quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:
Ex-PMs who were told to invade other countries by god. Bishops with automatic access to our political institutions. Religious *worship* compulsory in all schools. Faith schools on the increase whilst headteachers who embrace secularism are castigated. Blasphemy still a crime. Militant Islam on the ascendancy - innocent UK citizens dead as a result. Creationism trying to find a foothold in education... to name just some of the BS.

I can understand that these are things you disapprove of and wish to fight against. But to suggest that they are seriously impinging on your life is perhaps going a bit far! Are you finding it difficult to find a nice, non-religious school for your children to go to?

I don't think Blair said God told him to go to war! In any case, would it have been better if Blair had been an atheist and sent the troops to Iraq? Surely the issue is that he took the country into a war, not that he was a Christian.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
The story could be drawing a number of quite natural phenomena and reframing them to serve a particular symbolic purpose. I don't see this as a problem for Christianity.

The tall tales the gospels narrate are not there for symbolic purposes. They are there for propagandistic purposes. The gospels were written in order to propagate a certain set of beliefs -not to record facts. They are not history -they are religious propaganda.

The fact that the wide majority of the events narrated in the gospels are -all too obviously- pure fiction, may not be a problem for christianity, as you say -mainly because most christians are willing to believe any absurdity- but it is a problem for those who try to peddle the notion that there is a solid historical basis for christianity.

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
The story could be drawing a number of quite natural phenomena and reframing them to serve a particular symbolic purpose. I don't see this as a problem for Christianity.

The tall tales the gospels narrate are not there for symbolic purposes. They are there for propagandistic purposes. The gospels were written in order to propagate a certain set of beliefs -not to record facts. They are not history -they are religious propaganda.

The fact that the wide majority of the events narrated in the gospels are -all too obviously- pure fiction, may not be a problem for christianity, as you say -mainly because most christians are willing to believe any absurdity- but it is a problem for those who try to peddle the notion that there is a solid historical basis for christianity.

You seem very dogmatic in your reading of the Bible! You didn't grow up in a conservative evangelical family, did you? If so, you have clearly absorbed their approach, even if your actual beliefs are now rather different!

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
And how might that happen? What would satisfy you? And more to the point, what difference would it make to your life anyway?

Perhaps you can answer the following question, Miss Dee:

What would convince you that you were wrong?

Let me give you my answer: evidence beyond reasonable doubt / on the balance of probability.

Your answer?

Well, you've just answered for me, haven't you?

I thought MK answered for himself. What is your answer?

quote:

The trouble is, none of us seem able to state what this 'evidence beyond doubt/on the balance of probability' might mean in reality. What would it look like?

For me that would be any act that is not explainable as coincidence, beyond our understanding of science and clearly and unequivocally claimed by a xian god.
Like, say, rearranging the starts to read 'christ', or ideally, all the bibles in the world suddenly changing so that they were not internally contradictory and containing a moral message.

quote:

And if it's absolutely blindlingly obvious to you, why isn't it obvious to me?

What exactly do you think is blindingly obvious?

quote:

I've never been convinced that atheists were as absolutely objective as they sometimes imagine themselves to be. I can't see how it's possible. Atheists are subjected to a myriad of influences, internal and external, as everyone else.

But at least we strive to be objective, looking for evidence both to prove and disprove a theory.

quote:

They read the 'evidence' of a godless universe out of their own experience and understanding of life,

Of course we all interpret our experiences through our own filters.
However, your posit is a straw man. There is no 'evidence' of a godless universe; there is absolutely no evidence for a god universe. Big difference.
Virtually everything that had been attributed to god, we now understand the real physical cause. As science advances god retreats. All he is left with is the big bang trigger puller.

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
And how might that happen? What would satisfy you? And more to the point, what difference would it make to your life anyway?

Perhaps you can answer the following question, Miss Dee:

What would convince you that you were wrong?

Let me give you my answer: evidence beyond reasonable doubt / on the balance of probability.

Your answer?

Well, you've just answered for me, haven't you?

I thought MK answered for himself. What is your answer?

