natural processes). If on the other hand you believe that you are rational, that you have a mind and the true ability to make choices including mental choices then you must explain where these come from. Remember nature won't do since by definition natural causes are not rational and also produce effects which are not representative of choice but rather are prescribed by those very natural causes.
So logically a true empiricist would have to say all of his thought processes are ultimately determined by natural causes rather than by an imaginary "self" through rational thought and application of "free will". I find the evidence of my experience of these phenomena to be compelling of the alternative. Which would mean that since nature is not enough to explain these there must be something (not trying to define it yet) beyond or in addition to what we understand as nature that gives rise to these phenomena.
Supernature.
Agentorangex, thanks for the response.
Once again you drag a red herring across the path of inquiry to distract us from the main point. You raise the issue of research of "answered prayers" as an example of testing indirect affects of supernature. Of course this is no test at all. The test presumes that not only is there a supernature. But also that it has an interest in humanity, that prayers are a means of communication with the supernatural, that the supernatural will be responsive to the prayers offered, that the response will be consistent and non random, etc. etc. The only thing this research showed is the futility of trying to apply the scientific method to the question of metaphysics.
Viking, be back shortly, will reply. I enjoy our chats & respect you views.
Viking,
"in the consideration of the existence of the supernatural the scientific method must be set aside and other modalities must be applied."
Ok, how does one detect the supernatural? Science sets the supernatural aside so it as a method can function, as to do otherwise is counter productive (falsifiability being one issue).
"What the bus sign is really saying"
That is more or less spot on. It can't be defended empirically, as science openly admits that it can only investigate the natural. But this admission of 'we cant test X' therefore doesn't follow that X is true, it just means direct evidence for X using science can't be obtained, indirectly is another matter. I would say the absence of evidence & the non existent look very much alike in this instance. We can't empirically disprove endless things, but it doesn't logically follow that in the absence of evidence one is than permitted to believe in them. If one accepts as an a priori that indeed the supernatural exists, then it matters not what science does or doesn't say. This sign is for rationalists, who observe that it can't be empirically known.
Viking,
"by definition the scientific approach can not address the question of the possible existence of the supernatural so also it can not have anything to say on the probable existence of the supernatural."
This I partially disagree with, science might not be able to ascertain the nature directly of the supernatural, (if it even exists) but it should be able to detect its affects indirectly in nature. IE, prayer studies have shown non favorable results for decades, at best mixed results. Often times such 'answered prayers' are entirely vague & pedestrian in nature (sore back) & easily attributable to coincidence or probability. You, as a teacher/scientist know there are others to attest of its indirect correlation.
"This brings us to the fact that the scientific method (while a highly valuable one) is only one modality of creating meaning and understanding existence."
I agree. Though, it's hard to argue against such a tool which has offered so much growth of knowledge (in a minimal time when compared to other methods mind you) & is hands down a pillar of our society to suggest that it has nothing to say on the nature of reality. Such a stance is hypocritical, if not irrational in itself. Is it any wonder why past religious civilizations demonized science? They hated it b/c it mechanized reality, it exposed it for what it is, cause & effect, without a dash of supernatural string pulling. Does it kill the notion of 'god'? No, but like Newton showed, it pushed it so far into the margins that many saw Deism as the only safe theological stance that science couldn't trample on. Today, neuroscience, biology, & other forms of science are answering some very deep questions as to why we are the way we are. Some postulate a 'god module' part of the brain (lobes), but this doesn't help the notion of god. It makes it more appear as if the belief is one of an evolutionary adaptations on the pre-frontal lobes of the brain, the most recent parts of the brain. Does it destroy god, or the supernatural? No, but again, it's getting pushed further to the margins, & some don't like this.
With humanities gross obsession w/ the supernatural, is it any wonder the method of science took so long to even take hold? You're basically saying, it's as if to declare the supernatural to REALLY, REALLY exist b/c no current method of knowing reality can demonstrate it empirically. ?huh? Worse yet is how theist routinely tell us such knowledge is forever beyond our comprehension. They're tacitly admitting not only that they & humanity doesn't know, but as our nature can't know. & still the belief persists.
Agentorangex,
by the way could you explain what you mean when you say the epistimilogical truth is eternal. Even Hume would not consent to that statement.
Hi Agentorangex, in your last post you state.
Of course, like any other belief, if a kid has an a priori assumption for a proposition which they're emotionally attached to..."
