Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Brian Shanahan

Festus wrote: »

Given the biased and derogatory language you use I suspect not and you are prepared to believe what others tell you about this book. No surprise there.
The quote “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.” quote has been attributed to GK Chesterton. Regardless of where it comes from it is apt and true, in my experience.

No, it is a lie. I stopped believing in god years ago, and yet I still not have found anything else to believe in. Once one stops believing in the fantastical, the fabulistic and the imaginary, one rarely goes out and finds something equally fake to replace it.

That is because most people who give up theism do so because they are strong enough mentally and intelligent enough to question the foundations of their former beliefs, and honest enough to accept the truth that those beliefs were founded as if they were a sandcastle built at low tide on the shore, without foundations or proper structure to hold them up to any sort of challenge. They are most definitely not going to fall for another fairy story once they have thrown off the shackles of the first one.

have you tried researching this book for yourself?

I throw that question right back at you. Because I have not yet found one single christian (and I don't mean people like the higher up church personages who are almost to a man only in it for the power it gives them, and not through any genuine religious belief) in my whole thirty-three years of existence as well versed, or alternatively as willing to accept and acknowledge the flaws (for those who know the bible and yet still believe sweep the problems with that bad fantasy novel under the carpet and pretend hard that they don't exist), as I am. There are no true believers who have properly subjected their beliefs to scrutiny, because that would defeat the whole purpose of their belief.

Festus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"He who does not believe in God will believe in anything"? I think you'll be hard pressed to find atheists who believe in angel healing, ghosts, or various other paranormal things, so it looks like Chesterton's sweeping generalisation is rubbish.

I was thinking more along the lines of politics and ideologies.I guess it went over your head.

Festus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No, it is a lie. I stopped believing in god years ago, and yet I still not have found anything else to believe in.

Well, I'm glad you don't believe in science then. There's an Einstein quote to cover that but I'm not going to put it up here in case some atheist thinks it lame.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

have you tried researching this book for yourself?

Given the biased and derogatory language you use I suspect not and you are prepared to believe what others tell you about this book. No surprise there.
The quote “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.” quote has been attributed to GK Chesterton. Regardless of where it comes from it is apt and true, in my experience.

On the contrary, I've read the entire bible. Besides, did you yourself not watch the video? At that point in the video, it does exactly what I reported it to do - it makes threats of eternal damnation and psychological abuse (what else can you call it, when it tells the viewer that they deserve eternal torment in hellfire?)
As for me "believing in anything"...where the hell do you get this from? Do you not understand what I wrote in that post, in that I am SKEPTICAL of supernatural claims? How a person can read my post about being skeptical and yet somehow come to the conclusion that I will believe anything is beyond me. In fact, I've seen this "believe in anything" mentality from certain christians - I've been talking to one on Youtube for the past few days, who tells me he won't read Lord of the Rings because he fears the 'magic' contained within it will lead him away from his god. In other words, his belief in a supernatural deity who works through what is essentially describable as magic has warped his viewpoint to the level that he can't distinguish between the magic his religion teaches is true and the fictional magic in a novel that is never once claimed to actually be real.

Also what about my post up there is derogatory? My post is highly skeptical of the claims in the video, but not once do I call anyone names or insult them or anything. Is it when I described the King James as a highly suspect translation of a collection of books? Well, if that's what you think is derogatory, I won't apologize because that describes the KJV perfectly

Festus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

On the contrary, I've read the entire bible. Besides, did you yourself not watch the video? At that point in the video, it does exactly what I reported it to do - it makes threats of eternal damnation and psychological abuse (what else can you call it, when it tells the viewer that they deserve eternal torment in hellfire?)
As for me "believing in anything"...where the hell do you get this from? Do you not understand what I wrote in that post, in that I am SKEPTICAL of supernatural claims? How a person can read my post about being skeptical and yet somehow come to the conclusion that I will believe anything is beyond me. In fact, I've seen this "believe in anything" mentality from certain christians - I've been talking to one on Youtube for the past few days, who tells me he won't read Lord of the Rings because he fears the 'magic' contained within it will lead him away from his god. In other words, his belief in a supernatural deity who works through what is essentially describable as magic has warped his viewpoint to the level that he can't distinguish between the magic his religion teaches is true and the fictional magic in a novel that is never once claimed to actually be real.