That poster was Smoke and Mirrors, but I think I misunderstood him there. (I was reading too quickly). I thought he was trying to put words in my mouth. In any case, I my response came in my next paragraph, where I said I was rather unclear what this evidence might look like. Unless I can imagine a context it's difficult to know how to answer the question.

quote:

What exactly do you think is blindingly obvious?

It's blinding obvious to a convinced atheist that there is no evidence that God exists, ergo, that there is almost no likelihood that there is a God.

quote:

I've never been convinced that atheists were as absolutely objective as they sometimes imagine themselves to be. I can't see how it's possible. Atheists are subjected to a myriad of influences, internal and external, as everyone else.

But at least we strive to be objective, looking for evidence both to prove and disprove a theory.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder. Don't people often begin their research because they are already inclined to believe that God doesn't exist? That's how it seems. In other words, they begin their research already with an agenda in mind, just as a research student arrives at a topic with a thesis that s/he wishes to defend. There's no blank slate, and with a subject as controversial as the existence of God, any claim to objectivity must be taken with an extra pinch of salt.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:


You seem very dogmatic in your reading of the Bible! You didn't grow up in a conservative evangelical family, did you? If so, you have clearly absorbed their approach, even if your actual beliefs are now rather different!

You couldnt be more wrong. I grew up in a rational family where fairies, resurrections, ghosts, angels, gods, virgin births and leprechauns were considered fictional events and entities. I fail to see how my views have anything to do with those of a conservative evangelical. I guess you belong in the "liberal" christian brethren where things are sort of fuzzy, maybe the gospels are bullshit, maybe they are not, but hey, we are all brothers in Christ and that's what matters, isnt it?

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
That poster was Smoke and Mirrors, but I think I misunderstood him there. (I was reading too quickly). I thought he was trying to put words in my mouth. In any case, I my response came in my next paragraph, where I said I was rather unclear what this evidence might look like. Unless I can imagine a context it's difficult to know how to answer the question.

I stand corrected.
You were asked what would convince you that you were wrong, i.e. that there is no God.
I would have thought a relatively easy question requiring you to set the context.

quote:

quote:

What exactly do you think is blindingly obvious?

It's blinding obvious to a convinced atheist that there is no evidence that God exists, ergo, that there is almost no likelihood that there is a God.

And if it isn't blindingly obvious to you, why do you think we would be able to explain to you why you can't see?

quote:

I wonder. Don't people often begin their research because they are already inclined to believe that God doesn't exist? That's how it seems. In other words, they begin their research already with an agenda in mind, just as a research student arrives at a topic with a thesis that s/he wishes to defend. There's no blank slate, and with a subject as controversial as the existence of God, any claim to objectivity must be taken with an extra pinch of salt.

I really don't think you understand science and research at all.
Science is about developing human knowledge of nature in a way the allows predictions to be made and knowledge advanced. If an option to an explanation of a result is 'goddidit' then this is not science. No understand or knowledge advancement comes from that 'explanation'.
The crucial thing about good science is to seek disproof. This is why experiments have controls. This is why a thesis has to be disprovable to be valid.
This methodology is diametrically opposite to religious thinking.
It is not just that there is no evidence for a god, or anything associated with religious teaching, but an absence in circumstances where there really should be evidence.
I have yet to have anyone wish to engage in a discussion on the power of prayer, surely something that could or aught to be be supported by evidence.
Care to be the only theist who hasn't run away?

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
Care to be the only theist who hasn't run away?

Hello:
I don't run anywhere, much, these days.

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:


The crucial thing about good science is to seek disproof. This is why experiments have controls. This is why a thesis has to be disprovable to be valid.
This methodology is diametrically opposite to religious thinking.
It is not just that there is no evidence for a god, or anything associated with religious teaching, but an absence in circumstances where there really should be evidence.

Can you give me an example of what this evidence would look like, if it existed (which you don't believe it does)?

quote:

I have yet to have anyone wish to engage in a discussion on the power of prayer, surely something that could or aught to be be supported by evidence.
Care to be the only theist who hasn't run away?

