Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos wrote: »

Which positive reason? I've not seen one.

A number of the 2009 arguments hold up, and haven't been addressed thoroughly on boards.ie. One or two weren't as good as they could have been. The rest however, still stand as far as I can tell. I would say if I were to change any of them, I would only change 3, and adapt it to be better.

Would you like to counter any of my points in my post that I made in response to your post?
I think many of your points are repeated from your 2009 post so I will refrain from addressing it directly for now.

As for a positive reason it is essentially unnecessary as a lack of evidence is sufficient.

But from a personal perspective what you might call a positive indicator that atheism matches reality is what hardened my own atheism.

I went from a "We don't know if gods do or do not exist, there is no evidence for them so I'll fall to the default lack of belief agnostic atheist"
to my current
"the gods are a man made illusion and are most likely non existent agnostic atheist"
by learning of verifiably false gods springing up due to human nature as explained by Cognitive Neuroscience. This is robust evidence that gods are a made up human invention.

Andrewf20

ISAW wrote: »

If you create a parallel universe in every action you make and you can actually travel to all of them - a bit like the TV show sliders- could you not argue that morality is meaningless because in another universe you became a despot or criminal? What is the "best" if there are infinite ways and even if you pick a "good" way there will exist a myriad "bad " ways?

Another example- If Marty Mc fly changed the past and emerged in a different parallel future in Back to the Future II then dint the parallel universe dictate his subsequent actions?

Apologies but im not 100% clear on your question but I think I see what you are getting at. I think you are asking - how do we know what is good or bad? Its certainly a tricky subject.

- I think Dawkins has done studies on the behaviour of religious and non religious people in relation to moral predicaments and found that the actions / responses were often independent of their belief system (a rough example - a run away train is heading straight towards 5 young people on a track. Would you switch the line if it meant killing 6 older people?). Apologies, I need to dig up a source. It may be in the God delusion book.

- As humans are estimated to be around for 100,000+ years, we wouldnt have got this far if it wasnt for some level of empathy, compassion and a willingness to helps others.

- The is still alot of doubt for some people that the bible was man made. As long as that exists, the concept of it being an absolute moral reference crumbles.

- Wiki says, and I am inclined to agree with it: "Good is a broad concept but it typically deals with an association with life, charity, continuity, happiness, love, and prosperity. Evil is typically associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence that are not legitimate acts of self-defense but aggressive and designed to cause ill-being to others." For some people religon and their preachings seem to fall into the good category alot but also can be associated with falling into the "evil" side also.

OK I'v gotten a warning, and take note;
If I am to be insulted and you think I wont respond... get a life
**** *** can you catch that one?

joseph brand wrote: »

Your 'need for a god' overrides the importance of having 'proof of a god'?

Debating with you is about as useful as putting on a great movie for my shoes to watch, while I go out.

Assuming you are a male, Islam might be a decent alternative. You can treat women however you please. Potentially you could have a couple of wives. Happy days.

So many assumptions and veiled insults, you must be either a new variation of torment or just plain thick.
1 It is about my need for God, thats what a faith is. Deal with it.
2 What? you want to debate but you don't listen, so whats the point.
3 Oh for fu**s sake. What has my attitude to women to do with it? How do you even know what my attitude to women is and why would the number of wives be the deciding factor in choosing a faith? If it were fundamental Mormon would be better I wouldn't need to be circumscribed to join. (I'm practically countersunk as it is

)

King Mob: You of all people should know that atheists in the past did present positive arguments for their position. The philosophy course that we studied at university (for others - King Mob and I studied philosophy together at university) went quite extensively through a number of them in the Philosophy of Religion modules in particular. The new-atheist movement has rejected this however, which is a loss to that position.

That's why I believe my POV to be fair.

[Deleted User]

philologos wrote: »

The thing is. For atheism, even if they did claim that Christianity is wrong. There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.

This question makes no sense and should not be asked if you actually understand what atheism is.
Atheism is not a positive belief, it's a lack of a belief. It's the null hypotheses, the default logical position you should hold until convincing evidence or argumentation is provided.

Take an example of something you don't positively believe exists such as fairies or Russell's Teapot.
Can you please provide the positive evidence you are using to support you Afairyism and your Ateapotism?

