Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Comments
-
I find it intriguing that those who actually want there to be no afterlife, or find no reason to believe there is one thereby implying that for them death is eternal, get so upset whenever someone tells them that if they want eternal death that is what they will get.
Who wants eternal death or no afterlife?0 -
-
-
-
Would that not also depend on where you were going to live and who with?
Ah i dont know, the whole way we are programmed is towards an end game...nothing lasts forever.... if you had to go on forever and ever and ever and ever...how would you deal with that??? groundhog day....you would certainly go crazy0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah i dont know, the whole way we are programmed is towards an end game...nothing lasts forever.... if you had to go on forever and ever and ever and ever...how would you deal with that??? groundhog day....you would certainly go crazy
You would really have to ask the programmer how that is going to be dealt with.
And we do know of at least one thing that does last forever for if it didn't it would violate the laws of physics given the universe is a closed system.0 -
-
Another strawman argument, this time twisted into a choice of one bad thing or a worse bad thing
Throwing around the phrase "strawman" is just a dodge. And my point has nothing to do with "bad thing or worse". The example I used might have, but my point remains the same otherwise. If it makes it better for you change "Give me your money or choose to accept this knife" into "Take this money or choose to accept this knife". My point remains the same.to one based on threat where no threat was actually made but rather a promise
This is my point exactly. You think by changing it from "threat" to "promise" you have somehow changed the reality. But you have not. "Take this money from me or I promise you this knife in your gut" is still a threat, regardless of the language used.
Similarly telling someone "choose to believe this or you choose between this eternity or this eternity and that is a promise" is a thinly veiled threat which you are trying to dress up all pretty and nice.I find it intriguing that those who actually want there to be no afterlife, or find no reason to believe there is one thereby implying that for them death is eternal, get so upset whenever someone tells them that if they want eternal death that is what they will get.
not that intriguing at all really. Someone does not have to put stock in the threat, or take it seriously, to realize one is being threatened. It is rather the BEING threatened that they are taking objection to, not what it is they are being threatened with.
Plus there is some utility in pointing out the fact that when it is pointed out that there is no reason to believe there is a god, which if you recall is what this thread is about, that the proponents of that belief only have such threats to fall back on. So it is not really that anyone is getting "upset" at the threats so much as they are taking exception to the actual topic, arguments for the existence of god, being derailed into threats on what will happen if you do not believe it.
Your sermons above given today and yesterday have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether there is a god or not. They are an assumption that not only is there one, but its the one you particularly believe in. You have _no_ arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer us that even suggests there is a god, yet you presume to tell us what it wants, thinks, and intends for us in the after life.0 -
It just sounds stupid when you say it like that, but we deal in hypothetical all the time. When I watch or read a batman comic or movie, I believe batman is real. I don't expect to have him over for dinner for the simple reason in that context batman dose not exist. God the same, I don't expect Jesus over for dinner tho' it would be handy when the drink ran out, for the simple reason that in that context I am dealing with a different reality. (I do however believe that He is present through us). You seem to be restricting your self to stuff you can see, touch, taste and measure. That's not the extent of reality, it's not even half of it.RikuoAmero wrote: »No, we do entertain the proposition. It's called thinking in hypotheticals. So, Batman is as real as your friends...? What? So if you're out with your friends, say five of them, you'll have a sixth seat set aside and say "Batman is sitting there"?
Are you honestly saying to me that you see Batman standing beside your friends, he is as real as they are, you think and believe him to be as physically real as they are?
Plus, what I mean by "willing yourself to be convinced" is to take something that you know and believe to be false (such as that Batman is real or that Gotham City is a real place you could visit) and then...without any supporting evidence, without anything at all, just flip the switch in your mind and somehow will yourself to believe that that thing is now true.