I'm not a specialist on 'the power of prayer'. But in any case, we'd probably have to think about what prayer is all about first. An atheist often wants to know, for example, why prayer doesn't bring back an arm that's been chopped off. But to a Christian this seems at the very least a reductionist approach that misses what is at the heart of prayer.

As someone who believes that the scientific approach is king, it's unlikely you'll be satisfied, but there you are.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:
On the contrary, I assert that religion:

a. should provide proof for its claims.

Or, if it had any validity

b. could provide proof.

Unfortunately it does neither.

And why do you think it does neither?

OK since you imply it does, provide one or the other - please list some examples of your evidence for us to debate and examine. Let's see how well any evidence you believe exists stand up to scrutiny.

quote:

Because, seemingly, you believe it to be impossible that it could, no?

Yes, but only insofar as I do not believe there is any truth in the theist claims then it follows that I also believe they cannot have any evidence. However, you could show me wrong by posting your evidence for your belief.

quote:

After all, if God came and did a little jig on Trevor McDonald's show, it would no longer be a question of 'religion', would it? Or would it?

Well that would be convincing but only if he also showed evidence to prove that he was god. Someone merely claiming to be god doing a jig on the TV certainly wouldn't be anything to write home about or claim as true evidence.

quote:

And how might that happen? What would satisfy you? And more to the point, what difference would it make to your life anyway?

Well if any theist could provide evidence which proved their outlandish and grandiose statements then it would change my life since I would then accept the validity of your case and sign up to theism. So post the evidence.

quote:

So you don't believe he did, then? You're clearly not one of these Atheists for Jesus.

Eh, an atheist for Jesus?

Anyway, no evidence for his existence logically says he probably didn't exist (not that he definitely didn't). Like god there is no evidence for Jesus - Apart from the error ridden bible and some forgeries the record is blank. If you disagree then name it and let's see how valid the evidence really is.

quote:

Well, I don't know the extent to which Jesus was of any interest to any great writers of the time.

As mentioned, it isn't just his personal absence from the record which is notable but also the miraculous things he supposedly did. They alone would have been noteworthy and thence recorded. There were many writers around at the time and in that area who did record celestial and other such events - Yet no-one at the time noted a preternatural darkness and earth tremors attributed to Jesus, how curious (or maybe not)?

quote:

Indeed, if self-proclaimed messiahs were two a penny, why should they be bothered?

A p1ss-poor apologetic. So why did they bother to record any of those other "messiahs"? Is it reasonable to argue that they just couldn't be bothered to record your chosen "messiah".

quote:

But the answer seems to lie in the texts themselves.

Oh, so suddenly the NT is to be trusted for what it says in respect to Jesus. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is factually correct or it isn't - Which do you choose?

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
I'm not a specialist on 'the power of prayer'. But in any case, we'd probably have to think about what prayer is all about first. An atheist often wants to know, for example, why prayer doesn't bring back an arm that's been chopped off. But to a Christian this seems at the very least a reductionist approach that misses what is at the heart of prayer.

So what does the bible tell us about prayer then? Let's see:

Matt. 7:7-8, Luke 11:9-10
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened"

John 16:23
"Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you"

Matt. 21:22
"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive"

Others are: John 3:22, 14:12-14, Mark 11:23-24, and James 5:15.

All these clearly state that all prayers will be answered and that obviously would include restoring lost limbs. Why is it only those prayer induced "miracles" which cannot rule out other causes which are granted. Shouldn't the bible really say:

God works in mysterious ways his less than miraculous to perform.

For someone who can supposedly do anything god certainly seems to restrict himself to the mundane and unsurprising.

Another poor apologetic which ignores verses of the "good book" which don't fit. What say you Miss Dee?

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
But to a Christian this seems at the very least a reductionist approach that misses what is at the heart of prayer.

Meant to add it isn't just god through prayer who should be able to restore limbs and the like.

Mark 9:23
"If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth"

John 14:12
"He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do"

As a believer can you (or any theist friends) perform miraculous acts?

1 Thess 5:21 says "Prove all things"

So do provide us with some evidence that such restoration of limbs has been done by believers.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Can you give me an example of what this evidence would look like, if it existed (which you don't believe it does)?