And then lets say you find a way to disprove Blue fairyism or Blue teapotism can you please explain then why we should choose Afairyism or Ateapotism over other versions of fairyism or teapotism such as ones where the teapots/fairies are red?

Is your question is a fair, sensible one you should then easily provide answers to the above questions which are based on ideas that are patently false.
But if you can't answer them (which my money's on) how can you honestly expect atheists to answer them?

Which positive reason? I've not seen one.

A number of the 2009 arguments hold up, and haven't been addressed thoroughly on boards.ie. One or two weren't as good as they could have been. The rest however, still stand as far as I can tell. I would say if I were to change any of them, I would only change 3, and adapt it to be better.

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. It's not when I consider parts of Christianity to be evident. Simply put, it's when one sees that the Biblical text is evidenced in the world around us through history, through archaeology, through the way human nature operates, through the nature of morality, through common sense, through looking at the raw nature of what is around us we can see that Christianity is backed up.

The whole Gospel, is unique. There is nothing like it. I can argue this very clearly, and in terms of what I've already posted I've already shown that there are a number of unique arguments for Christianity over other religions.

The thing is. For atheism, even if they did claim that Christianity is wrong. There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.

Would you like to rebut any of my previous points which dealt with some of your assertions? Such as evidence quote:

through history, through archaeology, through the way human nature operates, through the nature of morality, through common sense through looking at the raw nature of what is around us we can see that Christianity is backed up.

I would claim Christianity is wrong in many interpretations but lets stick to the ones you presented as evidence in support of Christianity above.

Some positive reasons for atheism have been presented which you haven't addressed yet. As convincing as they are they are still unnecessary to rejecting the concept of gods due to lack of evidence of the theist position. And a lack of evidence should result in the default position of lack of belief surely?

Just spotted your edit.
I've seen that post before and you are right those arguments are not the best. Most of them are duplicated in your previous post to which I responded so you may counter that one if you wish and address my attention to anything which I've missed in the older one.

You say the word of God tells us about the world we all live in is better than any other explanation. Yet when we find the world does not correspond as your God says it should, it is because we don't want to listen, not because we find gaping holes in your Gods explanation? Sounds like you think atheists are being willfully ignorant of what should be obviously a better explanation. I can assure you, in my humble self at least, that that assumption would be very mistaken.

tommy2bad wrote: »

So even if Christianity was proven a lie and you had to abandon it, you would search for another faith rather than assume an atheistic position?
We might be closer to each other that I care to admit.

Your 'need for a god' overrides the importance of having 'proof of a god'?

Debating with you is about as useful as putting on a great movie for my shoes to watch, while I go out.

Assuming you are a male, Islam might be a decent alternative. You can treat women however you please. Potentially you could have a couple of wives. Happy days.

Fanny Cradock

Penn wrote: »

Apologies, I said Bible where I should have said Old Testament.

The same objection applies as before. The Hebrew Bible didn't pop into existence. It was formed over time by human hands, influenced by experience (which happens to include culture) and, if you are of a mind, subject to Divine inspiration. How do you propose that the Israelites could have taken ideas and inspiration form a series of texts that had not yet been written? Never mind collated into what we now call the Old Testament.

Penn wrote: »

As for how the same religion can be different in different cultures, I fail to see how that can be (I understand it happens, but fail to see why it happens).

I would have thought it obvious. We all interpret information. That goes for referring decisions (“He dived!” “He was tripped”), scientific research, your decision to look at the traffic and to cross the road or not road, your personal interactions with friends and family, understanding the content of Holy Books and so on. Language requires interpretation, as do concepts and symbols. None of them are full containers. They all allow, to one extent or another, us to pour our own understanding into them. This, of course, isn't to suggest that there is no meaning apart from the meaning we make.

Penn wrote: »

Wouldn't that mean that Christians in one of those areas are wrong?

If we assume for a moment that Christianity is correct, then given that mutually exclusive theologies exist between Christian denominations, I think that we can state with confidence that at lest some Christians are at least partially wrong at lest part of the time. If Christian hubris gave you the impression that we are think that we are correct all the time then I'm sorry for that.

Penn wrote: »

Well, why are we waiting? Why do we not have this information yet? Wouldn't the full and complete revelation finally prove that God exists and outline everything?

