I’m talking about claims about the nature of reality. How many gods are there? What are their powers? What do they want from us?
Certainly religions are more than just theories about the nature of the universe. However, since the debate between atheism vs. theism is, at its heart, ontological, it makes sense to focus on the ontological claims that religions make.
Such an encounter, if true, should leave some physical evidence. A spacecraft would probably show up on radar, one that landed would likely disturb the ground, there would likely be noise/lights/other odd happenings to attract the attention of neighbors, and there may be forensic evidence on the alleged abductee’s person or clothing.
A religious experience would not necessarily leave any physical evidence behind.
True, but it’s still important to use a post-religious-experience rape kit.
Now you want humans to have the ability to control God? Oh Lord of the Malfunctioning Heart, appear at my command?
I’m pretty sure an entity capable of creating the heavens and earth is also capable of saying…“nah, don’t wanna.” Such a being intervenes, or not, subject to its whims. Maybe it only appears to people that pray long enough…or while wearing one sock…or don’t eat pork…or do eat pork…or dropped a Benjamin in the offering plate…or maybe it is entirely random.
I would assume that their technology was so advanced that they wouldn’t leave evidence discernible by us mere humans. But still, we can assume that you are adamantly agnostic about ghosts and faeries?
That is anecdotal evidence at best. One could just as well claim that the reader is free to assign such weight to the evidence of the events depicted in Lord of the Rings being true. The only difference between those two books is that only one of them is being sold as non-fiction, and then only because someone a very long time ago made the assertion that it was a true story and managed to convince some others of its veracity as well. And then they told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on… (remember, the bible as we know it was written about 300 years after Christ died.)
It would be logical to characterize belief that the Lord of the Rings is a true story as irrational. Even closer to home, any normal, rational person believes that Scientology is bunk and belief in space alien parasites or whatever the hell Thetans are is irrational. Why is religion any different?
I once thought the same way – that the world seems too organized, too complex, and worked too well for there not to have been some sort of intelligence behind its creation. But as I grew up and began learning about astronomy, cosmology, evolution – and I mean really understanding it inasmuch as we can, coming to terms with the sheer scale of the evolutionary process, I began to understand that there really doesn’t need to be an intelligence involved.
Looking at the world and coming to some flavour of “intelligent design” conclusion is only really arrived at if you don’t really comprehend the sheer length of time involved in the evolutionary process and how many changes and steps were involved between those first strands of DNA forming in the primordial soup and the impossibly complex gamut of life that evolved from it some three and a half billion years later. So once again we come back to the idea that stories are concocted to try and make sense of that which we don’t understand. (Note that I’m not suggestion all Christians believe in ID or a young Earth, but the seeds of those ideas do exist in the bible.) My own growing understanding of the universe has allowed me to shed any notions that there must be an intelligence behind its construction.
But I came to my conclusions by examination of the facts in evidence and the perfectly sensible theories put forth by the world’s leading minds – a conclusion made all the easier by the absence of such facts or evidence from the religious camp. From my perspective, if one arrives at religion through your “naturalist” approach, then they either didn’t examine the facts or don’t fully understand them.
Lot of religions have similar gods with different names. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same god in different ways. Jesus, Son of the Father and Savior of Earth is allegorically similar to Thor, Son of Odin and Protector of Midgard.
Odin & Zeus sorta parallel each other. Maybe Loki and Lucifier do, too. Christian “angels” might equate to lesser gods in polytheistic traditions.
Or it could be all bullshit. Only way to possibly find out is to die, and that makes it hard to document for others.
Nah. I’ll say there are no such things, because their existence can be investigated, and conclusions drawn therefrom. You just can’t do that with an allegedly omnipotent being.
Aside: I thought Baldur was the Norse equivalent of Jesus? Not Thor.
