Atheist Billboard in Omaha

[Husker_x]

My two cents on why I think unicorns and fairies are in a different boat than religious faith and beliefs. If unicorns and fairies existed, it would be possible and therefore highly likely that evidence of their existence would be documented. Unicorn horn remnants, video, whatnot and etc. The very nature of most faith based religious beliefs eliminates the possibility of scientific evidence. In my mind, that puts them in separate catagories. I understand the tendency of a non-believer to treat them the same but when, by the very nature of faith based beliefs, it is impossible to provide typical means of proof, it seems to me to be somewhat self serving and illogical to demand such proof. If that is what it takes for a non-believer to come to believe, fine but I think it a bit out of line to require it to accept that others believe it.

 

I do not want to broach this part of the conversation yet again but, I still have not seen any scientific evidence that is not congruant with my religous beliefs. What am I missing? The go to here is evolution vs creation. I see no reason they cannot or do not coexist. I really am curious about what hard evidence anyone thinks exists that should preclude me having the religous beliefs I do. I've requested this numerous times and still nobody has provided the answer.

 

1. The thing is if you believe in the power of prayer, or any kind of divine intervention in a physical world, to me that not only suggests but requires some kind of evidence. What exactly is God doing when he preforms miracles if not to providing evidence of his existence? I understand this is only a problem for theism, which brings me to the second bolded part.

 

2. The key here is understanding what exactly your beliefs are about God and his/her/its relationship to the physical world. If God spins up the universe and hides his face, then obviously there are going to be no inconsistencies between that belief and science. The problem here is that God is simply an extra assumption; really nothing more than another mystery piled on the ones we already have. But to expect that there is some formula that would preclude a God's existence is sort of out of the question considering how broadly God is defined from person to person. It may be there are no incongruities at all--that still doesn't amount to positive evidence for God, which is what you'd need to convince us unbelievers.

 

Now if your beliefs are more detailed than that--say, that the bible is inerrant and literally true. . .how much time you got? Those incongruities pile up faster than I can describe them.

[Landlord]

It's 2:30am in the morning and I'm tired and trying my best to think clearly, but am I wrong in thinking that there is a double standard at work here? I remember being told emphatically and by more than one person that philosophical 'evidence' does not in fact count as evidence for something, yet those same people are championing reason as being quite mighty and powerful. Doesn't reason categorically belong inside of philosophical discussion more than anything else?

 

 

If I'm not making any sense I apologize.

[Foppa]

As a Christian (and not a very good one I admit)...I'm just really glad atheists are intelligent enough not to picket funerals of fallen soldiers and think that God...or anyone...wanted them to die.

[zoogs]

Landlord, reason is not contained by philosophy, but refers quite broadly to the human capacity for thinking. Reason here refers to requiring strict standards for accepting things as scientific truth - standards such as well-established scientific ideas - and maintaining skepticism for all that doesn't hold up to that standard. It does not refer to using unsubstantiated logic thought exercises as a means of understanding the world.

 

Reasoning isn't evidence of any kind. I suppose "whether using reason is reasonable" could be a philosophical discussion, one that exists outside the context of religion...

[The Dude]

It's fascinating that an extreme religious group like the WBC is being compared to atheism in this thread.

[zoogs]

I would say atheist organizations are not immune from comparisons to terrible religious organizations such as the WBC. I don't know if the Omaha CoR or any similar group is as terrible (I would guess the WBC is in a class of their own), but that doesn't make them above reproach. They may well be deserving of considerable reproach.

[The Dude]

I would say atheist organizations are not immune from comparisons to terrible religious organizations such as the WBC. I don't know if the Omaha CoR or any similar group is as terrible (I would guess the WBC is in a class of their own), but that doesn't make them above reproach. They may well be deserving of considerable reproach.

Perhaps, but the comparison was to atheism in general. It just seems odd to me that it would draw comparisons to an offshoot Christian group.