Can you do that? This isn't thinking of things as a hypothetical, this is honestly saying to yourself "I believe this to be true, despite the fact that five seconds ago, I wasn't, and nothing sound has been presented to me in support of it"
I'm not sure you understand my argument. Remember I never said God is as real as a rock or Éamon de Valera (now theirs a dinner guest!). God belongs in a different category of things. It why we have metaphysics as well as physics. It's why we don't appreciate music for the mathematical precision of it scale, why we don't like a painting because of it's clever chemistry of colour.
Life is about more than physical things and chemical reactions as much as we would wish it were. It would be much more controllable if it were that simple.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Throwing around the phrase "strawman" is just a dodge. And my point has nothing to do with "bad thing or worse". The example I used might have, but my point remains the same otherwise. If it makes it better for you change "Give me your money or choose to accept this knife" into "Take this money or choose to accept this knife". My point remains the same.
the problem is the only place your point bears any relation to my point is inside your mind.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »This is my point exactly. You think by changing it from "threat" to "promise" you have somehow changed the reality. But you have not. "Take this money from me or I promise you this knife in your gut" is still a threat, regardless of the language used.
You introduced the concept of threat, not me. The language and the context are important otherwise we are not going to communicate.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Similarly telling someone "choose to believe this or you choose between this eternity or this eternity and that is a promise" is a thinly veiled threat which you are trying to dress up all pretty and nice.
WHere you place the word promise changes the meaning. No matter. God is one who has promised us eternal life. Take it up with Him.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »not that intriguing at all really. Someone does not have to put stock in the threat, or take it seriously, to realize one is being threatened. It is rather the BEING threatened that they are taking objection to, not what it is they are being threatened with.
What's with the threatening language? Threats can be removed. Promises cannot.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Plus there is some utility in pointing out the fact that when it is pointed out that there is no reason to believe there is a god, which if you recall is what this thread is about, that the proponents of that belief only have such threats to fall back on. So it is not really that anyone is getting "upset" at the threats so much as they are taking exception to the actual topic, arguments for the existence of god, being derailed into threats on what will happen if you do not believe it.
Your sermons above given today and yesterday have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether there is a god or not. They are an assumption that not only is there one, but its the one you particularly believe in. You have _no_ arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer us that even suggests there is a god, yet you presume to tell us what it wants, thinks, and intends for us in the after life.
If there is no god there is no reason but it is by reason we know God; for God is our reason0 -
You introduced the concept of threat, not me. The language and the context are important otherwise we are not going to communicate.
What's with the threatening language?
"Heaven or Hell, it's your choice." Your words Festus.
In other words "Do it my way and you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you don't do it my way, well then, you will face an eternity in hell." So Festus, that is a threat made by you and other "believers" in order to get us to think your way. I am sure you have your reasons to believe in Hell but why don't you keep that particular belief to yourself.
If you want to convince me that God exists do it in a methodical, scientific factual non threatening way.
By the way, don't do it by showing me the Universe, the beautiful stars and lovely flowers and saying to me "look there is proof", because it is not.0 -
When I watch or read a batman comic or movie, I believe batman is real.
Not sure I am 100% following you but you appear to be essentially equating belief in a god with belief in bat man. That would certainly match with a lot of atheist thinking too I think.It why we have metaphysics as well as physics. It's why we don't appreciate music for the mathematical precision of it scale, why we don't like a painting because of it's clever chemistry of colour.
Then here you appear to simply be defining "god" as something approaching qualia. A definition that "god" is nothing more than that element of the human condition that we think of as uniquely human. You are not using the word "god" remotely in the sense that theists in general do, but a completely new and entirely dilute to the point of meaningless definition that I can not see as being in any way workable or useful. What is the exact definition here and what is the utility in it?Life is about more than physical things and chemical reactions as much as we would wish it were. It would be much more controllable if it were that simple.
Or perhaps it really is that simple, but we wish it were not because of the subjective of importance of LIFE to us. It is so subjectively special to us that we NEED it to be more than physics and chemistry and biology. But needing it does not make it so.0 -
the problem is the only place your point bears any relation to my point is inside your mind.
