nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

And what is the criminals responsibility? To remain a criminal a risk punishment or to cease and desist?

The criminal doesn't have any responsibilities, he just sits there until he is told to get up.

Festus wrote: »

Disobedience is disobedience.

Disobedience and the act of punishing disobedience are two different things.

Festus wrote: »

It is the souls responsibility to exercise free will and make that choice.

It is not the souls responsibility to punish itself if it disobeys God.

Festus wrote: »

It is a choice and many choose it.

No one chooses it. It is doubtful the human mind could even comprehend infinite suffering to the level that the person would even be aware of what they were choosing. With no comprehension of what you are choosing you cannot consent to it. Not that it matters because humans do not have the power to transport themselves to hell anyway.

If you need a real world analogy, I cannot simply walk into a prison, sit down in a cell and say "I've been bad, I'm going to stay here for a while". I can no more send myself to prison than I can send myself to hell. I must be sent to prison by a judge, and I must be sent to hell by God. I have no control over that process.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

Unconvincing, but not absolutely unconvincing so the probability of being wrong is accepted. Correct?

Absolutely correct. Some degree of agnosticism about everything is required.

Probablity, no evidence, no conclusive proof, so faith is required. Correct?

Probability and assessment of the evidence coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. Conclusive 100% proof is impossible so we make do with our imperfect assessment of the evidence.
Faith is making no assessment of evidence and it is not even required to do so when you use faith, so the concepts are very different.

Penn

Festus wrote: »

So you believe in atheism. Does that not require faith?

Sorry, in that case I must have misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking "Do you believe (what you wrote is true)?". Which I do.

Faith in one's own opinion or convictions is not the same as faith in a deity or faith in atheism. Again, the dictionary definition of atheism is:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I believe there is no god or gods. Therefore, I am an atheist (a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings). I don't have faith that there is no god or gods. I simply don't have faith that there are.

It's a famous quote, but "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". Saying an atheist has to have faith in atheism is like saying that someone's hobby is not collecting stamps.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

So you believe in atheism. Does that not require faith?

Do you believe in aunicornism? Does that not require faith?
Or is it that you simply lack a belief in unicorns so do not have to have faith that aunicornism is true?

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

An atheist makes no claims, only finds the theist claims unconvincing.

Unconvincing, but not absolutely unconvincing so the probability of being wrong is accepted. Correct?

muppeteer wrote: »

I personally do make a claim that gods are likely to be human inventions. As such I try to back that up with proof. But it is not a requirement of atheism to make that claim, it is entirely sufficient to just lack a belief in gods.

Probablity, no evidence, no conclusive proof, so faith is required. Correct?

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Absolutely.

So you believe in atheism. Does that not require faith?

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

and you believe atheist claims are true?

An atheist makes no claims, only finds the theist claims unconvincing.
I personally do make a claim that gods are likely to be human inventions. As such I try to back that up with proof. But it is not a requirement of atheism to make that claim, it is entirely sufficient to just lack a belief in gods.

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Do you believe that?

Absolutely.

Is that somehow less plausible than belief in a God who created a man and woman and put them beside a Tree of Knowledge where they were tempted into eating an apple by a talking snake which caused them to be sinners and cast out of Eden and the best way God could fix this was to impregnate a virgin with his son who was part of him and have his son/him die for those sins and come back from the dead three days later etc etc.

Atheism is exactly what it says in the book (dictionary, not Bible). It is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I don't believe in any gods, therefore I am an atheist. I didn't choose atheism, it's just something I am as a result of not having a belief in a deity. It requires no faith, because it is what occurs due to not having faith in gods.

And as for science, there is no 'faith' required. These things are tested and continuously revised as knowledge improves. Nothing is taken at it's word. It is all continuously tested and examined, studied by many people using knowledge gained from other such studies. And if it is later found out to be wrong, it is adjusted accordingly. I can trust modern science because it doesn't require faith or a belief. It is purely based on the evidence available. Science today is hugely different to what science was 500 years ago. Is religion? Has the Bible changed?

Tim Minchin says it best:
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

Yep, I believe that theist claims are false.

and you believe atheist claims are true?

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

So you do believe then.

Yep, I believe that theist claims are false. Others just reject theist claims as unconvincing.

No, atheists need faith to believe what they believe. Otherwise they have no faith in atheism and cannot believe it.