[JJ Husker]

 

1. The thing is if you believe in the power of prayer, or any kind of divine intervention in a physical world, to me that not only suggests but requires some kind of evidence. What exactly is God doing when he preforms miracles if not to providing evidence of his existence? I understand this is only a problem for theism, which brings me to the second bolded part.

 

2. The key here is understanding what exactly your beliefs are about God and his/her/its relationship to the physical world. If God spins up the universe and hides his face, then obviously there are going to be no inconsistencies between that belief and science. The problem here is that God is simply an extra assumption; really nothing more than another mystery piled on the ones we already have. But to expect that there is some formula that would preclude a God's existence is sort of out of the question considering how broadly God is defined from person to person. It may be there are no incongruities at all--that still doesn't amount to positive evidence for God, which is what you'd need to convince us unbelievers.

 

Now if your beliefs are more detailed than that--say, that the bible is inerrant and literally true. . .how much time you got? Those incongruities pile up faster than I can describe them.

 

1- Therein lies one of the problems. Countless people believe their prayers have been answered or their faith validated. Count me among those. Yet the proof that these people rely upon is often times written off as impossible, unlikely, or merely anecdotal by others. My only explanation is that a person needs to be somewhat receptive to the possiblity and needs to act in a manner that would make it possible to experience some of the same things. If you don't believe it possible and don't go looking for it, it isn't going to appear on it's own.

 

2- I don't presume to claim that lack of proof disproving God equates to proof he exists. It just seems to me that it would a more consistant position for an atheist, who demands proof of God's existtance, to also demand what would seemingly be easier proof of his lack of existence. However, it can and does get incredibly convoluted when you try to allow for all of the various beliefs that are out there.

[Husker_x]

 

1- Therein lies one of the problems. Countless people believe their prayers have been answered or their faith validated. Count me among those. Yet the proof that these people rely upon is often times written off as impossible, unlikely, or merely anecdotal by others. My only explanation is that a person needs to be somewhat receptive to the possiblity and needs to act in a manner that would make it possible to experience some of the same things. If you don't believe it possible and don't go looking for it, it isn't going to appear on it's own.

 

2- I don't presume to claim that lack of proof disproving God equates to proof he exists. It just seems to me that it would a more consistant position for an atheist, who demands proof of God's existtance, to also demand what would seemingly be easier proof of his lack of existence. However, it can and does get incredibly convoluted when you try to allow for all of the various beliefs that are out there.

 

The Mormons told me the same thing when they came to my door once. The problem is this is far too generic a statement to be useful. I am already receptive to the possibility that God exists. Thing is, according to Christian doctrine, God is not only capable but was actually in the habit of interacting with the physical world in the past. For whatever reason he seems to have stopped doing so in any impressive way. The efficacy of prayer has been studied on a number of occasions and the results are exactly what we would expect: prayer has no measurable effect at all (or in some cases, if the participants of the study know their condition is being prayed for, it seems to make things worse). Generally speaking I consider myself a highly receptive person--to reasoned arguments and evidence. It's just that anecdotal testimony where the subject declares, up front, their bias towards a divine explanation just doesn't cut the mustard.

 

Correction: proving that something does not exist is not only harder than proving it does; it's completely impossible. Even for something like a unicorn, in order to be able to state that it absolutely does not exist, you would have to know the current (and possibly past) state of the entire universe. Skepticism and unbelief are the most logical default positions. Until something has been demonstrated, I don't believe it. When it is, I change my position. This way of thinking is pretty useful, especially if you derive any benefits from a little thing we call science.

 

And not to prolong this, but I think it's important. Believers usually don't convert to a religious belief because of logic. They do it because of an emotional conversion experience (or process). The transcendent feelings that I used to associate with God's presence can't really be undermined by outside influence. The believer has to be the one to question and reconsider those assumptions. No one can do it for them. So, for example, I don't think that even if you told me your 'prayer worked in X scenario' story, and I was able to provide a completely rational alternative explanation, that just providing such an explanation would change anything for you. It might get you thinking about it, though.

