Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

I think you are incorrect there Morbert , at least when I was a kid we were told there was a physical change involved and no two ways about it.

No Morbert is right, if it were physical change then it would be the doctrine of transformation or substitution or something else.
Explanation here; http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/TransubstantiationExplained.aspx
It's actualy sorta a bit of both though, if it is transformed totaly into the body and blood then yes it's a physical change but not one we can observe. Actually this is what comes from mixing Plato with Moses. I have my doubts but take their word for it. Transubstantiation isn't a deal breaker for me!

Fanny Cradock

We'll just have to leave it at that, marienbad.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We'll just have to leave it at that, marienbad.

No problem Fanny , I'll go back to sleep then and we won't bother with the Immaculate Conception.

Fanny Cradock

I don't follow you.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't follow you.

From my point of view we may as well be discussing the laws of scrabble or rugby, They all make sense within their own closed world but in a wider context they are meaningless.

The only reason Christianity has any concern for me if because of the insistence of its believers in making rules we must all obey.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

From my point of view we may as well be discussing the laws of scrabble or rugby, They all make sense within their own closed world but in a wider context they are meaningless.

The only reason Christianity has any concern for me if because of the insistence of its believers in making rules we must all obey.

I think your concern is misplaced. A Christian will always defend the intrinsic value of the person, no matter where no matter whom. I don't know why you would be constantly surprised at that.

Especially considering that nobody will be 'forced' into being a Christian. They're family may have been Christian, but shyte happens everywhere no matter where you are born - that doesn't mean everything one is exposed to is always bad.

The education system in this country sounds like a minority who call foul at every turn and only express their own view like everybody should subscribe to an absolute value that they alone can set - pot and kettle. No regard for others at all.

Brown Bomber

In the spirit of the A&A thread I thought I'd share this clip of an atheist going mental against some Christian people.

It's quite funny but has adult language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBVefn6e5-A

Mod note: Moved to Atheism/Existence of God debates.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In the spirit of the A&A thread I thought I'd share this clip of an atheist going mental against some Christian people.

It's quite funny but has adult language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBVefn6e5-A

Ah UC Berkeley .. the home of the ranting lunatic since 1868.

I'm pretty sure this is staged (apparently this guy is know in Berkeley for turning up at events just to make a scene, especially if there are cameras around), but it is still pretty funny.

Though I think you missed the point of the A&A forum thread, it is the hazards people got into because of their belief in the supernatural.

The theist equivalent would be hazards atheists get into because of non-believe. Which you might find difficult to get in this Earthly realm, probably a lot more footage in hell

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

I think your concern is misplaced. A Christian will always defend the intrinsic value of the person, no matter where no matter whom. I don't know why you would be constantly surprised at that.

Especially considering that nobody will be 'forced' into being a Christian. They're family may have been Christian, but shyte happens everywhere no matter where you are born - that doesn't mean everything one is exposed to is always bad.

The education system in this country sounds like a minority who call foul at every turn and only express their own view like everybody should subscribe to an absolute value that they alone can set - pot and kettle. No regard for others at all.

Well Imaopml we must not be living in the same country then , The one I live in the over 90 % of publicly funded schools are controlled by one denomination . Where a person who is gay or divorced or having an affair can be dismissed without consequences . Where even this month political literature was forced on school kids to bring home to their parents.

And that is just right now , I won't bother going into the litany of wrongs perpetrated on the citizens of this state from its foundation by a sect that saw itself above and beyond the law. Not much defending of ''the intrinsic value of the person'' shown there. But whatever about intrinsic value they sure knew the actual value when it came to arguing over any compensation didn't they !

Turtwig

Zombrex wrote: »

Ah UC Berkeley .. the home of the ranting lunatic since 1868.

I'm pretty sure this is staged (apparently this guy is know in Berkeley for turning up at events just to make a scene, especially if there are cameras around), but it is still pretty funny.

Though I think you missed the point of the A&A forum thread, it is the hazards people got into because of their belief in the supernatural.

The theist equivalent would be hazards atheists get into because of non-believe. Which you might find difficult to get in this Earthly realm, probably a lot more footage in hell

It's the hazards of any set of beliefs that are rigidly stuck to when reality is suggesting different. Usually inflicting harms upon a person or people. Atheism+ Psychics, Homeopaths, Barmy atheists, Satanists, they all make the grade.

Hazards is more reserved for when things get dark and nasty. Funny Side is used for when the funneh results.

Almaviva

tommy2bad wrote: »

You knida do, your free to reject them as relevant to you but your not entitled to say "it's all nonsense, I haven't bothered to check it out but I don't want anything to do with it and that's enough for me "

I wouldn't reject anything without at least examining the proposition.

