first i should say that i do not like islam for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the moslem treatment of women.
still, the free exercise of anyone's peaceful observance of their religion, including moslems, trumps my personal preferences.
also, living in america, i evidently enjoy a greater degree of religious liberty than i see in recent years in continental europe, something that continues to baffle me.. today the european court of justice, the same group that has stood up for the rights of jws, has decreed that it is ok for employers to ban the wearing of religious symbols among employees.
I think an employer should have the right to insist on an entirely secular environment at work.
One of the ladies involved in the case was a receptionist. You would not allow an employee who deals face-to-face with your customers to wear a political badge in case it alienated some of your customers. The same should apply to religion.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
I do in fact wish that I could have a belief in a personal deity that cares about me and will allow me to continue my conscious existence after I die.
Me too.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
May I ask, do you wish to believe? - SKD
Of course you may ask, thank you for the question.
I think it's a common mistake to imagine that we can actually choose our beliefs. It's better to ask questions, study, debate and reflect. Our beliefs happen while we engage in that process.
I used to be a christian. I kept learning new stuff. Now I'm not a believer.
During the many conversations I have had on this forum and elsewhere I often come across believers who claim that atheists just refuse to believe and that no evidence would ever be enough for them. This thread is a response to that common canard.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Man - My OP consists of nine simple, common-sense observations.
They concern reasons that make me doubt the existence of the god of Jesus. They assume very little about specific doctrines other than the absolute basics of christian theism - a god of love who made the world and who desires a relationship with his creation.
They are not complex philosophical arguments or knock-down proofs that god does not exist. If I had to rate them individually in terms of how compelling I find them, they would be on a spectrum. Imagine a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a very weak objection to theism and 10 is proof that the christian god does not exist.
I would would rate all of them above 5 and I would put natural evil at the top of the chart with a 9 out of 10.
You have not actually addressed one of them yet.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
By the way you have not adequately addressed natural evil.
To say that it is necessary is not an answer. Tsunamis are clearly not necessary.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Well you seem to call scientific or empirical evidence as "objective fact". This is pure nonsense.
Empirical evidence is objective fact.
You seem to talk about a very strict concept of God. A Sola Scriptura pentecostal/calvinist concept of God.
My OP is an observation about all forms of theistic deity. It doesn't depend on sola scriptura as I have pointed out multiple times. The god of the pope is equally guilty.
You seem to apply scientific evidence to refute a philosophical system (theism). This is scientism.
I am not objecting to a "philosophical system" I am objecting to claims that theists make about god. Things that conflict with reality. By god I mean the god and father of Jesus.
These are basically the problems in your OP.
These are only problems in your imagination.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
If there any observations in the OP that you think are contradicted by evidence be sure to let me know John_Mann.
It is page 12 after all. It's about time you addressed the actual topic as opposed to your generic apologetics.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?
The answers to those questions are all in the OP
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Cofty talks about god; I am refering to Jehovah of the Bible - Fishy
Everything in the OP, and what I have written in this thread since, applies perfectly to Jehovah of the bible.
The bible makes a lot of specific claims about Jehovah, his nature and his works.
All of those claims are contradicted by objective facts that are available to all. I set out a number of those inconvenient facts in my OP. You and John_Mann are yet to address any of them specifically.
When anybody asks theists difficult questions they always want to change the subject.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Your arguments always are centered in scientific evidence. Even in non scientific subjects. This is scientism/positivism. - John_Mann
The OP of this thread has absolutely no connection with "scientism". It would be a more interesting discussion if you would drop this red herring and focus on the specific points made in the OP.
Not believing doesn't make it so either. --except for cofty - Fishy
Of course not. The difference is that I offer objective evidence against theism.
