Journal Entry #406
April 10th, 2011
This is a standard argument I consistently hear from the faithful. Now in my opinion it is because they absolutely have nothing else to offer in the way of verifiable evidence so they turn to some last resorts.
I find the arguments fit into 1 of 3 categories…
1. Proof of good which to this date it is either weak or nonexistent.
2. Reversing the burden of proof trying to get me to disprove god.
3. Attack the concepts of Atheism, science and reason in many ways.
No matter which way they go faith has still offered no believable evidence for god any god, yet they continually fail to acknowledge this. I posted this video to a friend’s page that I have many discussions with as I found that the terminology is in line with what he calls me, “the natural man” and although I am not equating him with this family I was curious about the similarities and his response. We can pick up shortly after when someone else entered the discussion.
I have been told that what I believe I accept on faith. I disagree let me reverse it in order to accept what the faithful believe I would not accept it on faith but on poor evidence and that is the difference. Faith has nothing to do with it as there is always evidence involved. I just prefer verifiable evidence.
Gary David Currie
If you do not value logic then what possible logic can I use?
If you do not value reason then what reason will you accept?
What is left for you to actually value?
It cannot be faith as you will need to have a reason backed up by evidence and logic to understand what faith demands.
According to this you will value nothing and that is impossible.
Gary David Currie
The real problem is that they just will not listen. This may sound arrogant on my part but a fact is fact no matter what we want to believe.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ticxD0GfewA
Louis Theroux – America’s Most Hated Family IN CRISIS (1/4)
Atheist….Thank you so much for posting this M__. My fiancée and I have been following Louis’ work for a while now. It is truly heartbreaking to see how people can use religion to justify their hate.
(This is actually funny because I posted it to his page)
Atheist…………Also, reason and religion are not mutually exclusive. Many of our greatest scientific and mathematical minds throughout history have belonged to religious men and women. The universe is too old and science too young for us to assume that anything we can’t measure with our pathetic instruments does not exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Gary David Currie ……….Atheist I am sorry to inform you but yes they are exclusive. Just because scientists have been religious throughout history or even now does not mean that science and religion are compatible. If one actually valued the scientific process it easily demonstrates that the gods of man do not exist.
Our instruments are not pathetic and yes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. As an example the Hubble telescope, if you think this is pathetic then sorry..
Gary David Currie ………….This is a myth that religion uses to justify that god can exist outside of a realm that science has not discovered but what you and many others fail to acknowledge is that the body of evidence that does exist is more than enough to reach the conclusion that beyond a reasonable doubt the gods of man do not exist.
Gary David Currie……………. that beyond a reasonable doubt the gods of man do not exist.
I find that people love science and reason for most things in their life but then choose not to value it when it comes to their god.
I can and have easily used reason to show that god probably does not exist. Also that is why the vast majority of scientists last figure being well over 98% do not believe that god exists.
Gary David Currie……….. The problem is that religious or faith based people just will not accept the evidence.
So your statement is actually false according to science and reason..According to religion it will be true because in that realm anything can be true..and that is definitely not science.
Christian………….< If one actually valued the scientific process it easily demonstrates that the gods of man do not exist. >
That is a “faith” based statement for sure, it assumes that the science of man CAN determine such a thing. We haven’t even been able to verify any form of sophisticated life on other planets through current science — yet the scientific method can “easily” demonstrate the absence of God?
Christian…………<That is why the vast majority of scientists last figure being well over 98% do not believe that god exists.>
What if 99% of scientists jumped of a bridge, would you think the remaining 1% foolish for not following the rest? There have been many times that the majority of scientists believed a great many things that were not so.
Let’s be serious, the current “climate” means that most scientists don’t even have the “option” of declaring any sort of religious faith — especially if they want to get funding, prestigious positions and good peer reviews.
Thus, even 100% of scientists believing something does not necessarily make it true.
I’ll accept “Science cannot 100% prove OR disprove the existence of God. The majority of scientists currently do not believe in the existence of God.”
Christian…………….<Our instruments are not pathetic and yes absence of evidence is evidence of absence.>
Interesting comment, but I agree overwhelmingly with Tyler.
Our surgical techniques are currently still “very crude” compared to what they will be. Many of our medicines treat symptoms, but are not cures. Heck, we can’t even truly cure something as simple as baldness!
Look at music technology (something the 3 of us definitely share as a “common ground”) –
In the 90′s, a cassette four track without reverb or phantom power cost me about $1000 (a high end Fostex model) and an 8 Track Reel to Reel + mixer was thousands more.
Obviously, the three of us have a pretty good idea what kind of “instruments” we can get today!