The short answer is “I don't know”. God could have many reasons for waiting or doing things different to how you would like them done, none of which I am privy to. In fact, I would expect not to know - what with God being God and me being a finite being who at times doesn't know his metaphorical arse from his literal elbow. But a lack of information about Gods plan – the “why doesn't God... ” type question - is different to providing proof of God's existence.

Penn wrote: »

There are currently 7bn people in the world, only about 2.1bn or so (from a quick Google check) are Christians. Wouldn't that mean that 4.9bn people are going to Hell? I mean, if they don't believe in God or commit acts which to their religion is okay, but not okay by the Christian religion, wouldn't they go to Hell?

Again, I don't know. But you seem to be labouring under the impression that we are condemned to damnation for the though crime of not believing. Evidentially Satan believes in God. For that matter, what does damnation mean, I wonder? Does it mean eternal punishment, annihilationism or something else?One other thing is evident – not all people in the Bible who knew God could be described as Christian. This was for the simple reason that Christianity didn't exist up until Christ.

The Bible is also full of righteous people who committed acts "which is not OK by the Christian religions" or Jewish one for that matter. These people are called humans.

Penn wrote: »

As for my comment about 'religion' being the absolute truth: Why would anyone commit themselves to a religion which they felt wasn't the absolute truth?

I can't answer for everyone, but I think there is a distinct difference between adherence to a set of beliefs and tenets that you believe leads to absolute truth and stating that every dogma of X is the absolute truth.

Do you mind answering my question and telling me what you think religion is?

Penn wrote: »

But who decides what is truth and what is law/practices? Is the fact that the Bible deems homosexual acts to be a sin the truth, or a law/practice which can be changed? How is this determined?

That's the point we all sit down and try to use our intellects to come up with answers to the big questions.

tommy2bad wrote: »

So even if Christianity was proven a lie and you had to abandon it, you would search for another faith rather than assume an atheistic position?
We might be closer to each other that I care to admit.

I wouldn't necessarily say this, but it what I am saying is that even if one did it, it doesn't make atheism a scrap more convincing than anything else.

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. It's not when I consider parts of Christianity to be evident. Simply put, it's when one sees that the Biblical text is evidenced in the world around us through history, through archaeology, through the way human nature operates, through the nature of morality, through common sense, through looking at the raw nature of what is around us we can see that Christianity is backed up.

The whole Gospel, is unique. There is nothing like it. I can argue this very clearly, and in terms of what I've already posted I've already shown that there are a number of unique arguments for Christianity over other religions.

The thing is. For atheism, even if they did claim that Christianity is wrong. There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.

So even if Christianity was proven a lie and you had to abandon it, you would search for another faith rather than assume an atheistic position?
We might be closer to each other that I care to admit.

Not at all. It's not when I consider parts of Christianity to be evident. Simply put, it's when one sees that the Biblical text is evidenced in the world around us through history, through archaeology, through the way human nature operates, through the nature of morality, through common sense, through looking at the raw nature of what is around us we can see that Christianity is backed up. I gave a few more reasons for why I believe here a whack about 3 years ago. A few weren't the best, but a number of them haven't been addressed properly since.

The whole Gospel, is unique. There is nothing like it. I can argue this very clearly, and in terms of what I've already posted I've already shown that there are a number of unique arguments for Christianity over other religions.

The thing is. For atheism, even if they did claim that Christianity is wrong. There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.

I've since realised, faith comes by hearing in the word of God. If you don't want to listen to it, you won't believe. It's really as simple as that. I can present lofty arguments, but ultimately they will fall flat if you refuse to acknowledge anything to do with Him.

ISAW

joseph brand wrote: »

You left out the bit in bold when you quoted me. For shame. Tut tut tut!

Relative to our Galaxy, which is moving in a different direction.

Just a quick Google and I found this nugget:

nothing physical, such as the stars in a Galaxy or Galaxy can travel faster than light, ever. Two separate objects in the Universe can move at 'relative' speeds away from each other at the speed of light or greater. That means that these objects speeds are neither one greater than the speed of light, but by combining their speeds 'relative to each other in the Universe,' their speeds equal or exceed the speed of light at moving away from each other..

That nugget would violate one of the central principles of cosmology - homogenity - and a create a contradiction with the two postulates of relativity equivalance and c in a vacuum being constant.

