Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Penn wrote: »

Okay, let's just clarify something here, are we discussing atheism or science?

It is a meta discussion about Your beliefs in absolutes.

Penn wrote: »

Okay, let's just clarify something here, are we discussing atheism or science?

Does science require faith?

marty1985 wrote: »

By the way if you don't agree with the church's interpretation you could find a Protestant denomination with a more literal understanding of the bible which would suit your arguments more.

Yeah but what if Protestants are wrong? You know what Catholicism says about schisms don't you?

But my point was/is that if men who live according their conscience can attain the Kingdom of Heaven despite their ignorance of Jesus, then why would God jeopardise countless souls by introducing a multi-denominational religion to mankind that requires a belief in Jesus and His 'magic tricks'? 'Immaculate Conception', 'The Virgin Birth', 'The Resurrection'; this is altogether too much for a rational, educated mind.

If you bear in mind that Christians are supposed to live by their consciences too, isn't Christianity superfluous to mankind?

Isn't Christianity one of God's mistakes?

Festus wrote: »

So you don't see getting out of bed to face the day as a gamble then?

Are you confudled?

No. I see 'not being careful' as gambling.

himnextdoor wrote: »

No. I see 'not being careful' as gambling.

You are quite negative aren't you. Are all atheists negative?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Yeah but what if Protestants are wrong? You know what Catholicism says about schisms don't you?

But my point was/is that if men who live according their conscience can attain the Kingdom of Heaven despite their ignorance of Jesus, then why would God jeopardise countless souls by introducing a multi-denominational religion to mankind that requires a belief in Jesus and His 'magic tricks'? 'Immaculate Conception', 'The Virgin Birth', 'The Resurrection'; this is altogether too much for a rational, educated mind.

If you bear in mind that Christians are supposed to live by their consciences too, isn't Christianity superfluous to mankind?

Isn't Christianity one of God's mistakes?

the belief is that God is revealed partially to those who are beyond the influence of the church. People in the distant past in Mongolia for example. As you get closer and closer to the Church you get closer to the truth. It is not beyond reason that the Christ would be sinless. That would require the Virgin Birth and immaculate conception. while christ isnt regarded as using his power to make things easy for himself miracles and the Resurrection are regarded as glories only possible through Gods power. It is neither an irrational nor ignorant position to hold.

himnextdoor wrote: »

No. I see 'not being careful' as gambling.

strange. Id view being careful as gambling too.It is just a question of where you draw the line when you assess the risk.

Festus wrote: »

You are quite negative aren't you. Are all atheists negative?

Maybe only the ones here. but give him a break. all swans are white until you see a black one.

bandit14

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well, this seems like a very original idea, I must say OP.

As for the existence of God, you have to define first what you mean by "God". As this is Christianity Forum I'm going to assume you mean the One Abrahamic God. This is the God who's personified in the Bible. It shouldn't be extremely hard to debate the reality of this particular personification - I think that modern science can tackle this one pretty easily.

However, the God who's personified in the Bible also is said to fills the role of Supreme Being and initiators of Space, time and energy. It is in his apparent role as creator of the universe where both sides of the debate could falter.

It is not beyond the realm of modern science to disprove the interference of this Supreme Being in Earthly affairs or indeed in the overall evolution of what we perceive as reality since "Initiation". It is much more difficult to disprove the existence of an "Initiator"* - if indeed this Initiator is conscious or an actual entity. I believe that there exists a philosophical paradox which renders the case where this "Initiator" exists and the case where the "Initiator" doesn't exists to be both logically flawed.

Such and argument could and will last forever, so I'd expect this to be a very long thread

*By "Initiator" I mean Supreme Being

+1 Man

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

Okay, let's just clarify something here, are we discussing atheism or science?

Does science require faith?

Which of these most closely matches what you mean by faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

My trust in science requires 1. (Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.). But that isn't what science itself requires. Science requires evidence, proof, examination, review etc. My trust, or faith, in science is that all the necessary investigation etc has been carried out.