You would admit I assume that the assumptions of the scientific method represetn such Apriori assumptions for yourself. In addition the way you present your arguments suggests that you accept the scientific method (and the assumptions it uses) as the exclusive modality for understanding the universe.
You acknowledge that the method is incapable by its nature to address the issue of the existence of supernature but then try to impose the scientific method on the question. This is not very rational.
For example you state
"so it comes down to if there exists sound objective evidence for the proposition. If the evidence is well supported, consistent, & beyond reasonable doubt, then it's logical to affirm a belief"
Can't you see the trap you are in regards adressing the question of the existence of supernature one way or the other as long as the system of thought used to examine the question denies within its assumptions the possibility of an alternative to your apriori position of naturalism.
By the way do you think any of the parents who present the myth of Santa to children actually believe the myth themselves of expect a longterm maintenance of the myth in the children. If you don't then why do you use such an inapplicable example in your discussions?
Agentorangex thank you for your response. Could we address your use of Unicorns as a parrallel example related to the question of the existence of god. This is not a proper or logical comparative example. Unicorns were not postulated as mythical beasts but rather as real "natural" phenomena specific to the earth and to northern Europe in particular. This is not a question outside of sciences scope. We know scientifically that this animal did not exist and was a result of misinterpreted evidence (narwhale tusks) and speculation. This is also the case for many other examples you have raised in the past. Continuously raising these red herrings is not a worthy intellectual argument and gives the impression that you want to avoid the real questions. Also raising the issue of what some "religious" people have said to you as an explanation for the inconsistencies in their particular belief system is another begging of the central question of the existence of the supernatural.
Lets have a real discussion of the central existential question of existence rather than false trails such as those.
Viking,
"on this basis this means that attributing probability to one position or another is at best simply a matter of personal preference."
I don't think so, whatever the nature of reality is, it's objectively true. Epistemological anyway, regardless if we ever know of it or not. IE, either unicorns or santa exist, or they don't, it's up to the evidence on supporting them is what matters.
An uneducated kid/person could (somehow) think there is sufficient evidence for santa, but their decision is an uninformed one. They're too ignorant or ignore all the supernatural mysticism associated w/ him/it to deduce it's highly improbable, if not impossible.
Of course, like any other belief, if a kid has an a priori assumption for a proposition which they're emotionally attached to, one in which they were taught from the time they could talk is beyond question & is compelled not to doubt its existence for 'eternal punishment' is the recourse, well, such emotional trauma tends to cloud the mind & overcome logic & reason to begin with. With such a formidable clause, one could convince teenagers santa is real too. Fear & other emotions does that.
"Please understand that I do not hold that view but it is the inevitable conclusion of the frame of reference you have posited."
Course it is, it's relative to the observer (if they're ill read, mentally ill, santa sounds logical to them, though this would be subjective, not objective) & partially the time & place for if evidence can be obtained in the first place. But regardless, the epistemological truth is eternal, so it comes down to if there exists sound objective evidence for the proposition. If the evidence is well supported, consistent, & beyond reasonable doubt, then it's logical to affirm a belief.
Viking, "In this statement you acknowledge that there is no empirical way of resolving this question."
At least empirically, yes I think this is so, at least for all intensive purposes. For all we know & how we can attempt to learn the nature of reality, it might be forever beyond our comprehension regardless of our methodical approach to ascertain. Be it science, philosophy, etc., we are ultimately limited by our senses, & they limit what we can rationally deduce or take on a matter of faith & in the absence of evidence a proposition has no weight.
I agree w/ your premise, that we might be using the 'wrong sized net' so to speak & can't (yet, or maybe ever) qualify supportive evidence for a proposition, though in light of no evidence, it's not sensible to accept a proposition. Otherwise one could just rationalize endlessly for lack of evidence in sake of acknowledging how vacuous their position is.
IE, for all we know, Unicorns really do exist in some far off planet, though there is no positive evidence to logically affirm they do; & as with the rules of logic & the burden of proof, such propositions not only require regular evidence but extraordinary objective evidence. The absence of evidence & the non existent look very much alike. In this position, it's logical to be highly doubtful of unicorns, at the very least agnostic of them. This is the universal position for all extraordinary claims (especially supernatural ones), especially ones we can't objectively know b/c of their very nature. Like god.
