It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LulzCode6
reply to post by Annee
Originally posted by LulzCode6
To say that the universe was created by chance and that there was no guardian over it to control the course of events is like saying there was an explosion at a printing press and a dictionary was formed as the result of it. It is absolutely impossible. We accept that a master piece of literature cannot be produced without an intelligent writer how then can we accept that the universe was created without God?
Originally posted by etherical waterwave
Atheism is a gray area, and gray area's don't exist, but do, in the mind of an atheist. Ever seen in indecisive atheist? How many times must you deny the existence of God becoming an atheist? Does it help doing it just once, or does he keep coming back. Ah yes, he doesn't exist. There he shows again. A personality build upon a denial of something. It's not you don't believe in God, you deny him. Then suddenly atheism becomes inexistent. I bet you can't keep up denying him one day long. Atheists, pain in the ass kiddos?
Originally posted by followtheevidence
Science is based on an axiomatic system of inference which presupposes materialism/naturalism to be a proven case. As such, one can never hope to find evidence of the divine or supernatural since the system itself intrinsically excludes the possibility in its premise.
3) What is your basis for morality? As rational, higher functioning beings we have the capacity for moral thought - but why OUGHT there be moral standards? Simply because we can be moral creatures doesn't mean we should be.
5) If science doesn't give us a good reason to believe in something, does that necessarily mean that no good reason exists?
6) Is the uniformity of nature a proven case?
Originally posted by followtheevidence
One more question if you don't mind:
What would you consider as evidence in support of a supernatural Creator? If He were to visit you personally it couldn't count because subjective anecdotal evidence is not admissible according to the rigid standards of empiricism. A video or recording wouldn't work because one could always claim it was modified. A prophecy or dream given to one of His followers wouldn't/doesn't seem to lend any legitimacy to His reality. I've asked many many atheists this question and have yet to be given an adequate answer. There have a been a rare few who have conceded that no evidence is possible according to their standards.
God revealed Himself to humanity over a long period of time in such a way that allowed for historical corroboration thereby providing us with compelling evidence of Him and His very active presence in human events. Barring this, I'm not sure what sort of evidence could satisfy a strict evidentialist.
What would you consider as evidence in support of a supernatural Creator? If He were to visit you personally it couldn't count because subjective anecdotal evidence is not admissible according to the rigid standards of empiricism.
A video or recording wouldn't work because one could always claim it was modified.
A prophecy or dream given to one of His followers wouldn't/doesn't seem to lend any legitimacy to His reality.
I've asked many many atheists this question and have yet to be given an adequate answer.
There have a been a rare few who have conceded that no evidence is possible according to their standards.
Like knowing about Islam, the laws, history, individuals, and so on.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
All too often I see remarks lodged against atheists in general. Very rarely do I find anyone asking an atheist for opinions and facts about their non-beliefs.
Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs. This can only help, as an overwhelming majority of negative comments about atheists and atheism are tragically incorrect.
Feel free to ask anything. Thanks for your time and have a great day.
All evidence is subjective (just to identify an objective circumstance as being evidence is a subjective act), so we can skip right past "subjectivity" as a defect.
Anecdotal evidence most assuredly is admissible - hardly anything else ever comes from eyewitnesses at trials.
The usual problem with anecdotal evidence is applicability. Any kind of generalization is unlikely to be supported stongly by anecdote alone. Samples of size one tell little about general circumstances.
Furthermore, "anecdotal" is also sometimes used as shorthand for a package of other defects, for example, "casually" observed data (which all too often cashes out as maybe not observed at all), or an inability to question the source for additional information.
That, and that no inanimate record accomplishes more than to make it easier to convey the particulars of whatever it was you experienced. Records are never more than exhibits, illustrations, or supplements to the only kind of testimony there is: human report.
There are two distinct problems in : personal belief management and persuasion of other people. A dream may be useful for the dreamer to form or modify his or her own beliefs, but there is no real reason to expect that your dream will persuade me of anything.
Most of the use of prophecy I have seen fails on one of two counts: lack of specifity in the prediction ("The stock market will fluctuate." Yes, it will.), or use of a prophecy past its last sale date. Any prophecy expires when the event foretold comes to pass. After that, "I foresaw it" is uninteresting, and surely, on its face, no longer a prediction.
There is, of course, a third way to fail: the prophecy didn't come to pass. For example, Jesus said he was coming back in the lifetime of his first followers. We have canonical witness (John 21) that that was how his chief disciple, Peter, interpreted the prediction. Jesus didn't come back. But no problem, what he really meant was...
At best, when you change the meaning of the prediction, then there was no prediction in the first place. At worst, the gentleman got it wrong. As a Jewish prophet, he is rightly judged by Jewish standards of prophecy: one strike and you're out.
They really have no obligation to advise you about how to persuade them. If it were a natural controversy, then scientists do extend one another the courtesy of tolerating the question "What experimental outcome will convince you that you are wrong?"
The atheist, as atheist, does not claim any special knowledge of supernatural investigative procedures.
The question, then, is simply misdirected.
Why is that a "concession?" It simply restates your position. Your opponent has "conceded" that he or she understands what you're talking about.
You overstate the nature of the difficulty. All evidence is subjective (just to identify an objective circumstance as being evidence is a subjective act), so we can skip right past "subjectivity" as a defect.
A qualitative distinction between subjective and objective evidence is commonly made by atheists and scientists writ large.
As a theist trying to understand the atheist worldview, your statement is confusing.
Given your stance, how do you yourself determine whether or not said anecdotal claim merits further inquiry?
But what happens when you have a sample size of hundreds, thousands?
If a given piece of anecdotal evidence does not violate the stipulations above – what then?
I would argue that a video for example lends additional credence and further verification to a claim, while also making it easier to convey the specifics.
What of the prophecies which don’t fail on those counts?
Please review Mark 13:24-37 carefully for clarification on the above referenced passage.
No altering of the original meaning is necessary, only careful and prayerful study.
Materialism/physicalism is a proven case.
Positivism is a proven case.
The whole can be analyzed if we examine its parts.
So, here is my closing question:
If science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, does that mean that no good reason exists?
If not, why remain closed to the possibility that there are alternative processes to understanding reality that you have not explored?
The ID concept is so weak, that when it's presented, it backlashes rather than support any theist position on that point. At least on the competence-level you manifest.
But then, why the bleep do you END your post with a version of 'intelligent design'? It almost ruins the good impression of your comptence (not quite though).
I have some sympathy for the thoughts, you express in your post (I'm a rational metaphysicist myself), and many of your questions and methodology considerations are legitimate and pleasantly above the standard: "Yes, no, yes, no" posts too often manifesting on this forum. I will personally applaud you for your initial understanding of 'agnostic' positions and subjective/objective analysis.