Religion requires 2. (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence). That's why I'm an atheist, I don't have that faith when it comes to gods.

ISAW wrote: »

Maybe only the ones here. but give him a break. all swans are white until you see a black one.

Actually all polar bears are black if you shave them

Penn wrote: »

Which of these most closely matches what you mean by faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

My trust in science requires 1. (Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.). But that isn't what science itself requires. Science requires evidence, proof, examination, review etc. My trust, or faith, in science is that all the necessary investigation etc has been carried out.

Religion requires 2. (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence). That's why I'm an atheist, I don't have that faith when it comes to gods.

Ah, so you have faith in science but no faith in atheism, yes?

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

Ah, so you believe in unicorns! Excellent, now we are getting somewhere.

Tell me, why do you believe in unicorns? Most people don't and base this belief on faith in the unproveable.

I think you are trying to prevaricate as you know quiet well what I meant.
And what the hell is faith in the unproveable?

Faith, belief that is not based on proof, is believing in unicorns despite proof to the contrary, or despite a lack of proof.
The aunicornist position is the lack of belief. So how can this position include faith when there is nothing to have faith in i.e. the lack of belief.

The aunicornist may believe they are correct in having a lack of belief and this can be justified by the lack of proof of unicorns. Here proof is lacking and so is belief, so no faith required. It would require faith to reject a belief despite proof.

The above is a belief about a lack of belief and it does not require faith either if it can be justified that ideas that are devoid of proof should be rejected.

ISAW:
You may say faith is required to believe your lack of belief is true. I would suggest that the justification for that belief is the same as the justification for any other belief as long as it supported. Lack of proof for an idea is support enough to reject an idea is it not? Would you get very far during your day if you accepted all and any ideas that had no proof?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Ah, so you have faith in science but no faith in atheism, yes?

But again, what 'faith' is there in atheism? I suppose going by the definitions I posted, perhaps there is a bit of 1 (Confident belief in the truth of an idea) and 6 (a set of principles) in atheism, to which, fair enough, I do have that faith in atheism. I think that's stretching it, but I'll accept that.

It doesn't mean you need the same faith (definition 2) for religion as you do for atheism.

Now I ask you, is having this faith in atheism and science, according to the definitions I posted, more ridiculous than believing in a god who created the earth etc etc etc

tommy2bad

Isn't Christianity one of God's mistakes?

Or one of our mistakes

Whats this hangup with belief being in some provable thing? Are you sure it belief your talking about or knowledge. I believe in what I can reasonably reason as true. I don't believe the earth is round, I know it's round, I don't believe I live in Ireland, I know it.
I believe in God, I believe in the rule of law, I believe in love, I believe lots of things that I don't know because their unknowable, that doesn't mean their valueless or untrue.

ISAW wrote: »

so atheists can only be the result of a failed indoctrination or where an inbdoctrination didnt take place? so what happens when the doctrine IS atheism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
State atheism is the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice

Guess who?... "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."

Nice try; if it is an article of faith then it is not atheism.

I see where you err; you malign the term 'atheist' by applying it to 'anti-religionist'.

To convert to atheism one must be 'de-indoctrinated'. If you haven't been indoctrinated then you are already an atheist.

muppeteer wrote: »

I think you are trying to prevaricate as you know quiet well what I meant.

not really. it's all nonesense.

muppeteer wrote: »

And what the hell is faith in the unproveable?

You really don't know?

Penn wrote: »

But again, what 'faith' is there in atheism? I suppose going by the definitions I posted, perhaps there is a bit of 1 (Confident belief in the truth of an idea) and 6 (a set of principles) in atheism, to which, fair enough, I do have that faith in atheism. I think that's stretching it, but I'll accept that.

It doesn't mean you need the same faith (definition 2) for religion as you do for atheism.