That, and the places I just explained where they relate. But I guess a throw away dismissal is easier than actually engaging with the substance of what I posted. Much like your "I am not giving you evidence, go google it yourself" approach from last week.You introduced the concept of threat, not me.
I called a spade a spade. I recognize the threat being issued by theists who give us sermons on the subject of hell, and I merely called it for what it is.Where you place the word promise changes the meaning. No matter.
Except it does not. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A threat by any other name is still a threat.God is one who has promised us eternal life. Take it up with Him.
Except you have not yet moved to evidence that there is a god, or that it has promised anything. Which, if you recall, is generally what this thread is meant to be about.What's with the threatening language? Threats can be removed. Promises cannot.
Except yes they can and it happens all the time.If there is no god there is no reason but it is by reason we know God; for God is our reason
I was seeking arguments for the existence of a god, not meaningless gibberish gleaned from a badly translated fortune cookie. If you think "reason" is the support for belief in god then you should easily be able to offer the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning which supports the contention that a god or gods exist.0 -
"Heaven or Hell, it's your choice." Your words Festus.
In other words "Do it my way and you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you don't do it my way, well then, you will face an eternity in hell." So Festus, that is a threat made by you and other "believers" in order to get us to think your way. I am sure you have your reasons to believe in Hell but why don't you keep that particular belief to yourself.
If you want to convince me that God exists do it in a methodical, scientific factual non threatening way.
By the way, don't do it by showing me the Universe, the beautiful stars and lovely flowers and saying to me "look there is proof", because it is not.
@ Safehands,
I think that is a bit unfair.
It is NOT the case that there are ONLY non believers and athiests in Hell.
There are all sorts in Hell.... not just non believers. The risk of going to Hell for you .... is equally the same for me. Just because I believe... does not mean I will be saved.
As I said before... it is love of God, Faith and Good works which will increase your chances of meeting the standard to get into Heaven.
The rules apply equally to all..... believers and athiests alike.0 -
@ Safehands,
I think that is a bit unfair.
It is NOT the case that there are ONLY non believers and athiests in Hell.
There are all sorts in Hell.... not just non believers. The risk of going to Hell for you .... is equally the same for me. Just because I believe... does not mean I will be saved.
As I said before... it is love of God, Faith and Good works which will increase your chances of meeting the standard to get into Heaven.
The rules apply equally to all..... believers and athiests alike.
How can you be so sure of all that detail?0 -
Given that you cannot know what will happen to you when you die what do you believe will happen to you when you die?
I know this question is not directed at me, but anyway..
I don't believe anything will happen to me when I die.. other than I will be dead. I do not have a clue after that, nor do I need to know.
I cannot know so therefore I cannot believe.0 -
How can you be so sure of all that detail?
There are witness statements of various visionaries, saints etc, who have been allowed to visit Hell and Heaven, accompanied by a Angel.
Saint Faustina Kowalska being just one example. It is written in her Diary.
The rules for getting into Heaven apply to all humans, not just athiests.0 -
There are witness statements of various visionaries, saints etc, who have been allowed to visit Hell and Heaven, accompanied by a Angel.
Saint Faustina Kowalska being just one example. It is written in her Diary.
The rules for getting into Heaven apply to all humans, not just athiests.
Really? You are basing your arguments on the utterings of people who have been there or who were shown a "trailer" of what's to come and of people who were befriended by an angel? Not exactly solid evidence, is it?0 -
@ Safehands,
I think that is a bit unfair.
It is NOT the case that there are ONLY non believers and athiests in Hell.
There are all sorts in Hell.... not just non believers. The risk of going to Hell for you .... is equally the same for me. Just because I believe... does not mean I will be saved.
As I said before... it is love of God, Faith and Good works which will increase your chances of meeting the standard to get into Heaven.
The rules apply equally to all..... believers and athiests alike.
But isnt that exactly what is supposed to happen if you believe?
Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and belief in him saves your soul from sin?
Isnt that the very basis of Christianity?0 -
Advertisement
-
Really? You are basing your arguments on the utterings of people who have been there or who were shown a "trailer" of what's to come and of people who were befriended by an angel? Not exactly solid evidence, is it?
Well then, why are you here debating in a Christianity forum? Do you think I'm going to produce evidence?
All I am doing is producing an explanation about faith and belief. I am not under any obligation to produce any evidence to you... and you are under no obligation to believe!
Your comment...
utterings of people who have been there or who were shown a "trailer" of what's to come
is inaccurate and unfair.
It is inaccurate in that these people who were allowed to visit Hell were shown Hell as it was then. They were not shown a future vision, but as it was at that moment, during their lifetime.
For example... if you visited Hell in 1848... you would not see Hitler or Stalin in there. However if you visited Hell in 2001... yeah you most probably would see them there.
It is unfair in that you criticise them for uttering what they have seen. What method would you have preferred them to use?0 -
The other fella wrote: »But isnt that exactly what is supposed to happen if you believe?
Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and belief in him saves your soul from sin?
Isnt that the very basis of Christianity?
Did you read what I wrote... Faith and Good works, Love of God. For Christians belief in Jesus Christ...yes!!
But belief alone will not save you... you must believe and practise your belief in your daily life, prayer, going to Church, good deeds, helping others, etc etc etc0 -
Well then, why are you here debating in a Christianity forum? Do you think I'm going to produce evidence?
All I am doing is producing an explanation about faith and belief. I am not under any obligation to produce any evidence to you... and you are under no obligation to believe!
So basically if I had a vision that god says only atheists go to heaven as they are closest to his idea would this count? Cause what you have is basically someone who believes who believes to see something, that fits their believe system. If the same would happen to Dawkins, that would be a proof!It is inaccurate in that these people who were allowed to visit Hell were shown Hell as it was then. They were not shown a future vision, but as it was at that moment, during their lifetime.
For example... if you visited Hell in 1848... you would not see Hitler or Stalin in there. However if you visited Hell in 2001... yeah you most probably would see them there.
It is unfair in that you criticise them for uttering what they have seen. What method would you have preferred them to use?
As I read the bible we will die and at the end of all at judgement day we will be judged and send to heaven or hell. Cause if hell fills up by year we can assume that time exists and also think about how boring eternal torture or happiness will get after billions of years. Or time does not exist or we are simple higher dimensional creatures then.
Maybe this point should have been clarified in the bible instead of sending random people to hell to report about that?0 -
Did you read what I wrote... Faith and Good works, Love of God. For Christians belief in Jesus Christ...yes!!
But belief alone will not save you... you must believe and practise your belief in your daily life, prayer, going to Church, good deeds, helping others, etc etc etc
Yes i read what you wrote, thats whats causing the confusion.
If Jesus died for our sins, why do we still have to live life without sin to get into heaven?
It seems like his whole life and execution were for nothing if his death and "resurrection" made no difference to how the whole access to heaven thing works.0 -
And one thing that really sums it up for me is, why would god give us logical minds that can see the non logic in the bible and then send his beloved children to eternal burning hell fire for not believing in such non logical things? Because one thing that cant be argued with is that the bible has little to no logic whatsoever.0
-
The other fella wrote: »Yes i read what you wrote, thats whats causing the confusion.
If Jesus died for our sins, why do we still have to live life without sin to get into heaven?
It seems like his whole life and execution were for nothing if his death and "resurrection" made no difference to how the whole access to heaven thing works.
O.K. ........ I think I understand where you are coming from.
Jesus died for the Original Sin of Mankind, i.e. the sin that was caused when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden. Each human being born since Adam & Eve is marked with Original Sin on their soul.
Yes.... Jesus Christ was the Ultimate Sacrifice to God.