Also what about my post up there is derogatory? My post is highly skeptical of the claims in the video, but not once do I call anyone names or insult them or anything. Is it when I described the King James as a highly suspect translation of a collection of books? Well, if that's what you think is derogatory, I won't apologize because that describes the KJV perfectly

Ah, so it's the KJV Bible you were refering to which does indeed contain some corruptions so it must only be Protestants you think are gullible.

I suspect however you think Catholics gullible too. Or Christians in general. Sweeping generalization anyone?

I've been skeptical of atheists for a long long time now. I once thought most were well meaning but misguided people. Thank you for correcting me. I also thought that if they arrived in a Christian forum they were there to explore. I don't get that impression from your posts - it seems you are more interested in spleen venting.

Have fun.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

Ah, so it's the KJV Bible you were refering to which does indeed contain some corruptions so it must only be Protestants you think are gullible.

I suspect however you think Catholics gullible too. Or Christians in general. Sweeping generalization anyone?

I've been skeptical of atheists for a long long time now. I once thought most were well meaning but misguided people. Thank you for correcting me. I also thought that if they arrived in a Christian forum they were there to explore. I don't get that impression from your posts - it seems you are more interested in spleen venting.

Have fun.

Yes I was referring to the KJV - if you go back to the video, and stop at 7:11, it has a quote and below it, it says King James Version. What else would I be talking about? The NIV?
Christians in general gullible? In a certain sense yes. They've all bought into the idea of a supernatural deity who works magic and raises the dead and so far, none of them have given me evidence that doesn't refer me back to a certain book or is just feelings or dreams or visions they've had, where they've fallen victim to the God of the Gaps fallacy.
And yes, I am here to explore. Whenever I do talk to christians, my aim is two fold. First, to expose the many logical fallacies in their belief. Second, is to challenge them, a dare if you will, to convince me that what they're saying is true. So far, none of them have succeeded. No, I don't spleen vent. I saw that video, watched it, and immediately critiqued it, pointing out the many logical flaws it had.

Also, when you say the KJV does have corruptions, in that you imply that whatever version of the bible you use doesn't (if you don't actually imply that, please correct me). If you did imply it, how is it that you know your version of the bible *is* correct/not corrupted? Last I checked, we don't have the original manuscripts. They've all been lost to the sands of time.

I also have to question your using my post to paint a broad brush of all/most atheists. As I'm sure you've been told plenty of times, an atheist at their most simplest, is simply a person who doesn't believe in a god. They lack the belief. Beyond that, they can be anything or believe anything else. There is nothing that ties one atheist to another beyond their lack of a belief in a god.
The same cannot be said for those who subscribe to a religion. For example, if I see a post by someone who identifies as a Roman Catholic, then I will more than likely be correct when I say "Well, this person then accepts the Pope in Rome as the Vicar of Christ, he believes in transubstantiation and that homosexuals should not get married in a church"...simply through that identification as a catholic. In much the same way as a person who identifies himself as a member of the KKK, I can then infer that they are white supremacists.
Can you do anything like that with an atheist? Beyond my being an atheist, can you point at something I am or believe in or hold to be true that somehow ties or connects me to most/all other atheists?

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

Ah, so it's the KJV Bible you were refering to which does indeed contain some corruptions so it must only be Protestants you think are gullible.

I suspect however you think Catholics gullible too. Or Christians in general. Sweeping generalization anyone?

I've been skeptical of atheists for a long long time now. I once thought most were well meaning but misguided people. Thank you for correcting me. I also thought that if they arrived in a Christian forum they were there to explore. I don't get that impression from your posts - it seems you are more interested in spleen venting.

Have fun.

I'm sure there's thousands of gods you don't believe in. Does that make you more likely to believe in tarot cards or whacky political philosophies?

