He Who Claims "God", Has A Moral Obligation To Produce Evidence.

And plenty of evidence is provided to those people. That is the very definition of faith. What moral obligation could the religious ever have to provide anything to people who are determined not to believe them anyway? That doesn't even make sense.

This is slightly different. In an actual science class, anything presented must be backed up with scientific evidence. That's not to say that anything or even everything in the Bible couldn't potentially be explained through purely scientific means, but this is certainly a place where faith alone is not sufficient to teach this subject in this environment. Does it make the material any less true? No. But it does make it out of place in this particular environment until/unless the Biblical interpretations are presented from the standpoint of the scientific method.

What evidence is there that atheists should not be humble or open-minded? You're about to paint yourself into a corner where you will be doing nothing but defending bull-headedness.

And this is the point I was making. Treating absence of a positive as irrefutable proof of a negative is pure faith. Which atheists claim not to believe in. Speculating about something based on what you see is one thing. But look around you here. Most of the atheists on this forum will state with 100% certainty that God does not exist and claim that faith is fantasy and totally fail to see the contradiction in their words.

And this is a perfectly valid attitude to have. It is based on what you can currently perceive but open to the possibility that you might be able to perceive things in the future that could alter your current beliefs about the subject.

A lot of the people who do not share your attitude would have laughed at the idea of germs and radiation not too long ago. If they couldn't see it, it obviously didn't exist. Of course, they scoff at such a suggestion now but it is only because they have always known a world in which germs and radiation could be proven by science. Before we had that technology, no one could see them. But the advent of modern technology did not suddenly bring those things into being. They were always there. We were just unable to perceive them with our limited resources. Just as our resources today are still limited in the grand scheme of things. Every time we discover anything new with science, we prove how limited our resources had been up to that point.

 

scoundrel's? So anyone who puts up an argument againts religion in a 'scoundrel' now? Being a bit melodramatic there?

Its not about believing in the negative. Its showing the abursity of claiming something exists and then saying, prove it does not.

Example:

rstones199: The invisible pink panda is stading next to me
Unifier: say what?
rstones199: Prove the invisible pink panda is not standing next to me.

 

Well, with as much time as you spend in 'religious' threads, you must really enjoy being in that child like mentality. Congratulations.. who knows you might have found an unexpected fountain of youth.

 

Sorry but I can't find any reasonable way to match these two sentences. Plenty of evidence is the very definition of faith? Could you explain, please?

The obligation to go beyond the circular reasoning that is adequate for faith is a moral one for the exact reason that people exist who do not share such beliefs.

Should I happen to be homosexual and you to be in a position of having your religion make an impact on my options regarding civil status then it's hardly too much to ask to justify it with more than a chant like "It's an abomination!".

No, it is not different. Even before you get to implement religious ideas as part of a science curriculum you better darn well feel morally obligated to present a valid justification for ruining the education of thousands of kids.

"Because the Bible says so" does not cut it.

That was your assertion. I never presented mine.

The supernatural exists in the mind only. There is simply no other way to assert a reality of anything supernatural. So to claim that faith does not equal fantasy is to deny the very nature of faith itself.

In fact, it is only because of this that I for one will never claim knowledge of divine existences, whether absence or presence. Though whenever asked I will of course share my opinion based on what can be known, - which pertains to the natural world only. Not sufficient to resolve the question, I know, but it's all I can offer. And I wish it was all anyone could offer.

I dislike the thought that this be seen as a loophole for the possibility that I might catch the religious bug in the future. Should I ever become religious then I will neither have gained evidence nor any perceptive skills. I will have gained a superstitious belief, is all.

Of course. But this has to do with probability, not possibility. It is highly improbable to make an observation that requires a certain level of technology before such a technology actually exists. However, it is and was never impossible to make the observation.

It is always impossible to make observations of the supernatural, though. Because if you do then it is not supernatural.

In fact, anyone who holds his religious faith dearly should never wish for his supernatural beliefs to be evidenced. Once they are, they go *POOF*

 

Please show where there is a moral obligation to abide by any system of 'logic'. Have you presented a straw argument?

 

nothing about that cartoon was incorrect.

 

Nor was there anything wrong with the expression that I made.

 

Nor was there anything wrong with the expression that I made.

 

I don't hold the position of a gnostic atheist, so what is your point?

 

What evidence Freeware? Is there suddenly 'evidence' available somewhere?

 

Within the natural world? Everywhere.

 

I am not a gnostic atheist, so what is your point? There is no faith in my position, simply the pursuit of evidence.

 

He has no moral obligation because theism itself is not inherently moral or immoral and the claim itself defames no one and produces no specific set of ethical or moral consequences. It just sits there, to be taken as seriously or as lightly as his audience prefers.

 

Be more specific... and show how such evidence, being "everywhere", can be so elusive to such great scientific minds as those that have preceded all of us in their grandest moments of intellectualism.

 

It's been awhile and I'm not really sure what was discussed previous to Unifiers post #22, but I presume that as an atheist my assertion was that there is no need for gods. If Unifiers assertion was the opposite then my assertion is more correct. By it's very nature the god concept cannot explain anything.

 

The Copenhagen Interpretation (which is the accepted basis for all Quantum Physics), supports the idea of a pre-existing and required Observer at the Creation, when the Big Bang from Wave Functions became material reality we call Universe.

(That is scientific evidence, but not a proof,... unless one accepts science as the source of truth.)

 

The Copenhagen Interpretation establishes the idea of a required and necessary Observer exist BEFORE the Wave Functions could collapse into a material Cosmos after the Big Bang.

You will not accept that, though, will you?

 

Of course that is an expression of your OPINION. Accepted as an opinion.

 

Don't judge the bible by things people tell you in their opinion:

Chapters 4, 5, and 10 expain the corrspondences of the Genealogy with the speies of Paleontlogy:

 

It's not an opinion but, as said, the very nature of the god concept.

The claim that "God did it" has the exact same explanatory power as any other claim for which there can be no evidence: Nada.

 

Prove that is was your religion's particular unique god, and not Zeus, not "Allah", not the flying spaghetti monster, not Wotan, not the gods in the Shinto belief system, etc. Prove it.

 

Well at least we know that religion is inherently EVIL, or else their all-powerful invisible friend in the sky, who allegedly INVENTED evil, would get rid of evil....if he wasn't evil himself, that is.

 

Not rude at all.
We are in the longest war in US history, with no end in sight, the enemy clamors for nukes, and we are too shy to call them on their ridiculous beliefs (the gov't is too shy, that is).

- - - Updated - - -

Can't prove it, can ya, "god".
Any god that can't prove himself will be labeled as no more credible than Santa is.

 

Then condemn any book that claims to be real that also has talking snakes in it, and a man living inside a whale for 3 days. It's really not that hard.

Any "god/prophet" who can't differentiate himself from Santa doesn't deserve to be believed.

 

Just like the belief in unicorns and Bigfoot. See how that works?