It not a requirement to have faith"2 belief that is not based on proof" in a position if proof in not required of it. Atheism does not require positive proof as it only requires the lack of belief in deities, not a claim. If atheism made positive claims then it would require some sort of proof to believe in it without falling back on faith.
Those atheists who make the positive claim that "gods are likely a human invention" are required to have some sort of proof/backup.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Wrong. I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe in any god or gods, so that means I am an atheist.

There's a difference between faith and trust. I don't have faith in science, but I trust science. I trust that when a scientific discovery is made, it is subjected to tests, peer-reviewed and has sufficient evidence to prove it. No faith is required.

Atheism is different. There is nothing to believe or have faith in with atheism. Once you have no belief or faith in god or gods, the result is atheism.

Do you believe that?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

No, atheists need faith to believe what they believe. Otherwise they have no faith in atheism and cannot believe it.

Wrong. I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe in any god or gods, so that means I am an atheist.

There's a difference between faith and trust. I don't have faith in science, but I trust science. I trust that when a scientific discovery is made, it is subjected to tests, peer-reviewed and has sufficient evidence to prove it. No faith is required.

Atheism is different. There is nothing to believe or have faith in with atheism. Once you have no belief or faith in god or gods, the result is atheism.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

Why wouldn't I believe what I just typed?

So you do believe then.

muppeteer wrote: »

Do you see above where the sticky situation lay? Where you said atheists needed proof to believe in something without proof? Do you see the logic fail there?

No, atheists need faith to believe what they believe. Otherwise they have no faith in atheism and cannot believe it.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

Do you believe that?

Why wouldn't I believe what I just typed?

Do you see above where the sticky situation lay? Where you said atheists needed proof to believe in something without proof? Do you see the logic fail there?

marty1985

himnextdoor wrote: »

I'm sorry but according to Catholicism you are damned for not being a Catholic.

I don't think this is true. Perhaps someone can clear it up here, but I'm pretty sure Vatican II was when the current teaching on this was laid out, which goes something like this in a nut shell: salvation can be attained by members of other Christian denominations and members of non-Christian faiths, and people who cannot be blamed for their own ignorance, for lack of a better word.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

I'm saying I don't have to have faith in atheism to believe it is true. I only have to reject theist claims.

Do you believe that?

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

So what you are saying is you don't believe in atheism

I'm saying I don't have to have faith in atheism to believe it is true. I only have to reject theist claims.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

None is required in the position of atheism.

So what you are saying is you don't believe in atheism

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

That's rude. Can you not make something of your own up?

I wouldn't consider it rude to point out the sticky conclusion implied by your own words via comparison. Either way no rudeness was intended.

So you have no faith in atheism then.

None is required in the position of atheism.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

Let me point it out so with a slight change to your post.

That's rude. Can you not make something of your own up?

muppeteer wrote: »

The rejection of a unsubstantiated claim is not faith based by the way.

So you have no faith in atheism then.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

Atheists chose to believe that nothing will happen them after death even though they cannot prove that nothing will happen them after death.

Let me point it out so with a slight change to your post.

Christians chose to believe that something will happen to them after death even though they cannot prove that something will happen them after death.

The rejection of a unsubstantiated claim is not faith based by the way.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

The irony, its delicious:)

Glad you like it. In case I made a bollix of the grammar I will clarify what I meant.

Atheists chose to believe that nothing will happen them after death even though they cannot prove that nothing will happen them after death.

I guess the irony is that atheism is a faith based ideology.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see. So there are only two possibilities - either I am wrong or the Bible is. It couldn't be that you lack understanding. Of course not!

Perhaps but your (the Christians posting here) evasiveness and obfuscation isn't helping.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that you ever asked an honest question. You've only asked enough to allow you to get the next humourless and ill-tempered retort in, which seems to be your entire reason for posting on this forum.

Well I don't believe you ever gave an honest answer which seems to be your main motivation for posting here.

And you have some front to accuse me of being 'humourless' and 'bad-tempered'.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so here is an attempt an an answer. The resurrection of Jesus is different from the resuscitation of Lazarus (and you can call it resurrection if you like; it makes no odds) in that Jesus' resurrection had eschatological ramifications - namely that he was the first fruits of the new creation and all that entails. Now apart from something extraordinarily strange happening to Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus there is no sense that the authors attributed cosmic significance to either incident. Additionally, Jesus continues to live whereas Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus are dead in the ground.