Festus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Christians in general gullible? In a certain sense yes. They've all bought into the idea of a supernatural deity who works magic and raises the dead and so far, none of them have given me evidence that doesn't refer me back to a certain book or is just feelings or dreams or visions they've had, where they've fallen victim to the God of the Gaps fallacy.
And yes, I am here to explore. Whenever I do talk to christians, my aim is two fold. First, to expose the many logical fallacies in their belief. Second, is to challenge them, a dare if you will, to convince me that what they're saying is true.

Ok, your agenda established. Here the existence of God is a given. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I also have to question your using my post to paint a broad brush of all/most atheists. As I'm sure you've been told plenty of times, an atheist at their most simplest, is simply a person who doesn't believe in a god. They lack the belief. Beyond that, they can be anything or believe anything else. There is nothing that ties one atheist to another beyond their lack of a belief in a god.

Lacking belief is a bit lame. It's an appeal to ignorance. Last resort of the simple I suppose. But if you want to call yourself lacking that is your business.

For me an atheist is someone who wants to live their lives in moral relativism, that is if they subscribe to any form of morality at all, and wants to be cheered for doing so. General maxim of "do what thou wilt" and not believing God is watching them sin makes them feel better about it.

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

Ok, your agenda established. Here the existence of God is a given. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.




Lacking belief is a bit lame. It's an appeal to ignorance. Last resort of the simple I suppose. But if you want to call yourself lacking that is your business.

For me an atheist is someone who wants to live their lives in moral relativism, that is if they subscribe to any form of morality at all, and wants to be cheered for doing so. General maxim of "do what thou wilt" and not believing God is watching them sin makes them feel better about it.

But what if you've picked the wrong God to worship? What if the polytheists are worshipping the right Gods? You only believe in one God, right? That's only one more than I believe in.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

Ok, your agenda established. Here the existence of God is a given. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.




Lacking belief is a bit lame. It's an appeal to ignorance. Last resort of the simple I suppose. But if you want to call yourself lacking that is your business.

For me an atheist is someone who wants to live their lives in moral relativism, that is if they subscribe to any form of morality at all, and wants to be cheered for doing so. General maxim of "do what thou wilt" and not believing God is watching them sin makes them feel better about it.

Then at this point you and I have to agree to disagree. Yes, I understand which section of the forums I am in, but logically speaking, the person or people making the positive claim that Thing X exists/is real/is true ALWAYS have the burden of proof. Have you for example ever gone onto a muslim message board or talked to muslims and disproven their deity/prophet?
Also, appeal to ignorance? How so? I said lacking a belief for a reason, because lacking a belief in X IS NOT the same as believing X to not be true. I'm at the null hypothesis - I don't accept X to be true simply because I have no reason to accept it to be true. This doesn't mean that I will always not accept X. All that needs to be done to convince me is to give me sound logical arguments along with evidence.
As for your dig against atheists who just want to sin and do what thou wilt...false. I for one don't subscribe to that (did you not understand what I wrote about painting all atheists with a broad brush?)

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

But what if you've picked the wrong God to worship? What if the polytheists are worshipping the right Gods? You only believe in one God, right? That's only one more than I believe in.

At least you admit to believing in something. But what if you've picked the wrong something to believe in?

Festus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Then at this point you and I have to agree to disagree. Yes, I understand which section of the forums I am in, but logically speaking, the person or people making the positive claim that Thing X exists/is real/is true ALWAYS have the burden of proof. Have you for example ever gone onto a muslim message board or talked to muslims and disproven their deity/prophet?
Also, appeal to ignorance? How so? I said lacking a belief for a reason, because lacking a belief in X IS NOT the same as believing X to not be true. I'm at the null hypothesis - I don't accept X to be true simply because I have no reason to accept it to be true. This doesn't mean that I will always not accept X. All that needs to be done to convince me is to give me sound logical arguments along with evidence.
As for your dig against atheists who just want to sin and do what thou wilt...false. I for one don't subscribe to that (did you not understand what I wrote about painting all atheists with a broad brush?)

As I said this is a Christian forum and the existence of God is a given.

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

At least you admit to believing in something. But what if you've picked the wrong something to believe in?