Many people would think of those “instruments” from 20 years ago as “pathetic”. I’m sure that 10 to 20 years from now, our current digital recording setups will seem pathetic….
Thus, if our technology hasn’t even stopped progressing in the realm of music recording technology, how can you say that our instruments are not “pathetic” by cosmic standards? 
Atheist………You are not informing me Gary, you are disagreeing with me. Perhaps you need to study the difference between opinion and fact before making sweeping generalizations. Also “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is indeed true, and …is well known in the scientific community.
Science is very young and full of errors. You can look back historically and see “facts” give way to new theories. Once our world was a flat plane that the stars and sun revolved around, but now we know this to be false. To think that everything we “know” right now scientifically to be true is saying that this is as good as it gets, and as far as I’m concerned, fairly pessimistic about the future of our species. To assume that science has all of the answers, even for someone as passionate about science as I am, would be folly.
As for your invented statistics about the scientific community, please site sources for your biased assumptions. Picking numbers out of thin air is hardly grounds for reasonable discussion.
Just because you disbelieve in a biblical God does not preclude the possibility of higher spiritual nature of mankind.
Gary David Currie …… I am well aware of what fact is. Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact, Thermodynamics is a fact. Weak and strong nuclear force is a fact. The universe is far bigger then we can imagine is a fact.
You can go to my website I have sited plenty of sources over the 405 articles I have written. You can actually easily get the sources yourself.
Sorry again at this time there are certain things that are fact. In this case I would be informing you. Science and religion are not compatible by definition. Science seeks to find answers religion believes they already have.
Gary David Currie…………… The argument you present from just because you don’t believe really is a weak case for god. It is the same case for unicorns or anything else that cannot at this time be verified. do you believe in pixies on the moon?
You assumption about what science is incorrect. So it is young so what..I assume nothing by the way I follow the evidence.
Gary David Currie…………. M____ you and I have had this discussion on the absence of evidence topic and while I agree it is not always the case the overwhelming amount of evidence for the case for no god is far beyond the case for god. Come on this is nothing new you know for you it will always boil down to faith. I offer you a quote I wrote today.
Gary David Currie I love it when people say “Also, reason and religion are not mutually exclusive.”
it absolutely demonstrates they do not understand what science is. Science is looking for answers with no bias allowing the evidence to speak for itself while religion feels it already has the answer. To involve religion is just bad science..
Gary David Currie
Gary David Currie ……………This is a great discussion let’s enjoy the ride…I am interested if you have anything new to bring to the table…I will certainly pay attention to as much as I can that you offer. M____ is a different story lol here is my website if you are interested www.thefreeman.net warning you may be offended..
Atheist………….Evolution is a theory. Coming from someone who believes in evolution, this means a lot. You saying that “science seeks to find answers religion believes they already have” is an opinion, not a fact. It is impossible to disprove God; therefore it is a moot point.
“The argument you present from just because you don’t believe really is a weak case for god. it is the same case for unicorns or anything else that cannot at this time be verified. Do you believe in pixies on the moon?”
Review my previous statement and check your assumptions. What I actually said was, keyword, BIBLICAL God. You do realize there are more religions in the world than just the Abrahamic ones, right? Some of those being atheistic in nature.
“It absolutely demonstrates they do not understand what science is. Science is looking for answers with no bias allowing the evidence to speak for itself while religion feels it already has the answer. To involve religion is just bad science..”
Again, this is your opinion, and one that I’m sure many of the world’s religious scientists couldn’t give a toss about.
I had already visited your website previous to my first post, I do not find it offensive, at least not in the way you probably mean. For the record I am a proud atheist.
Gary David Currie…………… Yes it s theory you are correct but in scientific terms that is an accepted set of facts to support an overall conclusion of a hypothesis.
Again the scientific process is well documented to support my statement. Yes I am well aware of the religions of the world. I am assuming you are referring as the big one to Buddhism which can be considered Atheistic but still follows the path of the supernatural dealing with reincarnation. Are you referring to the deistic ones?
Assume that I have a fair amount of background knowledge on the topic of religion.
Ok so it is my opinion offer a rebuttal. Thanks for the clarification on your stance on your beliefs. I did not assume you were A Christian as I also checked your profile and it did not fit in with that perspective. I try to make no assumptions.
Who cares what the worlds scientists think about my opinion I am actually talking with you right now. You made a statement I countered it. So counter back with some support that religion and science / reason are not mutually exclusive. I say they are.
The scientific process requires one to have no bias or as little as possible to be good science. On the matter of religion if you can separate yourself then great. Depending on the religion and the topic science is trying to answer if one enters their religious views it will not allow true science to take place.
Also science has demonstrated that the gods of man simply are not true so to be a scientist and not accept this is to ignore the process of science and reason.
