- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsJust for reference, as it occurred to me that the questions might go in this direction.
I am glad to here that. I hope my parents are alive in heaven.
I am an atheist, and don't believe in things like heaven hell or an afterlife.
I don't see that there is any evidence for them, and plenty of evidence that suggests that
our brains produce our 'minds' and that when they get damaged and/or stop working the
'mind' goes with it.
Would I like there to be an afterlife? heck yes (although I have to say your heaven as
described doesn't really appeal to me), but I am not going to act like one exists because
I hope it does.
I am not however about to try to convince anyone who believes that there is an afterlife
in which they will meet deceased people they love that it doesn't exist, if that is their
coping mechanism.
I would however argue that acting like it doesn't exist is the only way one should live life,
To make it as full and good as possible, so that if it turns out to be your only existence it
was one worth having.
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI did not describe heaven, your description must have been from someone
Just for reference, as it occurred to me that the questions might go in this direction.
I am an atheist, and don't believe in things like heaven hell or an afterlife.
I don't see that there is any evidence for them, and plenty of evidence that suggests that
our brains produce our 'minds' and that when they get damaged and/or stop working the
'm ...[text shortened]... s possible, so that if it turns out to be your only existence it
was one worth having.
else. But if I recall correctly the Holy Bible describes heaven as more
wonderful and any man could imagine. I don't see any advantage in
acting like it doesn't exist, even if that were true.
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah I see, I thought you were weighing in on the discussion on whether or not your parents
religious beliefs were an indicator of any offspring's adult beliefs.
I apologise.
I might mind, it depends on where your going with the questions.
I usually prefer the hypothetical to the personal.
However.
My father, is alive and well.
Ah I see, I thought you were weighing in on the discussion on whether or not your parents
religious beliefs were an indicator of any offspring's adult beliefs.
I apologise.
I sometimes jump into threads without having read all the contributions.
Sorry.
I might mind, it depends on where your going with the questions.
I usually prefer the hypothetical to the personal.
However.
My father, is alive and well.
I am glad to hear that. My father also is still alive at 89 years.
Yes my question is a little personal. But it relates to some matters you have written above on proof.
Are you sure the man you call your father is really your father ?
What proof do you have of that ?
06 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIn my case, I have my birth certificate that lists his name in the block titled
Ah I see, I thought you were weighing in on the discussion on whether or not your parents
religious beliefs were an indicator of any offspring's adult beliefs.
I apologise.
I sometimes jump into threads without having read all the contributions.
Sorry.
[quote]
I might mind, it depends on where your going with the questi ...[text shortened]... e man you call your father is [b]really your father ?
What proof do you have of that ?[/b]
NAME OF FATHER and my mothers name is listed in the block titled
MAIDEN NAME OF MOTHER and the name of a M.D. is printed in the block
titled SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL, however the signature is that
of a different person than the M.D. listed and appears to be a woman's name,
Julia, whereas the M.D.'s name is Frank.
Is this good enough or should I be concerned?
06 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI would like to hear what googlefudge has to say about this.
In my case, I have my birth certificate that lists his name in the block titled
NAME OF FATHER and my mothers name is listed in the block titled
MAIDEN NAME OF MOTHER and the name of a M.D. is printed in the block
titled SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL, however the signature is that
of a different person than the M.D. listed and appears to be a woman's ...[text shortened]... ,
Julia, whereas the M.D.'s name is Frank.
Is this good enough or should I be concerned?
Thanks, but the question was specifically asked of googlefudge.
If googlefudge chooses to comment, maybe we'll see where it leads.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by jaywillWell I do have my birth certificate naming him as my father.
Ah I see, I thought you were weighing in on the discussion on whether or not your parents
religious beliefs were an indicator of any offspring's adult beliefs.
I apologise.
I sometimes jump into threads without having read all the contributions.
Sorry.
[quote]
I might mind, it depends on where your going with the questi ...[text shortened]... e man you call your father is [b]really your father ?
What proof do you have of that ?[/b]
But I haven't taken a DNA test or anything.
However as far as I am concerned.
He raised me, he IS my father.
It's as simple as that.
06 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge
Well I do have my birth certificate naming him as my father.
But I haven't taken a DNA test or anything.
However as far as I am concerned.
He raised me, he IS my father.
It's as simple as that.
Well I do have my birth certificate naming him as my father.
But I haven't taken a DNA test or anything.
However as far as I am concerned.
He raised me, he IS my father.
It's as simple as that.
Ah, you save me some time and get right to the point.
You trust him. You trust him on what he told you. You have the evidence of his care for your wellbeing. Years of experience impress you that you must be on the right track to believe he is indeed your dad.
