Global Christianity report. Look at how many people believe in a "mythical God".

[wizardwatson]

God is supposed to be all powerful. The whole "if he made it clearer to me then it might be less clear to someone else" is nonsense. If he is God then he can make it clear to everybody period.

He can but he doesn't. Anyone who's telling you there's some formula to believe in God is lying or ignorant. He reveals to whomever he wants.

It's not nonsense at all. It's biblical. He made you, you. He made a bird a bird. He makes evil things and good things.

To be "fair" in the minds of scientific atheists and nihilists God would have to refrain from creating or doing anything, and in essence not exist. Life is a problem, a source of trouble for the systematizer. Only nothingness seems fair.

[PaulConventionWV]

It is agnosticism AND atheism. They are not mutually exclusive. Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are completely independent concepts. Maybe this will help



Lacking belief is not a claim. I lack belief in pink elephants. That is a very different thing from claiming that there are no pink elephants.

I asked you whether or not you believe God exists, 100% certainty or not. You have not answered. The chart you provide sets up a false dichotomy between "100% certainty" and "not 100%" certainty. If you are 99% certain, that is still a knowledge claim because you are making a statement on the probability of your belief being correct.

I am not questioning your certainty. I am trying to assess whether your "lack of belief" is reasonable or not. But before I can do that, I need a straight answer on what you believe.

You don't lack a belief in pink elephants because there is no evidence of them. You lack belief in pink elephants because, if they did exist, then you would EXPECT to find evidence of them somewhere in the world, but no such evidence has ever been found. Therefore, it is not because of a lack of evidence that you don't believe in pink elephants, but a presence of evidence that they do not exist.

I'm pretty sure very few people living in North or South America before the year 1600 ever heard about the Bible, as well as every person that ever lived on earth before the time of Jesus. And, obviously he has not made it such that it would be reasonable for me to believe in him because I don't. God is supposed to be all powerful. The whole "if he made it clearer to me then it might be less clear to someone else" is nonsense. If he is God then he can make it clear to everybody period.

Whoa, wait, what!? Did you seriously just claim that obviously it is not reasonable to believe in God because you don't believe in Him? The hubris!

If He is God, then yes, He can make it clear to everybody, but it does not necessarily follow that He would or should. You keep making this claim, but you are failing to give logical reasons for why it is true.

What other eyewitness sources are there? The only "eyewitness" accounts are in the Bible, in the gospels which were written years after the events supposedly took place. Every religion claims to have eyewitnesses to miracles and such. Why should I believe your stories just because yours might happen to be the most well preserved?

Paul not only uses the typical rabbinical terms “received” and “delivered” with regard to the information he is passing on to the Corinthians, but vv. 3-5 are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received after becoming a Christian. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem around AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Cephas and James (Gal. 1.18). It thus dates to within five years after Jesus’ death. So short a time span and such personal contact make it idle to talk of legend in this case.

2. The burial story is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The gospels tend to consist of brief snapshots of Jesus’ life which are loosely connected and not always chronologically arranged. But when we come to the passion story we do have one, smooth, continuously-running narrative. This suggests that the passion story was one of Mark’s sources of information in writing his gospel. Now most scholars think Mark is already the earliest gospel, and Mark’s source for Jesus’ passion is, of course, even older. Comparison of the narratives of the four gospels shows that their accounts do not diverge from one another until after the burial. This implies that the burial account was part of the passion story. Again, its great age militates against its being legendary.

4. No other competing burial story exists. If the burial by Joseph were fictitious, then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus’ corpse or at least some competing legends. But all our sources are unanimous on Jesus’ honorable interment by Joseph.

For these and other reasons, the majority of New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.”1

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-r...#ixzz3YT36jKZe

[Crashland]

I asked you whether or not you believe God exists, 100% certainty or not. You have not answered. The chart you provide sets up a false dichotomy between "100% certainty" and "not 100%" certainty. If you are 99% certain, that is still a knowledge claim because you are making a statement on the probability of your belief being correct.

I am not questioning your certainty. I am trying to assess whether your "lack of belief" is reasonable or not. But before I can do that, I need a straight answer on what you believe.

I do not believe that God exists.

You don't lack a belief in pink elephants because there is no evidence of them. You lack belief in pink elephants because, if they did exist, then you would EXPECT to find evidence of them somewhere in the world, but no such evidence has ever been found. Therefore, it is not because of a lack of evidence that you don't believe in pink elephants, but a presence of evidence that they do not exist.

I would still lack belief in pink elephants regardless of whether I expect to find evidence of them or not. Pick a random star in the SXDF-NB1006-2 galaxy. I lack belief that there is alien life in that solar system, and it isn't because I would expect to see evidence of it.

Whoa, wait, what!? Did you seriously just claim that obviously it is not reasonable to believe in God because you don't believe in Him? The hubris!

If He is God, then yes, He can make it clear to everybody, but it does not necessarily follow that He would or should. You keep making this claim, but you are failing to give logical reasons for why it is true.

lol I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying, I was taking it to mean whether God would make it such that a person would find it to be reasonable.