Sigh. And, of course, the same argument can be made for why fairies and ghosts and elves are so elusive. For any claim about the nature of the universe it’s always trivial to construct and endless sequence of ad hoc rationales that explain away inconvenient evidence (or lack of it). Fairies are shy, or invisible, or magical, or only come out during the full moon, or only appear to children, or the pure of heart, or (this is a particular favorite) people who believe in them.
Really, based on your approach to all this you don’t have any rational grounds to dismiss elves, ghosts, fairies, and space aliens as being false. No matter what lengths you go to disprove them empirically, there it’s always possible to construct some niggling loophole that will allow them to slip away and linger out there in the realm of “maybe”. Your argument against atheists is really an argument in favor of according credence to all the silliest forms of woo just because “we can never know for sure”.
What seems to be alleged in this thread is an *impotent * being that has no effect on the universe and can not be detected.
I am not now nor have I ever been arguing against atheism. For at least the bajillionth time in this thread, I am an atheist. I do not believe god exists. However, I could be wrong. That’s the whole point of this thread.
LOL … of course you can! According to Christian doctrine Jesus (an allegedly omnipotent being) came to Earth and walked around and did all sorts of amazing things that could be easily observed and analyzed. And based on his alleged behavior, Christians have drawn all sorts of conclusions. Ever heard of “What would Jesus do?”
Again, we’re not talking about some vague theoretical imaginary god-construct that never interacts with the visible universe. We’re talking about the gods that virtually all believers believe in, and those gods suppostedly interact with the perceivable universe ALL THE TIME in a myriad of different observable ways.
Meh. I majored in theatre. I’m lucky if I can keep them all in the right pantheon.
Of course you could be wrong. Just like you could be wrong that elves don’t live on the moon. But evidence says you’re right, both about God, and the elves.
If one side is almost certainly right, and the other side is almost certainly wrong, there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out.
How is being right NOT superior to being wrong?
And that is because religion is just that implausible. Sooner or later, these arguments over religion end up with the defenders of religion withdrawing into what amounts to solipsism. They end up denying reality and reason, because that’s what defending religion takes.
That alleged deity hasn’t made a public appearance in over 2000 years. That wouldn’t qualify as “all the time” for most folks. How do you test whether a prayer has been answered? How do you test whether someone was divinely inspired?
We disagree about that almost certainly part. But, by using “almost certainly” you’ve confirmed the premise of the thread. Almost is not certain. Therefore, atheists do not “Know the Truth”. It is possible that we are all wrong.
Prove that you’re right and I’ll concede the point.
Well, for example you could get similar groups of sick people together who are at the same stage of the same disease, and have half of them pray, and see how it goes. They actually do stuff like this and it never turns anything up.
By the way, with all of your weasely arguments, let’s get one thing straight. No significant number of religious people believe in some vague undefined god who hasn’t intervened in earthly and human affairs. We’re talking about people with more specific beliefs than “uh, there’s something out there, maybe”.
We’re talking about people who have a complex set of beliefs with generally an interventional God. Christianity is not just “uh, well, something had to create the universe”, it’s “My God created the universe, then created the earth in 7 days, and set the sun revolving around the earth, and created man from his image, and created woman from the first man’s bones”, etc.
You’re trying to act as though dismissing very detailed, specific views - much of which is contradictory or flat out wrong (ie the sun does not revolve around the earth) is wrong and arrogant because HEY MAN THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING VAGUE AND MYSTERIOUS OUT THERE!
If your point is “we just don’t know” then you should be vigorously attacking the people that say “yes, we do know, and here’s god’s thousand+ page manual explaining the universe and everything”. We’re not talking about vague notions and being open minded - we’re talking about people who have structured complex beliefs around a certainty that there is a specific bearded guy in the sky and he affects the world regularly.
I still don’t think, weasely arguments aside, you don’t understand that your whole argument is attacking a straw man. Possibly excepting der trihs (and he should be excepted from everything because no one would ever deserved to be grouped up with him), is there anyone here who has expressed the idea that they know for sure all there is to know, and that they’re certain there is no intelligent force or being that we can’t yet detect or understand?