There is a coffee cup next to me. The evidence for it is incontrovertible. Any other hypotheses - eg it's a chicken, it's a hologram, it's a figment of my imagination, have all been ruled out. The probability of it being a chicken is really very low indeed, and so on the overwhelming balance of probability, the cup exists. It's a very nice coffee cup, but in the grand scheme of things I reckon its significance is pretty much next to zero. So why it should be that the evidence for an almost irrelevant and somewhat replaceable trinket is overwhelming, whilst for an alleged superbeing with omnimax powers is, in fact, zero, loses me.

However, not all evidence has to be so unanimous. I would accept the levels of evidence that (say) the Holocaust took place, or that Lithium has a density of 0.5 g/cc, or that humans and apes have a common ancestor... any decent evidence at all that exists beyond reasonable doubt. If a coffee cup can do it, so can god.

quote:

As someone who believes that the scientific approach is king, it's unlikely you'll be satisfied, but there you are.

I can't help thinking of numpty attorney Lionel Hutz in the Simpsons, when asked if he has any real evidence, replying "I have conjecture and hearsay - these are kinds of evidence". People don't like science when it doesn't give them the answers they want. Says more about them than reality, really.

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:
For someone who can supposedly do anything god certainly seems to restrict himself to the mundane and unsurprising.

Maybe it's his followers who restrict themselves! That's more likely to be the case. After all, whilst Jesus was still around, his followers prayed and sometimes failed to get results. What did Jesus respond? His response seems to indicate that for prayer to be powerful, powerful prayer is needed. As someone who spends time with praying people (unlike you) I agree that powerful prayer appears to be a rareity. That's because (as you'll agree) that Christians are usually very spiritually weak people. Well, I know I am!

The idea that God is like some kind of slot machine, into which you pop and coin and get out a neat result is indeed a fantasy. It isn't something that any Christian claims. Could I pray that God would spontaneously combust before my eyes, for a laugh? According to you I could, because God will do just anything, like a menial genie in a lamp. Maybe I could ask God to put a curse on my enemy, and that would be okay too?

Christians believe that prayer is about relationship. It's about keeping close to God. That closeness and commitment is meant to come first, beyond any kind of miraculous healings. The pranks and magic you would like to see would be irrelevant in Christian terms, and in God's terms, because they would have nothing to do with building a relationship with God. They are merely tests. And, since you know your Bible so well, you will know that God is not interested in being put to the test.

God is not interested in being proved to exist by men in white coats and tv cameras, he wants you love and loyal service. If you have no interest in offering that to him, why should he dance around on a tv show for you?

By the way, having claimed that prayer is unproven, why not carry out your own 'experiment' and try praying yourself, as though God might possibly be present? What's the use of telling other people they are wasting their time when you have no experience of it yourself? It sounds as though you are mouthing off on a subject of which you have no practical experience.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Can you give me an example of what this evidence would look like, if it existed (which you don't believe it does)?

There is a coffee cup next to me. The evidence for it is incontrovertible. Any other hypotheses - eg it's a chicken, it's a hologram, it's a figment of my imagination, have all been ruled out. The probability of it being a chicken is really very low indeed, and so on the overwhelming balance of probability, the cup exists. It's a very nice coffee cup, but in the grand scheme of things I reckon its significance is pretty much next to zero. So why it should be that the evidence for an almost irrelevant and somewhat replaceable trinket is overwhelming, whilst for an alleged superbeing with omnimax powers is, in fact, zero, loses me.

It's been ruled out by whom? You're speaking out of your own reality again. I mean, I've never seen you in my life! You might not exist, never mind the cup! Maybe, since I'm crazy enough to believe in a non-visible God, I'm crazy enough to believe in a non-visible you too?

What you seem to be saying is that only the physical is the judge of what exists and doesn't exist. That seems a little problematic to me, but then I'm not a scientist.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
By the way, having claimed that prayer is unproven, why not carry out your own 'experiment' and try praying yourself, as though God might possibly be present?

