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: »

Yes you can. All you have to do is ask. If they say "No" all you have to do is present the evidence of your evil deeds. Then they will let you stay.

Lol, yeah you try that Festus and see how you get on. Turn up to Mountjoy tomorrow and say you want a room for a few weeks... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

So you agree that atheists rely on faith to believe what they believe regarding God.

No, since I don't agree with your definition of "faith", and I suspect neither do you.

I have no more faith in atheism than I have faith I'm not going to win the Lotto. I can't prove I'm not going to win the Lotto, but only you seem to be suggesting that therefore believing I won't (given the utterly ridiculous odds that I would) is therefore an act of faith.

As I asked, faith in what exactly? Faith is an act of trust. Who or what am I trusting in when I believe I won't win the Lotto given the ridiculous odds against winning the Lotto.

Penn

Festus wrote: »

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

I said whatever definitions you want. Feel free to choose any of the definitions. And I'm asking what your opinion is, regardless of whatever I've said my opinions were. I'll simplify the question just in case you want to change your answer based on my response

Which do you think requires more faith:
Option A - Not believing in God
Option B - Believing in God

Feel free to give the reasons for your answer.

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Yes, you are more of a dogmatist than a fundamentalist.

You should look up the word 'dogma'.

And if the cap fits...

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

You tell me. It's your belief.

What is and where was I disrespectful?

I think you should pay attention to the plank in your eye.

Andrewf20

Festus wrote: »

Does science require faith?

Well yes as in we "believe" that the laws of physics are a certain standard. Setting them down as dogmatic statements is unwise, however science doesnt claim that if you dont believe in its teachings, that you are damned to hell for eternity like in the bible for example.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

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.

Yes, you are more of a dogmatist than a fundamentalist.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

How?

You tell me. It's your belief.

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Prove it.

How?

himnextdoor

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

himnextdoor wrote: »

Yes, if they are respectable.

Prove it.

Festus

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

Festus wrote: »

Can you respect the beliefs of others?

Yes, if they are respectable.

himnextdoor

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.

himnextdoor

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.

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?

himnextdoor

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.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

No.

Can you respect the beliefs of others?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

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

No.

Festus

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

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?

himnextdoor

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.

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.

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

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?

Festus

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?

Festus

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

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.

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

ISAW

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.