I'll have to live with that. But I know for certain that neither you nor I have any idea what happens after we die. For all we know, we could both end up on the wrong side of Gods we don't believe in.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

At least you admit to believing in something. But what if you've picked the wrong something to believe in?

At what point did Festus say s/he believed in nothing? The question "what if you've picked the wrong thing to believe in" hurts the theist's position more than it does the atheist. The theist is the one positing a belief in a specific god or gods, whereas the atheist isn't. The atheist, when talking about their atheism, isn't talking about a positive belief in Thing X - they're talking about a lack of belief. Could they be wrong? Yes, but so can the theist, who when positing God A over God B or God C, has to somehow justify God A.

As I said this is a Christian forum and the existence of God is a given.

Then is this an admission from you that, outside of this forum, the requirement that a person espousing a positive belief in Thing X always has the burden of proof, but when you gather together with a group of like minded people, that burden is, for some unexplained reason, lifted? At what point does it ever make logical sense to lift the burden of proof?

lazygal

RikuoAmero wrote: »

At what point did Festus say s/he believed in nothing? The question "what if you've picked the wrong thing to believe in" hurts the theist's position more than it does the atheist. The theist is the one positing a belief in a specific god or gods, whereas the atheist isn't. The atheist, when talking about their atheism, isn't talking about a positive belief in Thing X - they're talking about a lack of belief. Could they be wrong? Yes, but so can the theist, who when positing God A over God B or God C, has to somehow justify God A.


Then is this an admission from you that, outside of this forum, the requirement that a person espousing a positive belief in Thing X always has the burden of proof, but when you gather together with a group of like minded people, that burden is, for some unexplained reason, lifted? At what point does it ever make logical sense to lift the burden of proof?

Twas I, Lazygal, not Festus, who asked about picking the wrong god(s).

RikuoAmero

lazygal wrote: »

Twas I, Lazygal, not Festus, who asked about picking the wrong god(s).

My mistake!

lazygal

RikuoAmero wrote: »

My mistake!

To err is human, etc., etc.

Festus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Then is this an admission from you that, outside of this forum, the requirement that a person espousing a positive belief in Thing X always has the burden of proof, but when you gather together with a group of like minded people, that burden is, for some unexplained reason, lifted? At what point does it ever make logical sense to lift the burden of proof?

You've read the Bible. Have you read the Charter for this forum? It's a wee bit shorter.

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

I'll have to live with that. But I know for certain that neither you nor I have any idea what happens after we die. For all we know, we could both end up on the wrong side of Gods we don't believe in.

Well, as a Christian I do know what happens after we die. We are judged for our actions in this life and go to Heaven, Purgarory or Hell. The unbaptized are at God's mercy.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

You've read the Bible. Have you read the Charter for this forum? It's a wee bit shorter.

Yes I have. However, let me ask you this. What do you think happens if a bunch of people, who believe in Thing X, gather together and talk about Thing X, but never once apply the burden of proof to themselves?
Unless I'm very mistaken, then the belief in Thing X goes unchallenged, especially if it is actually false. Then harm is done.

Well, as a Christian I do know what happens after we die. We are judged for our actions in this life and go to Heaven, Purgarory or Hell. The unbaptized are at God's mercy.

So you know for a fact, that this is what is going to happen? Very well, then I am the unbeliever. According to what is in your bible (I haven't seen a version/translation of the bible that doesn't have something along these lines) then you are required, commanded, to account for your good news, to try and teach me the error of my lack of belief. So like I said earlier, convince me.
About the only group of christians I know of who say they don't have to convert others are the nutcases in Westboro Baptist Church.

Festus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes I have. However, let me ask you this. What do you think happens if a bunch of people, who believe in Thing X, gather together and talk about Thing X, but never once apply the burden of proof to themselves?
Unless I'm very mistaken, then the belief in Thing X goes unchallenged, especially if it is actually false. Then harm is done.

That is your opinion and you can have it. I have gone through the exercise of questioning the existence of God and can find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Therefore God exists.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So you know for a fact, that this is what is going to happen? Very well, then I am the unbeliever.

Unbelievers tend to believe in something. What do you believe in?

