Posted on 06/04/2009 10:23:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“...if my disbelief in his divinity is an article of faith.”
Depends on the basis for your disbelief and what you mean by “article of faith”.
“It’s always been my view that the burden of proof is on the proponent. Atheists have the luxury of not having to prove a negative.”
You could say one has the luxury of not having to prove a negative until one becomes a proponent of that negative at which time the burden of proof is on the proponent.
Your post is a breath of fresh air! facts, logic and reason always trump faith.
(I going to say “blind faith” in the above post but realized that would haved been redundant.)
On the contrary, miracles are evidence of the existence of God. Seeing a violation of the natural laws by which the universe operates is that observable evidence.
There's a difference between proving a negative and disproving someone else's claim.
Their weakness is that in order to be able to state that there is no God as a fact, they have to know everything, everywhere, for all time, and they don't. So the only basis for their statement is preference.
That’s an excellent point.
The militant atheist does not simply deny the existence of God; he detests God and those who believe in the existence of God.
Which is only Heinlein's opinion.
That's more than a little condescending, don't you think? All I care about (in this context) is facts. It's "believers" whose worldview is based on faith rather than facts...by definition.
Our worldview is based on belief that the resurrection happened in fact, that it is true. Likewise, anyone else's worldview is based on their faith that what they believe is true and they also act in accordance to that.
Why in the world would you put the word logical in quotes? For that matter, what's wrong with a logical explanation?
Because it's not inherently logical. Non-believers like to hold up logic as opposed to faith, as if faith is by nature illogical, but it's not. If what God says is true, then the logical thing to do is believe it. What's "logical" depends on what premise you start from.
You can assert that, but there's a wealth of evidence showing that the mythological events in the Bible are just that.
Archaeology supports the Bible. If you do a google search of the topic, you will find more sources than you have time to read.
Also, your premise that the Bible is mythology is based on a preference and assumption that it IS myths but with no basis.
Er...what miracles?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which peer-reviewed scientific journals have documented these miracles?
What's more, even if a miracle was verified through scientific investigation, there would remain the possibility that we simply don't understand the phenomenon in question sufficiently yet, and that it could be explained through naturalistic means. Please note that I'm not saying that that would necessarily be the case.
What facts?
The non-theist puts his faith in he calls *facts, logic, and reason*, so is in no position to dis faith.
It's never a matter of whether a person has faith or not. Everyone has it. It's merely what they put their faith in.
Miracles observed by the medical community.
Medicine encounters things that defy reason and expectations all the time. There have been studies done on the effect of prayer on healing and patient recovery.
A verified miracle will not convince someone who doesn’t want to believe in God, but that leaves them with trying to figure out some other way to explain it.
Please provide a list of those sciences which do not express things using figures, then. Also, bear in mind that he was speaking derisively of the "soft" sciences.
Our worldview is based on belief that the resurrection happened in fact, that it is true. Likewise, anyone else's worldview is based on their faith that what they believe is true and they also act in accordance to that.
Incorrect. My worldview is based on what is verifiable (directly and indirectly). While I observe that there is overwhelming evidence for all sorts of things (evolution, a universe billions of year old, etc.) I would have no choice but to conclude otherwise were sufficient evidence presented to me.
Because it's not inherently logical. Non-believers like to hold up logic as opposed to faith, as if faith is by nature illogical, but it's not. If what God says is true, then the logical thing to do is believe it. What's "logical" depends on what premise you start from.
There are consistent, logical mathematical models in which 1 plus 1 does not equal two...but if you try to build a bridge with them, it tends to collapse. Premises certainly make a difference. My worldview is based upon observation and the scientific method, and yours is (to all appearances) not.
Archaeology supports the Bible. If you do a google search of the topic, you will find more sources than you have time to read.
This is the internet we're speaking of...if you do a google search of ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, and ESP, you'll find more sources about each than you have time to read.
I will freely admit that Archaeology supports some things in the Bible, just as it supports many ancient texts to varying degrees. What it doesn't support are the miraculous aspects; the Flood, Adam and Eve, Christ walking on water, Moses and the Exodus, etc.
Also, your premise that the Bible is mythology is based on a preference and assumption that it IS myths but with no basis.
Not a preference or an assumption. The evidence has led me to the conclusion that the Bible is a mix of legends, oral history, and myths, just as I've concluded the same about other religious texts such as the Qur'an.
Speaking of the Qur'an and other religious texts...I think I can safely assume that your premise is that the more fantastic elements contained therein are mythical. Surely you don't believe (for instance) that Muhammad rode a winged horse. If this is the case, is your premise that the Qur'an is mythology based on a preference and assumption that it IS myths but with no basis?
Then there's the matter of Athena springing from the head of Zeus, and Odin riding his 8-legged horse Sleipnir...do you simply assume that these are mythical as well?
Medicine encounters things that defy reason and expectations all the time.
Well then, medical journals must brimming over with such encounters. After all, they happen all the time!
Is this, in fact, the case? I don't read them myself, being far more interested in the hard sciences such as astronomy.
There have been studies done on the effect of prayer on healing and patient recovery.
Here's a report on such studies:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-04-05
A quote:
"Results showed no statistically significant differences between the prayed-for and non-prayed-for groups. Although the following findings were not statistically significant, 59% of patients who knew that they were being prayed for suffered complications, compared with 51% of those who were uncertain whether they were being prayed for or not; and 18% in the uninformed prayer group suffered major complications such as heart attack or stroke, compared with 13% in the group that received no prayers."
Yes, I know that it's from a skeptical website, and that you'll probably dismiss it. People who believe in UFOs, The Bermuda Triangle, and astrology feel much the same.
A verified miracle will not convince someone who doesn’t want to believe in God, but that leaves them with trying to figure out some other way to explain it.
While I freely admit that I lean towards a naturalistic explanation (that's what seems to work in the real world, after all), rest assured that given sufficient evidence I would come to a different conclusion.
Well, it's been a hoot, but it's getting late (yawn...). Off to bed!
'IN FOR A RUDE AWAKENING' ALERT
“If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.” -—Robert A. Heinlein”
In history, there have been scientific theories that were widely accepted only to become obsolete after new discoveries such as spontaneous generation and the flat Earth theory.
“That’s more than a little condescending....” And you’re not?
I quoted “logical” in this since because a logical assumption can depend on the issue being discussed. For instance, what is “rich” monetarily for some may not be “rich” for others.
The Assyrians had widely been written off my scholars as a mythical empire. That is, until the middle nineteenth century when it was discovered by Austen Henry Layard and Paul Emile Botta.
TJI
“The Assyrians had widely been written off my scholars as a mythical empire. That is, until the middle nineteenth century when it was discovered by Austen Henry Layard and Paul Emile Botta.”
The same could be said of Troy until it was discovered by Schliemann but I presume that doesn’t mean that you have developed a faith in Zeus.
My post was in response to a previous comment. In this respect, your post is irrelevant. Furthermore, it’s a weak analogy.
I followed the thread and my post is no more irrelevant than any of yours. As to it being a ‘weak analogy’, you’ll need to argue the case, not merely assert it.
You have missed the point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.