It doesn't logically follow that we would or should (although this raises moral issues). I am merely pointing out that he doesn't.

[PaulConventionWV]

I do not believe that God exists.

That's the crux of the issue. Despite all this jumping around labels and saying that you're technically a "weak atheist", you say you are not making the claim that God does not exist, and yet you, yourself, believe it. If you are really any kind of agnostic, you should be just as skeptical of the belief that God does not exist as you are of the belief that He does.

I would still lack belief in pink elephants regardless of whether I expect to find evidence of them or not. Pick a random star in the SXDF-NB1006-2 galaxy. I lack belief that there is alien life in that solar system, and it isn't because I would expect to see evidence of it.

But you acknowledge that it could be there, and you attach no probability to the truth or falsity of that claim. That's the point. When you say you "lack belief" in God, you have already stated that you do not believe that God exists, so are you willing to say the same about aliens in that particular galaxy?

lol I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying, I was taking it to mean whether God would make it such that a person would find it to be reasonable.

It doesn't logically follow that we would or should (although this raises moral issues). I am merely pointing out that he doesn't.

I've showed you how belief is just as reasonable as non-belief, so I fail to see how you can claim that "He doesn't" make it such that a person would find it to be reasonable. I find it to be reasonable. Am I deluded? There is tons of evidence in the very nature of the universe for God's existence, so I think it's quite an extraordinary claim to say that He absolutely doesn't make it reasonable to believe in Him.

[Crashland]

That's the crux of the issue. Despite all this jumping around labels and saying that you're technically a "weak atheist", you say you are not making the claim that God does not exist, and yet you, yourself, believe it. If you are really any kind of agnostic, you should be just as skeptical of the belief that God does not exist as you are of the belief that He does.

I said that "I do NOT believe that God exists". I did not say that "I DO believe that God does not exist." Because I don't believe that either. The only thing that is required to be an atheist is to lack belief in God or gods. It does not require belief that there are none.

But you acknowledge that it could be there, and you attach no probability to the truth or falsity of that claim. That's the point. When you say you "lack belief" in God, you have already stated that you do not believe that God exists, so are you willing to say the same about aliens in that particular galaxy?

No I didn't state that. Just because I do not believe that there are aliens there, does not mean that I do believe that there aren't any. I don't see any good reason to believe either of those claims. Similarly I don't see any good reason to believe claims about the existence or nonexistence of God.

I've showed you how belief is just as reasonable as non-belief, so I fail to see how you can claim that "He doesn't" make it such that a person would find it to be reasonable. I find it to be reasonable. Am I deluded? There is tons of evidence in the very nature of the universe for God's existence, so I think it's quite an extraordinary claim to say that He absolutely doesn't make it reasonable to believe in Him.

I don't think you are necessarily deluded. But I understand that what is convincing evidence to one person may not be convincing evidence to another, and both people can honestly hold opposite positions. I understand a lot of the reasons why people believe in God, whether its the cosmological argument or the moral argument or whatever. But to me those reasons don't hold water, I don't find them to be convincing. Obviously other people do.

[PaulConventionWV]

I said that "I do NOT believe that God exists". I did not say that "I DO believe that God does not exist." Because I don't believe that either. The only thing that is required to be an atheist is to lack belief in God or gods. It does not require belief that there are none.

So, do you attribute the same likelihood to God existing as you do to God not existing? Think hard about your answer. I have no problem with you believing that God does not exist, as long as you recognize that such a position requires just as much faith as a belief in God. If, as you say, you just don't believe either one and place equal probability on either one being true, then congratulations, you're a true agnostic. The fact that you feel the need to attach "atheistic" to that seems questionable, though.

No I didn't state that. Just because I do not believe that there are aliens there, does not mean that I do believe that there aren't any. I don't see any good reason to believe either of those claims. Similarly I don't see any good reason to believe claims about the existence or nonexistence of God.

Exactly. Spoken like a true agnostic. I've got no problem with your lack of belief as long as you realize the dilemma you're in. You are caught in the middle of two truly dichotomous statements and your only two ways out of holding an irrational, unfounded belief are either by 1) studying the evidence and concluding that one is more logical than the other or 2) denying knowledge altogether and placing equal probability on either being true. You seem to take the second route, but I'm confused as to why you referred to yourself as an "atheist" earlier if that is really the case.

I don't think you are necessarily deluded. But I understand that what is convincing evidence to one person may not be convincing evidence to another, and both people can honestly hold opposite positions. I understand a lot of the reasons why people believe in God, whether its the cosmological argument or the moral argument or whatever. But to me those reasons don't hold water, I don't find them to be convincing. Obviously other people do.

I agree that neither of us are deluded, but I think your presuppositions are keeping you from understanding why they are good evidence. I personally don't care which one you believe, but I do like to make sure people understand that, absent the aforementioned evidence, both positions require the same amount of faith. Atheism gets no special treatment, even with its devotion to Almighty Science.