You don't actually have to believe the above to recognise the difference.

Now, did you have a point?

Yes, I do. How can it be said that God sacrificed His Son if the Son still lives?

And if Jesus is God then how could He have died in order to be resurrected?

I believe that Jesus was rescued from the cross before He died by Joseph of Aramathea; the only one who ever attested to Jesus' death was him.

Faith in the resurrection is not proof of the resurrection.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

they have chosen to believe in something they cannot prove, namely that nothing happens them after death.

The irony, its delicious:)

chickendinner

I really hope there is a god

All the cool people are going to hell
and I dont believe in God, so I guess
I am going there.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That isn't what Christianity teaches. You aren't damned for not believing in God. You are damned by your sin as are all of us. And that is where Christ comes in.

I'm sorry but according to Catholicism you are damned for not being a Catholic.

Festus

Barr125 wrote: »

to the first point.....what??? ''I do not simply not believe for the simply reason...''?? But no, I don't believe because Christianity (or any religion with supernatural deity/deities) has not presented any reasonable evidence for the existence of God. I don't need to go to any lengths to justify my position.

Atheism has not presented any reasonable evidence to the contrary, despite many atheists expending huge amounts of time, money and expertise there is still no evidence that the faith atheists have is worth subscribing to.

Barr125 wrote: »

I have no problem with personal faith. My problem is with the faith you're adhering to, the conform or suffer and you can wrap it up any way you like, but that is what it boils down to.

Why do you have a problem with my adhering to my Faith if you have no problem with personal faith? Surely it is my choice to believe what I believe just as it is you choice for you to believe what you believe.

Barr125 wrote: »

And you didn't answer me, have you ever eaten shellfish? Trust me, there is a relevant point to it.

What evidence do I have that you are a person to be trusted?

Barr125 wrote: »

I'm not worried. I just don't like it when people tell me that they believe I should be tortured forever just because I don't believe the things they believe.

If you are not worried about it what are you doing here?

Fanny Cradock

Barr125 wrote: »

And you didn't answer me, have you ever eaten shellfish? Trust me, there is a relevant point to it.

Not recently. Are you going to quote Leviticus to us?

Barr125 wrote: »

I'm not worried. I just don't like it when people tell me that they believe I should be tortured forever just because I don't believe the things they believe.

That isn't what Christianity teaches. You aren't damned for not believing in God. You are damned by your sin as are all of us. And that is where Christ comes in.

Barr125

Festus wrote: »

You do not simply not believe for the simply reason that you have gone to great lenghts and expended much effort in justifying you reasons to choose not to believe.

Go back and read your question again. It might help if you read it out loud.
The problem is your logic. But it's moot anyway as you have chosen not to believe in God and hence not to believe in Hell so why are you so worried about it?

to the first point.....what??? ''I do not simply not believe for the simply reason...''?? But no, I don't believe because Christianity (or any religion with supernatural deity/deities) has not presented any reasonable evidence for the existence of God. I don't need to go to any lengths to justify my position. I have no problem with personal faith. My problem is with the faith you're adhering to, the conform or suffer and you can wrap it up any way you like, but that is what it boils down to.

And you didn't answer me, have you ever eaten shellfish? Trust me, there is a relevant point to it.

I'm not worried. I just don't like it when people tell me that they believe I should be tortured forever just because I don't believe the things they believe.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

But you say that Lazarus was not resurrected. Fine; either the Bible is lying or you have misunderstood the term 'resurrection'.

I see. So there are only two possibilities - either I am wrong or the Bible is. It couldn't be that you lack understanding. Of course not!

himnextdoor wrote: »

And yes, I was asking you but you can't answer, can you?

I don't believe that you ever asked an honest question. You've only asked enough to allow you to get the next humourless and ill-tempered retort in, which seems to be your entire reason for posting on this forum.

OK, so here is an attempt an an answer. The resurrection of Jesus is different from the resuscitation of Lazarus (and you can call it resurrection if you like; it makes no odds) in that Jesus' resurrection had eschatological ramifications - namely that he was the first fruits of the new creation and all that entails. Now apart from something extraordinarily strange happening to Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus there is no sense that the authors attributed cosmic significance to either incident. Additionally, Jesus continues to live whereas Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus are dead in the ground.

You don't actually have to believe the above to recognise the difference.

Now, did you have a point?