[huKSer]

Heresy in the Heartland? Say it ain't so.

 

Thankfully Nebraska's culture of sin hasn't yet seeped into Kansas. If Atheists put up a Billboard here I don't know if I could take it...mass marketing just shakes my convictions so easily...

We don't have atheists but we have the Westboro baptist church which is equally as bad.

 

Are you honestly comparing atheists to the westboro baptists? wtf

Decked should be banned until he gives an apology to every atheist on earth

[sd'sker]

Just frustrating when, as a Christian, I get criticized for assuming anyone who doesn't believe in God is suddenly some child murderer with no conscience, yet on the other side of the coin, I'm labeled as being without reason.

 

Yes, I agree with this. It should not be presented, reason and religion, as exclusive things. One can have both, and all people, not just atheists, should aspire to reason.

 

i disagree. faith is so important to religion. the essence of faith is the more you believe in the more unbelievable events or tenets, the more virtuous you are. not to mention dogmas.

 

this is not a criticism, merely a fact. faith is an important part of religion, and it is by nature unreasonable. dogmas are truths not to be questioned, again unreasonable. i mean 'unreasonable', as literally not to be reasoned with. that is what makes religion so challenging for better or worse.

[zoogs]

I know a great many people who are scientists, highly educated, highly reasonable people and a hell of a lot smarter than me, who are also religious.

 

I don't know how they reconcile - but it certainly does not stop them from being reasonable, and very intelligent. I get what you are saying and I've made the same argument on this board, that there are things which are by their nature not reasonable. Again though, I don't think reason excludes religious people. And I don't think it's productive to try to make that argument.

 

There are common threads to be found here and this is putting up fences.

[sd'sker]

I know a great many people who are scientists, highly educated, highly reasonable people and a hell of a lot smarter than me, who are also religious.

 

I don't know how they reconcile - but it certainly does not stop them from being reasonable, and very intelligent. I get what you are saying and I've made the same argument on this board, that there are things which are by their nature not reasonable. Again though, I don't think reason excludes religious people. And I don't think it's productive to try to make that argument.

 

There are common threads to be found here and this is putting up fences.

again, i do not think anyone says you have to be stupid or incapable of logic to be religious. i was just saying a lot of religious beliefs (the big important ones) very specifically and purposefully challenge reason. i mean, as the old joke goes, what the hell did joseph think was going on? i couldn't blame my gonorrhea to my wife on some immaculate infection.

[zoogs]

i was just saying a lot of religious beliefs (the big important ones) very specifically and purposefully challenge reason.

 

Yeah, that I agree with. And you have to shut down some of your reason to accept them. Or jump through hoops, I don't know.

 

It's just the stipulation of the billboard - "We're reasonable. If you don't believe in God, feel free to join us" that just rubs me the wrong way. I don't think it's productive, as an attitude.

[sd'sker]

i was just saying a lot of religious beliefs (the big important ones) very specifically and purposefully challenge reason.

 

Yeah, that I agree with. And you have to shut down some of your reason to accept them. Or jump through hoops, I don't know.

 

It's just the stipulation of the billboard - "We're reasonable. If you don't believe in God, feel free to join us" that just rubs me the wrong way. I don't think it's productive, as an attitude.

it probably should, i suppose. but atheists are a disjointed group labeled by what they *do not* believe. that's not a common thread. a lot of atheists prefer labels such as rationalist, naturalist, ect. because that is more indicative of what they do believe: the observable world. i think that is the dichotomy they are trying to demonstrate. i don't think it necessarily intends to be a jab at religion. just highlighting what they do believe in, the human facilities of reason and logic.

 

i'll tell you what is offensive, those stupid billboards signed by 'god'. religious and non-religious should be offended. who gave whomever commissioned that billboard the right to speak for god? they are always so threatening and damning. is god's sole purpose to scare? is that not what the devil is for? that rubs me the wrong way similarly to how the ocr rubs you the wrong way. but we are not their respective target audience, i suppose.