Perhaps if you haven't done so, you ought to watch Derren Brown's latest program about betting on horses. Then ponder the question: "how can I interpret the results of the experiment?"

Outcome 1: nothing happens. What does that mean? If the faithful can pray and not get a response (eg the Pope still dies despite billions of Catholics begging god to save him), how is one to distinguish that from there not being a god at all?

Outcome 2: I get what I ask for. Well I might, but if one in a million people who pray get something that they ask for then that's good odds over billions of people and multiple prayers over time. Like Derren's system, I might just be the one at the sweet spot, unaware of all the failures around me.

Prayer simply can't work. And it doesn't. Who are we mortals, after all, to question god's plan? And why, given that omniscient god knows what we want anyway, and always did know, do we have to pray at all? And if we pray as a test of god's existence, and god is resistent to being found (as the target of all good conspiracy theories are), why would my prayer be any more worthy than god simply popping in for tea and saying "hi". It doesn't even make sense. And I expect at the very least an omnipowerful deity to make sense, y'know?

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
It's been ruled out by whom?

What's been ruled out where now?

quote:

You're speaking out of your own reality again.

Which one would you like me to speak out of?

quote:

I mean, I've never seen you in my life! You might not exist, never mind the cup! Maybe, since I'm crazy enough to believe in a non-visible God, I'm crazy enough to believe in a non-visible you too?

Perhaps if I claimed something extraordinary your skepticism might be merited (however ironic that may be). But I don't.

quote:

What you seem to be saying is that only the physical is the judge of what exists and doesn't exist. That seems a little problematic to me, but then I'm not a scientist.

Does Beethoven's 5th Symphony exist? Why yes. And it isn't physical. However, the evidence for it is. And the reason for that is that if X has zero interaction with matter then its existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question: what could persuade you that you were wrong? Saying "evidence" isn't admissible, because there's no evidence for your god to start with so by most reckonings you should be a non-believer. So?

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
By the way, having claimed that prayer is unproven, why not carry out your own 'experiment' and try praying yourself, as though God might possibly be present?

Perhaps if you haven't done so, you ought to watch Derren Brown's latest program about betting on horses. Then ponder the question: "how can I interpret the results of the experiment?"

Outcome 1: nothing happens. What does that mean? If the faithful can pray and not get a response (eg the Pope still dies despite billions of Catholics begging god to save him), how is one to distinguish that from there not being a god at all?

Outcome 2: I get what I ask for. Well I might, but if one in a million people who pray get something that they ask for then that's good odds over billions of people and multiple prayers over time. Like Derren's system, I might just be the one at the sweet spot, unaware of all the failures around me.

Prayer simply can't work. And it doesn't. Who are we mortals, after all, to question god's plan? And why, given that omniscient god knows what we want anyway, and always did know, do we have to pray at all? And if we pray as a test of god's existence, and god is resistent to being found (as the target of all good conspiracy theories are), why would my prayer be any more worthy than god simply popping in for tea and saying "hi". It doesn't even make sense. And I expect at the very least an omnipowerful deity to make sense, y'know?

The Bible itself says that God knows what we need before we ask him. But as I said before, he wants us to relate to him. The idea is that we were made to be in union with him, not that we just ignore him! That makes sense to me. It also probably explains why Derren's 'test' didn't do very well. The notion of relationship was, I suspect, rather absent from his research.

Sorry to interrupt. This has turned into a great discussion (and one we highlighted in Forum Buzz).

The makers of The TV Show would like to hear your opinions on Baby Bible Bashers.
If you are interested, please send your thoughts to thetvshow@channel4.com. Maybe record a video clip (or sound clip if you're shy) of your comment on your camera, phone etc and email that in.
Tell them I sent you.

Hopefully, – assuming you don’t swear like a trooper – you’ll get to see your view aired on The TV Show (16:10 Saturday 1 March), Channel 4’s monthly discussion about what’s on TV.

See Tell Krishnan for the latest on the debates for The TV Show, Saturday. Channel 4’s monthly debate on TV. Currently the bookies’ favourites for debate are Boom and Bust (did property shows contribute to the housing boom?) and Shockdocs (are they educational or exploita