Are religions not a self evident exception to the above logic though - there really is no genuine proposition there in the first place ?

tommy2bad

Almaviva wrote: »

Are religions not a self evident exception to the above logic though - there really is no genuine proposition there in the first place ?

Hmmm... self evident exception... No. Even the FSM is worth an examination or Rusells teapot for that matter.
But you rais an interisting point, the idea that you adopt a religious belief because you are convinced of it's facts.
I don't think it works that way, belief comes first, then conviction in the facts.
It's a leap of faith, I heard someone say that the trick is to live in the leap and not land on the other side at all.

Almaviva

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmm... self evident exception... No. Even the FSM is worth an examination or Rusells teapot for that matter.
But you rais an interisting point, the idea that you adopt a religious belief because you are convinced of it's facts.
I don't think it works that way, belief comes first, then conviction in the facts.
It's a leap of faith, I heard someone say that the trick is to live in the leap and not land on the other side at all.

Is that not then, by definition, fantasy ?

tommy2bad

More hope or trust I'd call it.

Almaviva

tommy2bad wrote: »

More hope or trust I'd call it.

Ok. But still fantasy. Making the hope or trust just self-deception ?

tommy2bad

Or a visualization?
St Paul said hope is never disappointed! I think he was pointing out the difference between hope and reasonable expectation. We can reasonably expect something and be disappointed but hope is something else. We will never be disappointed because we hope in spite of the evidence. Fantasy or aspiration?

Anyway we arguing semantics at this stage, again definitions would help but language isn't designed to be precise, it's designed to leave wriggle room and ambiguity. And hope!

hinault

JohnMarston wrote: »

Question: Who does the burden of proof lie with, those who deny or those who accept the existence of God?

The original question asked in this thread I do believe.

Personally I don't expect an atheist to provide proof of his/her beliefs.
And I hope that no atheist would require me to provide proof of my belief in the existence of God.

Gumbi

hinault wrote: »

The original question asked in this thread I do believe.

Personally I don't expect an atheist to provide proof of his/her beliefs.
And I hope that no atheist would require me to provide proof of my belief in the existence of God.

I don't understand this answer at all.

If you claim God does exist, in order to demonstrate that to me, you must prove it.

Equally, if I claim that God does not exist (specifically, I positively claim this), then I have to demonstrate that to you.

hinault

Quo Vadis wrote: »

There is no irrefutable proof that God does / does not exist.

There cannot be, because if there was it would remove all free will, and we would be nothing but automatons serving God.

Like any loving parent would, God wants us to love him voluntarily, hence our free will to choose to believe or not.

This short life is a test for the next life which is eternal. We cannot have heaven on earth, that would serve no purpose.

At the time of your Judgement you will have no excuses, everything you did and choose in life will be reviewed in front of you.

Hell is self chosen eternal darkness and permanent separation from God and his infinite love for all eternity. The gates of hell are bolted from the inside by the arrogance of ego.

The old saying : for the believer no proof is needed and for the non-believer all the proof in the world would never be sufficient!

SebBerkovich

hinault wrote: »

The old saying : for the believer no proof is needed and for the non-believer all the proof in the world would never be sufficient!

Any proof would be a good start though.

Gumbi

Again, that's a non-answer from you.

Would you like to address the point I made regarding burden of proof?

As to Que Vardis's point about free will that you quoted - well, I would argue that belief isn't a choice. As much as the idea of a loving God might appeal to me, I simply cannot bring myself to believe it. I can't simply flip a switch and think to myself "I believe God exists".

hinault

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Any proof would be a good start though.

If I provided proof, you'd ask me for more proof and if I provided some more proof, you'd ask me for some even more proof and so it goes on.

The Gospels refer to this in the form of St.Thomas.
Even a man who had lived with and knew Jesus doubted.

onlinenerd

The believers will believe even if they cant prove the existence of God because Christ himself said Blessed are those who not seen me yet believe and this is what is known as faith because you cant prove God is present yet you know he is there always.

SebBerkovich

hinault wrote: »

If I provided proof, you'd ask me for more proof and if I provided some more proof, you'd ask me for some even more proof and so it goes on.

The Gospels refer to this in the form of St.Thomas.
Even a man who had lived with and knew Jesus doubted.

Yeah, i can kinda see what you mean. It might appear that i'm just goading you into giving some evidence that i will just disregard.

and then we're onto a different discussion so how about i give you my point of view and you might understand what all this "show me some evidence" is coming from.

It's kinda like that old Carl Sagan analogy of the invisible dragon the full thing is here but i'll summarize.
I tell you there's a Dragon in my garage and bring you to see it, when you get there i tell you it's invisible. You suggest spreading flour on the floor to catch it's footprints but then i tell you that it's a floating dragon...