Now many may caution you that the you have not been rigorous about this. I mean the real scientific way would be for you two to go and have a DNA anaylsis done. Others may caution that even such a labratory proof could have its errors.
There could be mischievous behavior, deception, forgery, error, trickery, incompetance, switched records, technician error, mechanical malfunction, etc. As long as any conceivable mishap in handling the facts is even possible, you could always embrace suspicion.
He told you you are his son. But maybe your mother lied to him. Maybe your trust in him is well founded but your mother knows the real story.
I am not trying to make any insult here. I am showing you that basically you trusted the man. You don't REALLY KNOW that he is your father.
Now let's come to my Lord Jesus Christ. Sure, there have been urban legends and conspiracies rehashed every few years by skeptics that Christ is not Son of God. When I was in highschool in the 60s it was "The Passover Plot". Latter there was "The Mistakes of Jesus" . There has lately been the efforts of Bart Ehrman, ie. "Misquoting Jesus". There are many urban legends and conspiracy theories that I should not trust the basic tenets of the New Testament.
But I have learned to trust the One who came into my life that night. No one was there that night in my living room but me and Jesus Christ. No one was there but myself and God that night I surrendered my heart to Jesus Christ.
I too trust the empowering love, transforming sanctification, faithfulness, forgiveness, peace, and steadfastness through many many different kinds of difficult situations. I knew nothing of the New Testament that night. Since then I have become a reader of the Bible. And I have grown to trust the One caring for me, that I am definitly on the right track to believe Jesus is the Lord and Savior Who rose from the dead.
I didn't see it. And I too could continue to imagine endlessly conspiratorial objections as to why I should not believe. But my trust has grown in the relationship between me and God, between me and my Lord Jesus.
I think I am on the right track. I think the New Testament is reliable. I don't think I need absolute proof in the sense of mathematical certainty. I think I am stuck with this living Jesus Christ whether I like it or not.
"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
"Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom." (2 Cor. 3:17)
I definitely think I have experienced these statements.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by jaywillAh. no you misunderstand me.Well I do have my birth certificate naming him as my father.
But I haven't taken a DNA test or anything.
However as far as I am concerned.
He raised me, he IS my father.
It's as simple as that.
Ah, you save me some time and get right to the point.
You [b]trust him. You trust him on what he told you. ...[text shortened]... (2 Cor. 3:17) [/b]
I definitely think I have experienced these statements.[/b]
He raised me. That makes him my dad regardless of whether we are biologically related.
Also claiming the man who raised me as my dad is not extraordinary.
However for belief in god, you are talking about something for which there is much less evidence.
And it is the most extraordinary claim.
The two do not have the same standards of evidence.
06 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah. no you misunderstand me.
He raised me. That makes him my dad regardless of whether we are biologically related.
Also claiming the man who raised me as my dad is not extraordinary.
However for belief in god, you are talking about something for which there is much less evidence.
And it is the most extraordinary claim.
The two do not have the same standards of evidence.
Ah. no you misunderstand me.
I understood that you were replying to my question of your proof that he is your biological father.
Was I not clear on that ?
He raised me. That makes him my dad regardless of whether we are biologically related.
Also claiming the man who raised me as my dad is not extraordinary.
I see your point. But my question was about your proof of the biological relationship. It was not about how effective a dad he was.
However for belief in god, you are talking about something for which there is much less evidence. And it is the most extraordinary claim.
The two do not have the same standards of evidence.
Again, you should have understood my question was about proof of the relationship of physical descent. I mean you said you didn't do a DNA analysis. So you must have known what I was asking about.
Are you now saying that you do not have reasonable evidence that he is your biological dad, but just that he was a good parent ?
However for belief in god, you are talking about something for which there is much less evidence. And it is the most extraordinary claim.
As I could continue to suspicion any evidence that you put forth, suggesting that problems are involved in its quality, so you are doing.
Ie. the documents were written 90 years afterward (whether true or not is another discussion).
Galilean fisherman concocted a fictional character and put words in his mouth.
Too many copyist errors in the thousands of documents of the NT.
Josephus reference to Christ is a Christian forgery or other conspiratorial event.
All non-biblical references to Jesus must be discarded as problematic in one way or another.
Mark didn't see Jesus.
Matthew didn't write Matthew.
John didn't write John.
Paul made most of it up.
Religious people did bad things anyway so the NT must not be true.
etc. etc.
As you can endlessly manufacture reasons for saying "not enough evidence" so can I concerning your father.