For those of us today.... i.e. you and I.... we have to try our best to abstain from commiting sin, i.e. adultry, theft, murder, etc etc etc etc There are different grades of sin... some are mortal (extremely serious) i.e. murder, rape etc... and some are venial (less serious).
Even though... Jesus Christ died 2000 years ago... for our sins....if you go out and commit adultry (as an example), and you fail to repent of your sin... you will die in a state of sin, i.e. those sins which are retained, are still on your soul.
If you die is a state of sin... then it is much much harder to get into heaven. You may be able to spend time in purgatory... or your sins could be so bad as to prevent you from getting into Heaven at all, i.e. you are permanently barred!
So just because Jesus Christ died for our sins... does not mean you can live whatever life you choose.... having mulitple sexual partners (just for example)... and then turn up at the Pearly gates expecting entry because Jesus Christ died for us.
Have I explained your question? I hope I have!0 -
The other fella wrote: »And one thing that really sums it up for me is, why would god give us logical minds that can see the non logic in the bible and then send his beloved children to eternal burning hell fire for not believing in such non logical things? Because one thing that cant be argued with is that the bible has little to no logic whatsoever.
The Bible is a Spiritual book. It is meant to be read in a spiritual manner, it contains a lot of symbolism.
Remember God is a Spiritual being... God's rules of logic are not necessarily the same as a humans!!0 -
O.K. ........ I think I understand where you are coming from.
Jesus died for the Original Sin of Mankind, i.e. the sin that was caused when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden. Each human being born since Adam & Eve is marked with Original Sin on their soul.
Yes.... Jesus Christ was the Ultimate Sacrifice to God.
For those of us today.... i.e. you and I.... we have to try our best to abstain from commiting sin, i.e. adultry, theft, murder, etc etc etc etc There are different grades of sin... some are mortal (extremely serious) i.e. murder, rape etc... and some are venial (less serious).
Even though... Jesus Christ died 2000 years ago... for our sins....if you go out and commit adultry (as an example), and you fail to repent of your sin... you will die in a state of sin, i.e. those sins which are retained, are still on your soul.
If you die is a state of sin... then it is much much harder to get into heaven. You may be able to spend time in purgatory... or your sins could be so bad as to prevent you from getting into Heaven at all, i.e. you are permanently barred!
So just because Jesus Christ died for our sins... does not mean you can live whatever life you choose.... having mulitple sexual partners (just for example)... and then turn up at the Pearly gates expecting entry because Jesus Christ died for us.
Have I explained your question? I hope I have!
Thank you for explaining, but with respect, i cant believe in that because of the fact that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth 6,000 years ago like the bible claims.
People have been on the earth for well over 100,000 years.0 -
So basically if I had a vision that god says only atheists go to heaven as they are closest to his idea would this count? Cause what you have is basically someone who believes who believes to see something, that fits their believe system. If the same would happen to Dawkins, that would be a proof!
As I read the bible we will die and at the end of all at judgement day we will be judged and send to heaven or hell. Cause if hell fills up by year we can assume that time exists and also think about how boring eternal torture or happiness will get after billions of years. Or time does not exist or we are simple higher dimensional creatures then.
Maybe this point should have been clarified in the bible instead of sending random people to hell to report about that?
While there are many many many accounts of Saints / Holy people who have seen visions of Heaven and Hell.
We do not have multiple claims from Athiests who state that they have seen visions of Heaven and Hell. Because if an Athiest claims to have seen Heaven... then that Athiest is NO LONGER an Athiest by definition.
Example being Howard Storm.... he was an athiest... and after his vision / NDE experience... he converted to Christianity. Howard is no longer an athiest... we do not have athiest Howard going around talking about God.
For an athiest claiming to have seen Heaven and Hell... and then still remain an athiest would be a total contradiction in terms.
If you are interested in Hell... then I suggest you look up various writings about it.
God does not send people to Hell randomly, It is those people who have failed (for whatever reason) to meet the grade.. then they are barred. It is not random as you are suggesting.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement