A question to think about.

[Squid]

3. We don't see anything that is in the process of evolution or halfway evolved.

There is no such thing as "halfway evolved" as the process is not progressive toward some predestined goal.  This is a point where many end up confusing evolution with development - they are not the same thing.

[Asmodean]

Atheist: Truth exists somewhere out there and whenever I or a proper quotient of others agree that a given thing is truth then that is truth. Whatever we agree on as being truth is truth. Why is it the truth? Because we said so. How can that claim be trusted? On the basis of what we have accomplished together over the ages as humans - our study, research, observation, etc.

I'm an atheist. Let's see if I really can't do better...

Truth is relative to the observer - I would even go as far as calling it conceptual in the way the word is used. The more objective truth is something we can look for, but even once found, unless it is a matter of yes/no with no possible shadings, that truth will be percieved in different ways by different observers. A small for instance: I see a star. I know** it's there because I see it. An astronomer sees a star. He knows** it died a million years ago and what I'm actually seeing is the light of that dead star still traveling towards Earth. Is my truth less true than the astronomers? Depending on perspective, the answer can go both ways. (As I am unaware of the astronomer's perspective nor he of mine) The star still being there or not is really rather irrelevant to me. I still see the light, do I not? So as far as I'm concerned, the star is still there. If confronted by a different truth, I'll likely say "Oh. Ok" and still regard that specklet of light in the night sky as a star. Of course, eventually the starlight will go out and the astronomer's truth will be the last one standing, making it more true than mine. It need not end there either - there may be truths which will ground the one the astronomer presented too, however unlikely they seem at the time.

So how can you trust a truth to be true? You can not. Not completely, at least. What you can do, however, is examine it and, if it seems to hold its water, assume that it is the truth until proven otherwise. What you demand of proof is somewhat subjective to self, but you can use as objective guidelines as humans can conjure, get your truth reviewed by your peers, etc.

So how do I know* the Earth is elliptical in shape? I don't. However, seeing the pictures taken from the orbiters and the general consensus among the experts on the matter, I assume it is. This assumption is at this moment very strong, so with the numbers on my side, I can call it knowledge**

*Using "know" here as absolute knowledge, or knowledge of the absolute truth
**NOT using knowledge here as absolute knowledge. See? This is where shadings come in.

Excuse the on-the-fly examples used... Found none better due to time of night

[fester30]

One genealogy was traced through Mary and the other through Joseph: (More Info)

Matthew traces the genealogy of Abraham through Jacob, the father of Joseph, who is the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.  Jacob was the father of Joseph, not the father of Mary, therefore the genealogy here traces through Joseph.

Luke calls Jesus the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of Matthat, etc., through Abraham, all the way to Adam.

Both genealogies traced through Joseph, even though, according to Matthew and Luke, Joseph was only Jesus' adoptive father, since Mary was apparently a virgin (Mark, the oldest gospel, doesn't see fit to mention the virgin birth, even though Jesus' divinity is so important to Christianity).

 

Atheist: Truth exists somewhere out there and whenever I or a proper quotient of others agree that a given thing is truth then that is truth. Whatever we agree on as being truth is truth. Why is it the truth? Because we said so. How can that claim be trusted? On the basis of what we have accomplished together over the ages as humans - our study, research, observation, etc.

This is interesting, considering you say your belief is truth because a book says so.  You say your book was inspired by God, so it must be true, so God must exist.

The Tooth Fairy exists, and is great and powerful, and has unlimited funds to distribute to toothless children.  It is written.

Now you must believe my story, because it was written.  I would not claim I was divinely inspired by the Great Tooth Fairy, but I could be the instrument of the Tooth Fairy's to get the message out.  Perhaps I'm part of the Tooth Fairy's great plan.  I do tend to give away a lot of candy at work.

[LegendarySandwich]

You just used circular reasoning here. Let me explain with a graphic:

All reasoning at its highest level is circular.

No. All reasoning at its highest level has to invoke the use of axioms.

Christian: God is the the source of all truth. Whatever God says (the Bible) is truth. Why is it the truth? Because God said it. How can that claim be trusted? One the basis of who God is - because God is all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful, etc.

Logical critique: If the assumption that there is a God and He really is who He says He is - if that initial assumption is true then the conclusion that there is no possible higher standard for truth holds. Of course, if there is not a God then everything falls apart.

No issues here.

Atheist: Truth exists somewhere out there and whenever I or a proper quotient of others agree that a given thing is truth then that is truth. Whatever we agree on as being truth is truth. Why is it the truth? Because we said so. How can that claim be trusted? On the basis of what we have accomplished together over the ages as humans - our study, research, observation, etc.

Almost. I believe that objective truth exists, but it is impossible to know something is true with one-hundred percent certainty. All we have are our own perceptions of truth and rational thinking. So, basically, "truth" is subjective. The way to make our perceptions of the truth as close as they can be is science.

Logical critique: If the assumption that there is no God and man must make sense out of a possibly senseless world and be the final arbiter of truth - if that initial assumption is true then the conclusion that what the best and brightest of mankind over the centuries have discovered as being truth sounds good but even given the assumption that there is no God then how can we know that our human brains aren't only partially developed and we really aren't fully evolved enough to grasp what is truth and what is not? We may think we are at the pinnacle of the evolutionary process but what if we are hardly even 1.3% of the way there and trillions of years in the future suprahumans will look back on us and our pathetic attempts at reason and understanding the same way that we now look back at amoebas? How do we truly know or rely on anything if all we have to trust is our own brains (that are admittedly still an in process work of evolution)? We can certainly rely on the consensus that we can arrive at together with our pooled amoeba knowledge and we can feel good about ourselves, but should we?

In a nutshell, we can't. We have no way of knowing that all of the things we hold as true are actually completely wrong. However, there is no reason to think that.

[LegendarySandwich]

We should never question things that we can't possibly understand and just take everything on faith. Right?

Wrong. Question everything.

This is interesting, considering you said "(although He certainly could have if He wanted to because He is God and who are we to attempt to make Him "fit into what we can understand" with our little pea brains?)"

1. That there is an absolute right and wrong that all of us know without it having to be taught to us (God has placed a "conscience" and knowledge of Him within us "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19,20)

The most reasonable alternative explanation is that our conscious and morality comes partially from evolution and partially from society. Which sounds like the better theory? Occam's Razor would tell me the latter.

2. The wonder of the universe and how it works perfectly together in perfect order ("The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork")

How is this evidence of God?

3. We don't see anything that is in the process of evolution or halfway evolved

As Squid said, this is straw man argument. In any case, how does the theory of evolution being wrong become evidence that your religion is correct?

4. I have a desire to know God (Ecclesiastes says that the reason all of us want to know God and want to live for ever and want something more than just this short life is because He made us that way - He "placed eternity in our hearts")

As with your first argument, this can easily be explained by evolutionary and societal factors. Again, Occam's Razor.

5. The coded information found in the smallest parts of us (DNA code = coder/code designer)

As with the second argument, how is this proof of God?

6. The bazillion different interrelated and interdependent machinations that all must be working 100% correctly and in coordination with each other for the world to exist otherwise we all die (i.e. one little machination couldn't evolve and survive on its own and the whole couldn't survive without all of its parts functioning properly at the same time)

Douglas Adams wrote: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in â€" an interesting hole I find myself in â€" fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

7. I called to God and I have experienced His working personally in my life (Jeremiah 33:3 "Call to me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you know not.")

Again, societal and evolutionary factors. It's easily explainable why you think you have experienced God.

The key reason why people can ask the same questions and get different answers is kind of like the idea behind the Upton Sinclair quote that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." so if you approach the issue with a vested interest that you already don't want there to be a God because you don't want to be proven wrong, you enjoy being an atheist, you enjoy living any way you want without having to submit to a Higher Power, you don't like to see the consequences of your actions, etc. then sure, it's very easy for someone to "question things" without really "questioning things".

Ha ha. That's true, but that argument works largely against believes, not atheists. If God exists, you go to Heaven; there's somebody always watching out for you; and things of that nature. Religious folk are far, far more likely to commit the sentimental fallacy than nonreligious folk.

You could also come right back and say the same thing applies to me

As I have. It applies to you a lot more than it does to me.

but I would counter that the atheist has the largest vested interest in maintaining their status quo and not changing given that under the assumption that there is no God if I were to forsake my faith then all I have done is had to admit to you that I was wrong where as an atheist if you were to admit that you were wrong and the Christian God exists then you would have to not only admit you were wrong but admit that you were a powerless sinner headed for eternal torture and in need of a Savior to forgive your sins. Quite a difference in incentives.

So? "Oh, I have to admit that I was not only wrong, but a sinner, that was going to Hell? Now I REALLY don't want there to be a god!"

If you admitted you were wrong and became an atheist, you would have to stop believing in an afterlife, and that there's a cosmic being that rules over the universe who loves you and is watching over you. If I admitted I was wrong and became a Christian, I would start believing in those things, as well as stop feeling excluded and being persecuted for my lack of religious beliefs.

[LegendarySandwich]

something too long to quote

As far as I can tell, Asmodean said the same thing I did in respect to the concept of truth, only in more words.

[Extropian]

As a general observation on Joel25's posts, it seems that theistic allegiance requires a rare smugness not to be found outside religious conviction. Allied with an overweaning certainty in the value of personal incredulity and grovelling declarations of one's decrepitude and unworthiness, the remaining body of Joel's cosmogony comprises self-congratulatory proclamations of horrible destinies for non-believers.

Joel writes; Nothing can thwart God's overall Divine plan but because of His allowing man to have free will to make both good decisions (like accept God's free gift of salvation and follow Biblical principles) and bad decisions (like refuse to acknowledge that there is a God, refuse salvation, murder, lie, cheat, commit adultery, steal, etc.)

Such egregious views can only emanate from a mind saturated in bigotry. My choice of atheism is not a commitment to a life of murder, lying, cheating, adultery and theft. For a christian to assert so demonstrates a depth of iniquity that only religious commitment can make into virtue.

A feature so mundane as prison statistics for the USA on a theist/atheist per capita basis puts the lie to Joel's assertion irrevocably.

I hold little hope for the day when I may encounter a theist's declaration of his/her faith that abstains from all insult and contempt for atheists. But that would be the first theist to gain my respect.

If you show such disrespect for the atheist commitment and such lack of appreciation of the depth of that commitment, Joel, then can you in all fairness expect that the atheist will afford respect and appreciation to you?

There is a number of differing atheistic commitments, just as there are numerous sects of christianity. But if I were to presume that your christianity carried with it the baggage of a tendency toward paedophilia and that you very likely would become a paedophile if you maintained your commitment.............how would you react to my assertion? But keep in mind that you made a similar assertion in your quote above.

Extropian

[xSilverPhinx]

C'mon people, Pascal's Wager is great...if you want to find a way to validate the beliefs you already hold and feel good and safe about going to a heaven you believe exists via a path you believe will get you there. It's pure circular negotiation.

I believe that belief in god will get me into a place I believe exists called heaven, and I'm so certain of those that I'll give them a 100% chance of existing.

Now best believe- just in case - so that I can go to heaven.  

Weakest thing out there...even worse than the bible.

[Extropian]

Well, Joel25?
Are you less inclined now to see atheists as liars, thieves, murderers and rapists?

Or has this dose of reality incensed you into paroxysms of righteous dudgeon?

Have you run away at the mere whiff of a shot across your bows?