He was mistaken, he was misled by your mother, bad records at the hospital, doctor had reason to deceive you all, nurses mixed up babies, no DNA proof. It doesn't matter how swell he was as a father, he could just be wrong or deceptive for his own reasons. Maybe you look like him for reasons of it being another relationship besides father to son. Maybe he's really an uncle.
I also can always claim that you don't have enough evidence or that what you have is suspect.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by jaywillYes but I am not claiming to have proof that the person I know as my father is my biological father.
Ah. no you misunderstand me.
I understood that you were replying to my question of your proof that he is your biological father.
Was I not clear on that ?
[quote]
He raised me. That makes him my dad regardless of whether we are biologically related.
Also claiming the man who raised me as my dad is not extraordinary. ...[text shortened]... o can always claim that you don't have enough evidence or that what you have is suspect.
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not looking at individual bits of evidence for your
claim and saying oh that's not good enough, no not that either, no... no...
I have thought carefully about what kind of evidence is needed to justify your claims.
I have an objective standard.
If you want to argue evidence then the thing you need to argue about is the objective standard.
I don't care how many bit's of the bible you quote, I don't even care what the bible says.
because nothing it could possibly say meets the objective standard.
I have said it before and I will say it again.
To prove the existence of an omnipotent being (omnipotence actually being logically impossible,
so lets just go with as powerful as it is possible to be) you need evidence that could ONLY be caused
by a being of ultimate power.
If it is in any way possible by something less than ultimately powerful then it doesn't qualify as evidence for
an ultimately powerful being.
And that evidence must be current, and observable.
Claiming it happened ages ago, or that you have eye witnesses who claim to have seen it doesn't count either.
Something like the entire solar system being rearranged with dozens of new gas giants being added in gravitationally
impossible orbits with collectively thousands of moons many instantly terraformed into liveable worlds...
That is the kind of stuff I am talking about and should be no trouble for your ultimately powerful god.
Till stuff like that happens, you don't have evidence FOR god.
Meanwhile, belief in god or claiming god as the solution of any problem has ALWAYS hindered progress in solving that problem,
throughout history without exception.
As for my father, I don't need extraordinary evidence to claim him as my biological father, and I don't build my world view
on the assumption that he is.
My point was, it doesn't matter (excepting some hypothetical medical situation where it might) if he's my biological father or not.
I don't claim knowledge that he is my biological father, although I can justifiably believe it.
There is a standard for what is and is not reasonable skepticism.
Neatly outlined here http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html
You are right it is possible to be skeptical of everything and never get anywhere.
However just because you can't be skeptical ad infinitum of everything.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical of anything.
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeThough you insist that your skepticism is very particular, very specialized, I don't see much difference from the examples I've used.
Yes but I am not claiming to have proof that the person I know as my father is my biological father.
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not looking at individual bits of evidence for your
claim and saying oh that's not good enough, no not that either, no... no...
I have thought carefully about what kind of evidence is needed to just ...[text shortened]... d infinitum of everything.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical of anything.
I believe I am definitely on the right track to believe in the existence of God and of Christ the Son of God.
I claim only to be on the right track like you think about your father.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou still don't quite understand the principle of Skepticism.
Though you insist that your skepticism is very particular, very specialized, I don't see much difference from the examples I've used.
I believe I am definitely on the right track to believe in the existence of God and of Christ the Son of God.
I claim only to be on the right track like you think about your father.
Read the link I gave you [I know it's a definition 'for kids' but the website nailed it and doesn't get unnecessarily complicated.]
http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html
edit: ah cross posted.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI haven't gone all the way through yet.
Your link is interesting at:
http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html
Not bad. I read some of that.
Here's a YouTube for your consideration by [b] J.P. Moreland ( but 8 video lecture on Skepticism )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljQPgX9IgoA [/b]
But so far, all he has done is set up straw men fallacies about what Skepticism is.
Well spoken and hidden straw men, but straw men nonetheless
EDIT:
He has just set up some definitions of 'types of skepticism' that have nothing whatsoever to do with skepticism.
Which means as he has to know he's making this stuff up, he's lying through his teeth.
EDIT:
He is doing the same thing as people who claim that to be an atheist you have to know that god doesn't exist, and
then demonstrate that that is unreasonable and thus dismiss atheism.
Whereas in actually atheism is just the absence of belief in god.
Here Skeptics are claimed to believe that you cant know anything unless you're certain.
And he then shoots that down.
This is the same trick, as most Skeptics don't believe that you can only know things if you're certain.
So it's a straw man argument... again.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
Bah, and now he says that atheism implies you can't have moral values.
Total bull.
And actually quite offensive.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html
&feature=channel_video_title
Oh and now he's mangling evolution, what a surprise.
He is talking complete and utter rubbish.
And knows it.