Now I ask you, is having this faith in atheism and science, according to the definitions I posted, more ridiculous than believing in a god who created the earth etc etc etc

Ok, so you are a fundamentalist atheist, yes?

actually, sorry, you have faith in your atheism so maybe not a fundamentalist. I think I'm confusing you with himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

You are quite negative aren't you. Are all atheists negative?

No.

himnextdoor wrote: »

No.

Can you respect the beliefs of others?

ISAW wrote: »

the belief is that God is revealed partially to those who are beyond the influence of the church. People in the distant past in Mongolia for example. As you get closer and closer to the Church you get closer to the truth. It is not beyond reason that the Christ would be sinless. That would require the Virgin Birth and immaculate conception. while christ isnt regarded as using his power to make things easy for himself miracles and the Resurrection are regarded as glories only possible through Gods power. It is neither an irrational nor ignorant position to hold.

Of course it is; your view is based entirely on faith even though there is data to contradict that position.

For instance, the Jews deny/denied that Jesus was the Son of God and yet they were so meticulous in making sure that every element of the prophecy came true. It was a Jewish prophecy brought to fulfillment by Jews. Doesn't this show that the Jews intended for the Gentiles to believe that Jesus was indeed the Son of God?

The likeliest scenario to me is that the whole intention of the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy was to dupe the Gentiles into following a false path; a path that the Jews themselves refuse to walk along.

Penn

Third time's a charm:

Which do you think requires the larger amount of faith? Faith in atheism and science, using whatever definitions you want, or faith in God who watches over everyone all the time, can hear everyone's prayers, created the whole world and Heaven where people can live on for all eternity, his son who could turn water into wine etc etc etc.

Which requires more faith? Which one is more ridiculous than the other?

ISAW wrote: »

strange. Id view being careful as gambling too.It is just a question of where you draw the line when you assess the risk.

I'd view being careful as an attempt to avoid gambling. It's about minimising risk and is an outlook developed empirically.

Of course, one has to be pragmatic too.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or one of our mistakes
Whats this hangup with belief being in some provable thing? Are you sure it belief your talking about or knowledge. I believe in what I can reasonably reason as true. I don't believe the earth is round, I know it's round, I don't believe I live in Ireland, I know it.
I believe in God, I believe in the rule of law, I believe in love, I believe lots of things that I don't know because their unknowable, that doesn't mean their valueless or untrue.

I just think that knowledge trumps belief.

For instance; when Herod died an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and told him it was safe to return to his people. When Joseph heard that Archelaus reigned he was afraid to go back to the land of Israel. Then God appeared to him and sent him to Nazareth instead.

How could an omniscient God not know that Archelaus would take over from Herod and therefore send Joseph straight to Nazareth in the first place? It seems that Joseph was aware of the danger before God was.

Of course, the prophecy dictated that Jesus would be known as a Nazarene but it is strange that an omnipotent God was not enough to ensure Jesus' safety.

Festus wrote: »

Can you respect the beliefs of others?

Yes, if they are respectable.

Penn wrote: »

Third time's a charm:

Which do you think requires the larger amount of faith? Faith in atheism and science, using whatever definitions you want, or faith in God who watches over everyone all the time, can hear everyone's prayers, created the whole world and Heaven where people can live on for all eternity, his son who could turn water into wine etc etc etc.

Which requires more faith? Which one is more ridiculous than the other?

That's easy, atheism - especially if you are using whatever definitions you want and being makeyuppy etc etc etc.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Yes, if they are respectable.

Prove it.

Festus wrote: »

Ok, so you are a fundamentalist atheist, yes?

actually, sorry, you have faith in your atheism so maybe not a fundamentalist. I think I'm confusing you with himnextdoor

You are confused. We are all fundamentally atheists until we are indoctrinated.

We are born knowing neither God nor morality; both of these have to be taught.

This is why the church targets young children; they grow up to be conformist adults.

They have to indoctrinate us as children because otherwise they lose the opportunity to subvert our thinking apparatus.

Festus wrote: »

Prove it.

How?