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

Well, as a Christian I do know what happens after we die. We are judged for our actions in this life and go to Heaven, Purgarory or Hell. The unbaptized are at God's mercy.

I'm baptized. Does that mean I go to Heaven?

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

That is your opinion and you can have it. I have gone through the exercise of questioning the existence of God and can find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Therefore God exists.



Unbelievers tend to believe in something. What do you believe in?

You actively went out to try and support the hypothesis that X (God) does not exist? Do you really mean that, am I reading that correctly?
If so, then my friend, I have to tell you you went about it completely ass backwards. For example, let me switch the word God for invisible, immaterial leprechauns.
I can't see these leprechauns and I can't touch them because they are invisible and immaterial. Because of these two properties, it's pretty hard for me to prove they don't exist. Therefore, by default, according to you, they must exist?
If you reply back saying that of course neither of us don't believe in invisible immaterial leprechauns, then 1) this was a hypothetical exercise 2) I did it to show the flaw in your logic, in that you don't believe in invisible immaterial leprechauns even though you can't prove them to not exist, but that you commit the logical fallacy of special pleading to the character called God from the bible.

As for what I believe in - I am not the one espousing a positive belief here. The theist is. So we're not going to get side-tracked.

Do me a favour please and research the null hypothesis. To put it simply, that is the state of mind where one lacks a belief in something because that thing has not been substantially proven (note I didn't use the word absolute or anything of that nature).

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

I'm baptized. Does that mean I go to Heaven?

If you are baptized and have rejected God what do you think?

Festus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You actively went out to try and support the hypothesis that X (God) does not exist? Do you really mean that, am I reading that correctly?
If so, then my friend, I have to tell you you went about it completely ass backwards. For example, let me switch the word God for invisible, immaterial leprechauns.
I can't see these leprechauns and I can't touch them because they are invisible and immaterial. Because of these two properties, it's pretty hard for me to prove they don't exist. Therefore, by default, according to you, they must exist?
If you reply back saying that of course neither of us don't believe in invisible immaterial leprechauns, then 1) this was a hypothetical exercise 2) I did it to show the flaw in your logic, in that you don't believe in invisible immaterial leprechauns even though you can't prove them to not exist, but that you commit the logical fallacy of special pleading to the character called God from the bible.

As for what I believe in - I am not the one espousing a positive belief here. The theist is. So we're not going to get side-tracked.

Do me a favour please and research the null hypothesis. To put it simply, that is the state of mind where one lacks a belief in something because that thing has not been substantially proven (note I didn't use the word absolute or anything of that nature).

Are you actually asking me to defend my faith, and my belief in God, here, in this forum?

PopePalpatine

Festus wrote: »

For me an atheist is someone who wants to live their lives in moral relativism, that is if they subscribe to any form of morality at all, and wants to be cheered for doing so. General maxim of "do what thou wilt" and not believing God is watching them sin makes them feel better about it.

I guess you've never heard of secular humanism then? My general maxim is "do to others what you want done to yourself" - if I want to lock up unmarried mothers, I should be willing to want the same done to me should I become an unmarried father.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

Are you actually asking me to defend my faith, and my belief in God, here, in this forum?

Nope. As I said up above, I'm asking for those who subscribed to Thing X to convince me of Thing X. That is all. Nice try there at trying to catch me at breaking one of the forum rules.

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

If you are baptized and have rejected God what do you think?

But you said the baptized go to heaven. Do terms and conditions apply? What about my unbaptized children, will they be outside of heaven while I'm in there?

shruikan2553

Festus wrote: »

If you are baptized and have rejected God what do you think?

What if they have lived a life where they have done more to help others than anyone who believes in your god? Would god really judge them and say "you're great and all but you didn't believe in me so better luck next time!"

Would seem a bit attention seeking rather than acutually caring.

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

But you said the baptized go to heaven. Do terms and conditions apply? What about my unbaptized children, will they be outside of heaven while I'm in there?

I said Heaven, Purgatory or Hell. Terms and conditions do apply. Those without sin go to Heaven. Those with sin but in a state of grace go to Purgatory. Those in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. Unbaptized children are at God's mercy.

I don't know where you will be.