[Crashland]

So, do you attribute the same likelihood to God existing as you do to God not existing? Think hard about your answer. I have no problem with you believing that God does not exist, as long as you recognize that such a position requires just as much faith as a belief in God. If, as you say, you just don't believe either one and place equal probability on either one being true, then congratulations, you're a true agnostic. The fact that you feel the need to attach "atheistic" to that seems questionable, though.

Exactly. Spoken like a true agnostic. I've got no problem with your lack of belief as long as you realize the dilemma you're in. You are caught in the middle of two truly dichotomous statements and your only two ways out of holding an irrational, unfounded belief are either by 1) studying the evidence and concluding that one is more logical than the other or 2) denying knowledge altogether and placing equal probability on either being true. You seem to take the second route, but I'm confused as to why you referred to yourself as an "atheist" earlier if that is really the case.

I don't even place a probability on it at all. I could say 50/50 because of the two possible options, but having no information either way does not lend itself to even placing a probability. Let's not even use the term 'probability', since I know you are really referring to reasonableness. I do not think it is reasonable to assume either of the propositions that a god exists or that a god does not exist. In my opinion the most reasonable position is to not accept either of those two claims. You might call this agnosticism, but it is also atheism.

I think you more or less understand what I believe, but we are just not agreeing on what to call it. Your definition of atheism is narrower than mine is. I think if you go to the atheist community, most self-identified atheists will not claim that you need to think that one claim is more likely than the other in order to still be considered an atheist. All you have to do to be an atheist is to not accept the claim that there is a god. Whether or not you happen to accept the opposite claim is not really relevant, it just makes you one kind of atheist versus another kind of atheist. I have been saying that I am an atheist, and it seems to me that the main problem that you have with this is related to something other than what I mean when I say athest.

I agree that neither of us are deluded, but I think your presuppositions are keeping you from understanding why they are good evidence. I personally don't care which one you believe, but I do like to make sure people understand that, absent the aforementioned evidence, both positions require the same amount of faith. Atheism gets no special treatment, even with its devotion to Almighty Science.

I would agree that any claims made by atheists should not get special treatment with regard to the burden of proof. However, not all atheists make claims about God, which gets back to my previous point.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't even place a probability on it at all. I could say 50/50 because of the two possible options, but having no information either way does not lend itself to even placing a probability. Let's not even use the term 'probability', since I know you are really referring to reasonableness. I do not think it is reasonable to assume either of the propositions that a god exists or that a god does not exist. In my opinion the most reasonable position is to not accept either of those two claims. You might call this agnosticism, but it is also atheism.

I agree completely with what you said there, except for the "it is also atheism" part. I think that's a confusion of terms. Atheism has always meant the positive belief in no God, and agnosticism is exactly what you've just described. It's not a mere proposition of less than 100% certainty about anything. It's a complete lack of awareness of how certain you should be about anything. Historically, you are using the term agnosticism correctly, and I commend you for that, but why, then must we even mix the term atheism with it at all? Theism and atheism are a dichotomous pair. They are the exact opposite of one another, so why do we lump in agnostics with atheists?

I think you more or less understand what I believe, but we are just not agreeing on what to call it. Your definition of atheism is narrower than mine is. I think if you go to the atheist community, most self-identified atheists will not claim that you need to think that one claim is more likely than the other in order to still be considered an atheist. All you have to do to be an atheist is to not accept the claim that there is a god. Whether or not you happen to accept the opposite claim is not really relevant, it just makes you one kind of atheist versus another kind of atheist. I have been saying that I am an atheist, and it seems to me that the main problem that you have with this is related to something other than what I mean when I say athest.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up, but if atheists are equally opposed to "strong atheism" as they are to "theism," then why even call it atheism? That doesn't seem very equal to me.

I would agree that any claims made by atheists should not get special treatment with regard to the burden of proof. However, not all atheists make claims about God, which gets back to my previous point.

Not all theists make claims, either. We seem to be lacking a neutral agnosticism where people are neither theistic agnostics nor atheistic agnostics but just regular ol' agnostics.

[otherone]

I agree completely with what you said there, except for the "it is also atheism" part. I think that's a confusion of terms. Atheism has always meant the positive belief in no God, and agnosticism is exactly what you've just described. It's not a mere proposition of less than 100% certainty about anything. It's a complete lack of awareness of how certain you should be about anything. Historically, you are using the term agnosticism correctly, and I commend you for that, but why, then must we even mix the term atheism with it at all? Theism and atheism are a dichotomous pair. They are the exact opposite of one another, so why do we lump in agnostics with atheists?

the confusion is on your end.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

[PaulConventionWV]

the confusion is on your end.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

That's deism, not theism. Theists don't claim that "at least one deity" exists. They claim that there is one supreme Creator and ruler of the universe. Atheism includes deism because it posits that there is no Creator and that any deities that do exist are more like Superman than the singular reason that the universe exists.

An atheist definitely wrong that Wikipedia entry.