Two trains both moving away from you in opposite directions at the speed of light do not see each other as moving away from each other at twice the speed of light.

If you travel in a train at half light spped and you turn on a light it does not go back to where you came from at half the spped of light or go forward ahead of you ar one and a half times light speed.

The apparent paradox is what relativity explains.

philologos wrote: »

muppeteer: To cut my response short. Christianity has a number of arguments for its unique handling of the truth around us which other religions as far as I can tell don't have. However, when I'm dealing with atheists, there's only one thing for consideration. How Christianity stands in terms of atheism. When I discuss with Muslims as I do occasionally here, I discuss Christianity in the light of Islam for example. Also, I can present Christianity as being unique without having to systematically go through each and every alternative, because Christianity addresses questions which are not found anywhere else.

That is fine that you consider parts of Christianity's "evidence" unique and are therefore immune to criticism from arguments used against general theism. I will try to address them if you would like to present this unique evidence.

As for Christianity addressing questions not found anywhere else, it should be enough to note that anything can be presented as a cure/answer to an invented ailment/question.

I will however use general arguments on the parts of Christianity's evidence which are non unique, which are numerous.
Any type of cosmological type argument would be non unique for example.
Any type of revelation type argument would be non unique.
Any type of prophecy based argument or salvation.....well you get the idea.

ISAW: I don't believe the Hellenistic period of Christianity was positive. Mixing pagan philosophy with Christian belief never works. Indeed, it often fails. As much as I find some of Plato and Aristotle's work interesting. Their ideas are in many ways contradictory to Christianity. For example, Plato condones collective wives in his Plato's Republic. Essentially that any woman in society should be free for any man to use them as they please. Aristotle believed that the world would never end. These are just isolated examples. There are plenty more. This may have brought some advantages, but ultimately it was corrupting. Galileo was condemned by the RCC largely on the basis of Aristotle rather than Christianity.

ISAW

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But parallel universes dont claim to dictate how to best live our lives.

If you create a parallel universe in every action you make and you can actually travel to all of them - a bit like the TV show sliders- could you not argue that morality is meaningless because in another universe you became a despot or criminal? What is the "best" if there are infinite ways and even if you pick a "good" way there will exist a myriad "bad " ways?

Another example- If Marty Mc fly changed the past and emerged in a different parallel future in Back to the Future II then dint the parallel universe dictate his subsequent actions?

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

But, how can Christianity have Greek roots?

As father Jack put it "that would be an ecumenical matter"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

emphasis added

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6]

And he goes on about deHellinisation and logos
"I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God."

and that is from the current Pope!

I mean, I can clearly see from your links that several ideas may have come from ideas which were Greek in origin, but surely Christianity shouldn't have any roots from anywhere else other than the Bible?

You would not be entirely correct.
what for example did Christians go by when they didnt have the Bible all together in a single book?
They relied on earlier Jewish traditions and on their own philosophy and knowledge. Indeed the New Testament mentions it. their retention of circumcision etc. and how that became an issue.
Christians also have the Magesterium.

It is a bit of a mistake to think of christianity as being only about the bible. In a way it is but it is only because the Bible records about Christ so it is more about being all about Christ. the Bible is one of the central ways to this but not exclusive. Even the Bible says that there are other writings. but it is sufficient to know about Christ.

these are questions of ecclesiology not necessarily faith or reason but are related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology

I mean, did the people writing the Bible and the people who spread Christianity throughout the world take their ideas and inspiration from the Bible, or did they use the ideas of others and modify them to fit with their own ideas.

Bit of both really. christianity was perhaps revolutionary but elements of differing traditions today are cultural. Even the roman church does things slightly differently in celtic or american or other cultures. the central faith however is the same.

How can a religion have roots in a different culture? Surely the ideas and concepts were there before the Greeks? After all, if the religion is the absolute truth, it cannot be changed if ideas from another country are introduced

This is ironic considering atheists constantly argue that christianity is really just an amalgam of earlier philosophies from egypt babylonia etc.

It cant be unique have no precedent and be and unchangable and also be based on other past religions.

Please remember we are talking about the structure and practices of church not about the central dogma of the church.