This goes on for a while and as you can imagine it's frustrating.
I've been told god is invisible when i can't see him and works in "mysterious ways" when he doesn't something "out of character" like do bad things to good people.... i've more or less given up in suggesting ways that i can prove your invisible dragon exists and SO.. i just ask you directly for some evidence as to why i should believe there's a dragon there rather than going the route of Occam's Razor and concluding that there's nothing there.

hinault

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Yeah, i can kinda see what you mean. It might appear that i'm just goading you into giving some evidence that i will just disregard.

and then we're onto a different discussion so how about i give you my point of view and you might understand what all this "show me some evidence" is coming from.

It's kinda like that old Carl Sagan analogy of the invisible dragon the full thing is here but i'll summarize.
I tell you there's a Dragon in my garage and bring you to see it, when you get there i tell you it's invisible. You suggest spreading flour on the floor to catch it's footprints but then i tell you that it's a floating dragon...

This goes on for a while and as you can imagine it's frustrating.
I've been told god is invisible when i can't see him and works in "mysterious ways" when he doesn't something "out of character" like do bad things to good people.... i've more or less given up in suggesting ways that i can prove your invisible dragon exists and SO.. i just ask you directly for some evidence as to why i should believe there's a dragon there rather than going the route of Occam's Razor and concluding that there's nothing there.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally were trying to goad me but if you think I was suggesting this then I apologise

The point that I was trying to make was that all the proof in the world will never convince many people.

The argument that perhaps a percentage of proof would persuade those who don't believe is interesting and worth considering.

God gave man free will. Free will to allow man to make his own decision in all things temporal and spiritual.
God has provided evidence and it is up to each person to decide, through free will, whether to accept this evidence as proof or to reject this evidence as "disproof".

I don't know what weight of evidence is required to prove to anyone else the existence of God.

hinault

onlinenerd wrote: »

The believers will believe even if they cant prove the existence of God because Christ himself said Blessed are those who not seen me yet believe and this is what is known as faith because you cant prove God is present yet you know he is there always.

That is a very good summary.

Faith is belief in something which exists outside the limited measurement of this existence.

Science has made some small inroads in to the measurement of this existence.
Science has not yet been able to begin to measure the metaphysical.
I doubt science ever will be able to measure the metaphysical but that's just my personal viewpoint:)

SebBerkovich

hinault wrote: »

[...]
I don't know what weight of evidence is required to prove to anyone else the existence of God.

I would argue the vast majority of Christians have never considered any evidence.

The average Christian isn't converted into Christianity after reading through the Bible or hearing a sermon. They're Christian because thats all they can remember being. They weren't given an option to consider the evidence.

I'm taking a position where i'm wondering, If someone wasn't raised within a religious society is there evidence out there that could convince a reasonable adult to convert.

From what i can see, there really isn't.

onlinenerd

They say that Science is the study of Gods work but now now the whole science sector is based on secular scientists even if it means studying Gods Handiwork mankind will never be able to outplay Gods mind because we ourselves were created by God and the best example from Bible is when God questions Job in the book of Job in the Old Testament when Job questions why God allowed suffering for him even though he was loyal to God.

hinault

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I would argue the vast majority of Christians have never considered any evidence.

The average Christian isn't converted into Christianity after reading through the Bible or hearing a sermon. They're Christian because thats all they can remember being. They weren't given an option to consider the evidence.

I'm taking a position where i'm wondering, If someone wasn't raised within a religious society is there evidence out there that could convince a reasonable adult to convert.

From what i can see, there really isn't.

Fair enough.

I have no way personally of verifying whether or not the Earth is flat or not.
I take it on trust that what science tells me about the world being not flat is the truth.

I can read a book with a photograph in it showing me Earth from outer space.
I can read accounts from the astronauts who took that photograph.

But I'm still required to evaluate whether the photograph and the astronauts statements are truthful.
I'm still required to decide if the evidence is true!

I accept that science is probably truthful when it says the Earth is flat.

I think this example can be applied to one's faith, lack of faith. One tries to discern what is the truth. That discernment can be stronger or weaker at various times.

I know of no human who didn't not doubt God at some point, with the sole exception being Mary, the Blessed Virgin. Even when the Apostles doubted, She never ever doubted. She was the only one who stood by the Cross throughout.

SebBerkovich

So, God's existence is completely unprovable.

So in column A (the "god exists" column) i've got nothing.

In column B (the "god doesn't exist" column) i've got mostly circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. Which isn't bad considering God is supposed to be untraceable by science.

I think it's pretty clear that a reasonable person raised would religion would be very unlikely to convert.