It's often murmured by believers that gods nature is very mysterious, if not forever beyond our comprehension. In fact they often use this (works in mysterious ways) all the time as means to rationalize conflicting & logical conundrums in sake of taking a step back & questioning their a priori stance on its existence. One could rationalize in this manner w/ many things, (unicorns) as to why their nature is so odd, & they essentially setup an illusionary looking glass.
Agentorangex,
Hi I went back and read your earlier post which stated.
"One can be Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist, I'm the later. One can think the evidence tends neither way for supportive of the concept of 'god', but their utter faith, for lack of better word, compels them that either it does exist or doesn't.
Agnostic means we will forever lack the empirical evidence to philosophically 'know' 'god(s)' do or do not exist. This not knowing doesn't prevent one from taking it upon faith that indeed it does or doesn't though.
In this statement you acknowledge that there is no empirical way of resolving this question. on this basis This means that attributing probability to one position or another is at best simply a matter of personal preference. Please understand that I do not hold that view but it is the inevitable conclusion of the frame of reference you have posited.
Hi all this is a very interesting discussion. Sorry to enter it so late.
Agentorangex states
"Though, possibility, doesn't denote probability, there is a difference & based on evidence we choose which is more probable for each proposition. We use logic & reason, not emotion of life everlasting, to determine the probability for such propositions. Thus why the sign reads 'probably'.
This is not correct. This statement encloses an example of circular reasoning because of the hidden assumptions within it.
Just as by definition the scientific approach can not address the question of the possible existence of the supernatural so also it can not have anything to say on the probable existence of the supernatural. The assumptions of science can not just be suspended for convenience sake when we get to harder questions.
This brings us to the fact that the scientific method (while a highly valuable one) is only one modality of creating meaning and understanding existence.
To what evidence is the application of reason and logic being applied in considering the probability of the proposition of the existence of the supernatural. And is this logic free from the underlying assumption of the scientific method that all evidence can be understood in terms of nature. Of course not.
This is why in the consideration of the existence of the supernatural the scientific method must be set aside and other modalities must be applied.
What the bus sign is really saying in using the word probably is "in my opinion there is no god but there is no way I can defend that position with authority from my frame of reference (scientific naturalism) so I'll use a wiggle word that lets me off the hook and yet sounds scientific"
DP,
I hope your new year is going well.
"When faced with the fact that the existance of God cannot be proved or disproved, a rational athiest will agree the possibility exists."
Sure, it's for arguments sake hypothetically possible. But then again, in the entire Univers so is the existence of Santa Claus, Celestial Teapots, Unicorns, Leprechauns, Pixies, etc. There are an endless plethora of 'possible things', this is 'possibly' really just 'The Matrix' & it's all a form of mind control. Though, possibility, doesn't denote probability, there is a difference & based on evidence we choose which is more probable for each proposition. We use logic & reason, not emotion of life everlasting, to determine the probability for such propositions. Thus why the sign reads 'probably'.
In this position the theist is open to the same reasoning on it/they not existing though, for both rely not on knowing, but on mere belief. In this sense, both theist & atheist alike are agnostic in their position, as it stems not from knowing, but belief. As such, one can be agnostic towards the proposition of god & still claim to have or not have a belief in it. Just as one can be agnostic towards most/all possible things.
An agnostic would say: 'it's something forever beyond human comprehension, but nevertheless I have faith it exists'. The opposite can be said as well.
"You must answer it is possible."
But not probable, based on evidence of course. This is the same distinction we use as kids to come to reality that santa, for all likely hood, probably doesn't exist.
Thus, I have posted in the past that an athiest is an agnostic with more faith in his "no-god" beliefs.
And the theist would be the inverse. They would be an agnostic (regardless if they acknowledge it or not), but have more faith in their god is true belief.
Unfortunately, there a variety of evidence to support of the existence of a Creator and even the many of the other religionists of other faith recognizes this fact, they just don't know his real character, revealed in Jesus Christ, however the atheist saying "probably" shows some confusion in the statement.
"you DP are an atheist in some respect, as you reject all the others 'gods' ever recorded,"
You just GOTTA love English!!! Being from the midwest I can ask my pop to pop the top on a can of pop....
Actually, in the purest sense of the word I cannot be as it is a denial of either God or a god(s) but in the more general term then Christianity could be subdefined as selective atheism or selective non-athiesm depending on if you are using the term inclusively or exclusively.
Anyone remember John Daly?
When in doubt...go back to the dictionary!
Athiest
-noun
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
From this definition you have variations which very to playing the odds to ain't no way theirs a God. Here's the problem. It's people not knowing what they believe and defining it themselves. Sounds right Baptist to me (since I run into it from time to time in my own church!).
When faced with the fact that the existance of God cannot be proved or disproved, a rational athiest will agree the possibility exists. This is the same legal arguement lawyers use when they say "isn't it possible" and then state something very improbable. You must answer it is possible. This is different from the agnostic who simply hasn't said there is no God.
Thus, I have posted in the past that an athiest is an agnostic with more faith in his "no-god" beliefs. In Christian terms an agnostic is a luke-warm athiest.
DP,
"that is the difference between the atheists and the agnostics. Atheists say there is no God and agnostics say it's impossible to prove but they believe there is no God."
One can be Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist, I'm the later. One can think the evidence tends neither way for supportive of the concept of 'god', but their utter faith, for lack of better word, compels them that either it does exist or doesn't. Though, the concept of 'god' is highly ambiguous (countless attributable variables) depending on which one uses as their standard for if it exists or not. IE, the Deist god is no doubt different than Yaweh, Zeus, as they are in turn to each other.
Also, you DP are an atheist in some respect, as you reject all the others 'gods' ever recorded, all but one that is. Unless you consider the disbelief in other gods to be something not of atheistic view.
Agnostic means we will forever lack the empirical evidence to philosophically 'know' 'god(s)' do or do not exist. This not knowing doesn't prevent one from taking it upon faith that indeed it does or doesn't though.
It may be dp that some athiests say there is no God but I have heard RD himself say that it is impossible to prove absolutely there is no God but it is most unlikely, so we live as if there is not one, this is not the same as being an agnostic.
DP, I went to college with a guy who said he was an agnostic and his definition was I'm not sure there is a God or not, but I'm not going to do anything to get Him mad.
"I'm not sure thoughtful atheists claim there is definately no God"
Actually, that is the difference between the athiests and the agnostics. Athiests say there is no God and adnostics say it's impossible to prove but they believe there is no God.
Yeah I know New Wine it was/is a bible week like Spring Harvest etc... A spiritual retreat though is personal time set aside to meditate, prayer, reflect, fast etc..sometimes under the guidance of a director.
steveh20
I am not sure what you mean by a spiritual retreat, however when I was a teenager I went to something called 'New Wine' in Somerset.
http://www.new-wine.org/about_us/Our%20Vision.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wine
I agree prophet but that does not mean (in my book of course) an atheist can't be spiritual person, in fact I would go as far to say that it is more than possible to be a Christian and not be very spiritual.
Just out of intrest, whilst on the subject, have you or anybody else for that matter ever been on a retreat lead by a spiritual director, if so what did you think of it?
BW
Steve
Never been to Nando's but have tried the Belle Italia opposite. I get my fix of footie at the Withdean (come on you seagulls!!)
Hi steveh20
Crawley is indeed a regular destination, it gives me my fix of cineworld, Nando's and 5-aside football every week.
What a town!!
Richard Dawkins is a hero and sadly ahead of his time.To say there is no god 100% would be unscientific and just as stupid as saying there is a god with 100% certainty.The burden of proof does not rest on Mr. Dawkins or any other thinking person but on all of you who belive.Mr.Dawkins can no more prove there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster somewhere than prove your god exist.Just because you and your parents say so isnt enough for some of us.
steve,
"what do you mean by spirituality?"
There is a difference between finding something spiritual (as in Beethoven, which affects a persons soul(mind) and emotions) and being spiritual.
Prophet
Your giving the answer to the wrong person, give it to indo etc...I'm already up to speed with the answer.
That said, say an atheist(or a Christian) finds Beethoven spiritual(and undoubtly his music is), who are they communicating with? Which raises an interesting question, what do you mean by spirituality?
Steve
steve,
"Being spiritual and being an atheist is more than possible, why should it be so difficult?"
It's not so difficult. Even satanists are spiritual. It's just a matter of what spirit you are communing with.
Hey Zak
Do you hang around creepy Crawley!!
Steve
Hey msnchris70
Can I add to Forgivensinners request also that you don't refer to the people I live/work/play/ love etc..as wolves. In fact my prayer would be that Jesus would deliver my country from people who have such a view of us(i.e you), whatever our imperfections.
Kind regards
Steve
Hey msnchris,
Could you do my a favor and drop the Protestant reference? Please. For some reason when I read it, it's like nails on a chalkboard. Can we compromise and use the term all Christians? Or if you want to keep the term Catholic, how about Catholics and all other Christians? I would be greatly appreciative, thanks.
Let us pray for a Christian Revival in Great Britain where all Catholics and Protestants stand together to spread the Gospel of Christ among the wolves in Britain.
Being spiritual and being an atheist is more than possible, why should it be so difficult?
Seeking the TRUTH is an individual choice. For GOD so loved the world, that he gave....every man a will to decide his fate and choose eternal life or death. We face this choice in our everyday life. True Christians must not be moved by these commercial gimmicks, Atheism is a religion by itself, but spirituality is personal.
"the atheist signs are only a means to get people thinking about God....or the probablity that there isn't a God?"
I would say so, at the very least any way. It is after all one of the few things in life that many, if not most, hold with such absolute certitude & certainty of its existence that the utter notion of actually having to critically analyze such a professed belief is waaay over due.
vcook74447,
"Has anyone else noticed this?"
Not me personally, I gave up the blame & praise rherotic long ago. Of the few other non-believers I know who are genuine in their disbelief/doubt they too don't tend to indulge in this view you gave. I would suspect of those who invoke this in times of hardship do so partly as a response of their upbringing, although they are hardly a practicing religious person, so it's not logical, they're more doing in at out of knee jerk response for what ails them, not in that it actually works, nor that they genuine believe in it.
I feel so sad for Mr. Dawkins. I pray he comes to Christ soon.
Hi again, Z
I watched the link, thanks for sharing it.
I don't know about this ad that they spoke of, but it seems it may have been alittle too harsh, which is why this ad campaign began.
Religious folk definitely need to seriously think about the message they are going to put out there for the world to see. The idea that telling people they are going to hell is not exactly the optimum means to bring them to know God.
London, huh? Neat. Never been.
steve, no worries, I was just teasing. :-)
There probably is a God; just look at all He created.
itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
Here is an interesting video by the organisers:
Ariane Sherine explains where the idea for the Atheist Bus Campaign came from and Polly Toynbee talks to Richard Dawkins about the word 'probably'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/06/atheist-bus
I live just south of London (near Gatwick airport) and there is a fair amount of christian advertising on London Underground and Buses, I think that the person that organised the athiest adverts wanted to show that being an atheist is a perfectly accceptable world view to have.
I think both, Fs.
Sorry about the name dropping, its not meant to read like that though, just a comment from personal experience.
Steve
steve wrote: "thats the impression I got after spending an evening with Richard Dawkins"
Hob-knobbing with Mr Dawkins, huh? ;-)
So, the atheist signs are only a means to get people thinking about God....or the probablity that there isn't a God?
I'm not sure thoughtful atheists claim there is definately no God, more like, on the balance of probabilities there is not. Well, thats the impression I got after spending an evening with Richard Dawkins at a book event a while ago. So I don't understand why people around here get so "excited" by the advert saying probably and not definitely. "Probably" is quite in keeping with the atheistic outlook.
"one faith-based think tank says they will only get people thinking more about God."
I think that this is what the perssons behind the ad actually want.
Z, perhaps not all Atheists, but true of vcook's friend and me mom, it seems!
I dont think it is a fair or true gerneralisation to say that Atheists only have their beliefd in 'good times', I cant imagine Richard Dawkins praying to God when he is going through a difficult period.
vcook wrote: "in trouble he will pray and will say, "God help me." Has anyone else noticed this?"
My mother is notoriuos for this! She'll say Oh thank God or I pray they are ok. Yep, I've noticed.
I think its funny that when things are going good, atheists say there is no God. But when things turn bad, just like the rest of us, they turn to God for help. My good freind doesn't believe there is a God, but when he is in trouble he will pray and will say, "God help me." Has anyone else noticed this?
"true atheists they would have the courage to state "There is no God." "
The problem is you cannot prove there is no God. The issue of existance of God is a faith issue from any point of view.
such a sad man...
I think the message says 'probably' as they believe that there is no strong or good evidence for a God, but they are open minded enough that if it emerges then they can change their minds.
What a joke. If these nutcakes were true atheists they would have the courage to state "There is no God."
I think it's funny that the sign reads "There's probably no God." So to me they can't be sure that there isn't a God. Thats funny. I agree with Daniel Paul that the Bible talks about not worrying and Christianity is about enjoying life and enjoying God!!!
I find this ad interesting in that the Bible is full of instructions on not worrying! Christianity is about enjoying life. :)