The ideas and concepts of a single God would have existed but probably been the exception. the essential truth of the Trinity the Eucharist the word the spirit etc. can be preserved but presented in different Rites Languages in music etc.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Fail;
Google is your friend, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

There are galaxies which are moving faster than the speed of light, away from us.

You left out the bit in bold when you quoted me. For shame. Tut tut tut!

Relative to our Galaxy, which is moving in a different direction.

Just a quick Google and I found this nugget:

. . nothing physical, such as the stars in a Galaxy or Galaxy can travel faster than light, ever. Two separate objects in the Universe can move at 'relative' speeds away from each other at the speed of light or greater. That means that these objects speeds are neither one greater than the speed of light, but by combining their speeds 'relative to each other in the Universe,' their speeds equal or exceed the speed of light at moving away from each other..

tommy2bad wrote: »

Fail;
Google is your friend, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

Did you actually read that article? Because I suspect you didn't.

Penn: By irrefutable what do you mean? - Christianity has never been systematically refuted, not once. I believe more of the time people merely fob off God's existence. There are a few arguments which are wholly inadequate. But there are many which are simply ignored.

By the by, thanks for considering my previous post. My point wasn't that I wanted to see what advantages atheism had. Rather what I want to know is why atheism is any more true than anything else out there as a positive argument not a negative.

muppeteer: To cut my response short. Christianity has a number of arguments for its unique handling of the truth around us which other religions as far as I can tell don't have. However, when I'm dealing with atheists, there's only one thing for consideration. How Christianity stands in terms of atheism. When I discuss with Muslims as I do occasionally here, I discuss Christianity in the light of Islam for example. Also, I can present Christianity as being unique without having to systematically go through each and every alternative, because Christianity addresses questions which are not found anywhere else.

joseph brand: I actually agree with you on the start of your last point. Say the first paragraph :eek:

Northclare wrote: »

Muslims also had mathematical geniuses as well as Christianity.

Some musicians meditate or pray before they write music and they believe without their beliefs they wouldn't have the ability to come up with their compositions.

A mathematical genius is born into a muslim family. It wasn't their parents faith that caused their genius. There are geniuses in every part of the globe. religion means nothing.

What if a genius loves rock music? Rock music causes geniuses?

There's plenty of musicians who smoked weed or took acid and composed music off their face. (Brian Wilson, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix etc) It opens the mind. That's why governments and the church hate street drugs. They're fine with Pharma Corp drugs which are claiming thousands of lives across the US.

joseph brand;
There are galaxies which are moving faster than the speed of light

Fail;
Google is your friend, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

ISAW wrote: »

what constitutes "evidence"?

Is there evidence for parallel universes?

No. It's a theory and belief is suspended until PROVEN.

The idea of the 'Multiverse' is a theory which satisfies the question of dark energy. That which is causing the universe to expand. The expansion is accelerating. There are galaxies which are moving faster than the speed of light, away from us.

If this continues, our future looks like this: (Theoretically)
The Andromeda Galaxy will collide with our own to form a larger Galaxy.
This Galaxy will fly through empty space alone.
There will be no Galaxies or anything outside of our own Galaxy visible to us.
But that's billions of years away. No need to worry.

Point is, it's called scientific 'theory' until proven. Then, it becomes 'fact'. Simple.

It is an interesting quote though considering the symbolism involved.
Condemned by Jeremiah but yet strangely echoing the crucification.
Reminds me of C.S. Lewis's thing about 'prefiguring' the incarnation.
(I think it was Lewis, I could be wrong and have mixed him up with someone else)

PDN

RichieC wrote: »

"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen....: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers, that it move not."

1 Hear what the LORD says to you, people of Israel. This is what the LORD says:

“Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
though the nations are terrified by them.
For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter. (Jeremiah 10:1-4)

Anyone can see that this is talking about people who make and adorn idols that they install in their homes to worship.

So how many Christians do you know who get a craftsman to carve a Christmas tree with a chisel, put silver and gold on it, and then fasten it as a permanent fixture with hammer and nails in their homes? :rolleyes:

This thead gets stupider by the day.

RichieC

PDN wrote: »

The idea of the Christmas Tree is hardly a Christian doctrine, nor is it forbidden in the Bible. The idea of the Christmas Tree didn't exist when any of the biblical books were being written.

"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen....For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers, that it move not."