Gary David Currie…………. Also it is not a moot point it is exactly the point because we do this using the term beyond a reasonable doubt. In philosophy this is an accepted method of discovery and proof. You are referring to the “what if scenario”.
Christian………….I’m curious how you two will settle the issue of “Science cannot disprove God” (ATHEIST) versus (Gary) “Science has demonstrated that the gods of man are not true”.
Tyler’s point of view seems more accurate, as you cannot concoct a “reproducible experiment” to prove or disprove God in any meaningful way. Thus, science (currently) goes on the assumption that there is no God as by the scientific method God cannot be proven or disproven.
“Science” may be neutral, but you cannot honestly state that scientists are paragons of virtue, truth and the “American way” any more than police officers, judges or anyone else.
Philosophy and History are much more useful in the discussion of God / Religion.
A scientist might be able to tell you much information about the food you are eating and nutrition, but wouldn’t necessarily be a good cook or even able to tell a “good steak” from a “great steak”. Thus, having some “facts” does not make one an expert on all dimensions of a subject.
Gary David Currie ……………….We have been through all this Markus it is not about absolutes and I at no time ever said it was..
ABOVE ALL HERE WHAT RELIGION TIME AND TIME AGAIN FAILS TO ACCEPT IS THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM.
But you can disprove god beyond a reasonable doubt but even more than that religion has failed time and time again to prove the claim. This is very important…Markus if you follow the proper procedure it is not about absolutes and to believe in something because it cannot be disproved is simply bad science and bad reasoning.
Again of we follow this then anything can be true so how do you determine what is and what is not.. It is all about probabilities not absolutes. I find so many of the faithful cling to this notion that because ultimately you cannot disprove my god I will believe until you can. That is simply poor reasoning and ignoring what we can prove..
Many scientist are on a push to show that science can and does answer the questions you think it cannot. There are more branches to science then one usually recognizes.
Religion and faith have played on this argument for far too long it is weak.
Also just because you say science cannot offer an answer which it can why do you think you are entitled to by default place god in there.
I have thoroughly answered your questions and statements before. Please refer to my article about the baloney test.
Look science and anything we use is all just best guess. Religion will not acknowledge this though as you have said yourself by declaring your god above mistakes in the past by saying “ I can make mistakes but i follow he who cannot make mistakes” which is a logical fallacy on its own..
Christian………….< religion has failed time and time again to prove the claim. >
Again, playing by “which set of rules”? The set of rules that basically cannot allow for a “positive” result? The scientific method you describe is not in any way shape or for…m suitable for determining whether or not God exists. The conclusions made by science in this area show as much about the bias of current scientific thought as anything else.
By the rules of “science” (which doesn’t allow for God) you cannot prove God — this is a surprise?
It’s like saying by Chemistry you cannot prove that a poem is interesting, therefore the poem is not interesting.
Scientists are really trying to move their sphere of influence beyond their realm of expertise and have everyone else swallow it.
Based in history, there are enough “facts” for an open minded person to entertain the possibility of the resurrection. Of course, the scientist cannot possibly allow for this, thus, it really is a moot point.
Gary David Currie……… M____ There are not more than one set of rules in the universe. I did not make them up they are jus there. But you are trying to come up with a new set of rules that only can be used when it comes to your god and even there they fail..
How much science have you followed lately? How many physicists have you seen speak? You spend your time in the bible correct and you told me..
I am more than open minded you know that and yet there is still no evidence or good reason to believe in your god and yet you ignore this fact completely..
I would ask you to answer what I wrote earlier… And be honest I will repost it.
Gary David Currie………………. If you do not value evidence then what possible evidence can I give you?
If you do not value logic then what possible logic can I use?
If you do not value reason then what reason will you accept?
What is left for you to actually value?
It cannot be faith as you will need to have a reason backed up by evidence and logic to understand what faith demands.
According to this you will value nothing and that is impossible.
Gary David Currie
THEY JUST WON”T LISTEN
I cannot begin to point out the terrible logic and ignorance of facts presented by the people I was arguing with. To in anyway take the position that we believe something as true until we can prove it to not be true is lunacy. To also take the position to believe something as true when it has been proven to be false is also lunacy.
I really am sick of all the defence mechanisms, such as “this is your opinion” or” how do you really know” or ignoring what I actually said and then redirectingand giving examples that really are not comparable.
What they are basically saying here is this… I will not believe there is no god until you can absolutly prove to me that it is true. You must rule out evry other possibilty and as long as I can still say that you don’t know for sure I will beleive. Even then I can say with a high degree of confidence that they will still believe.
As science continues to question and answer religion is filling in the void left behind.
Seek the truth always
Gary David Currie
