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

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Now you are just twisting things. You used the term validity in the context of various postings on atheism. I responded accordingly in the context of the atheistic presentations.

No, I didn't. I said that atheists had raised valid concerns about religion and that it is the Christian community that has run away from the implications.

Festus wrote: »

But in case I missed it please point me towards your posting, one will do, that contains a quotation from the Bible that directly supports atheism, because all I can see is you misrepresenting the Bible to attack Christians and using selective out of context lines from the Cathechism to attack Catholics.

All those prophecies coming true and the Jews didn't realise they were making a Messiah? I don't think so.

Or do you accuse the Jewish priests of not knowing their own prophecy?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Is there anything in the universe you can prove to have no purpose?

Evolution of life is purposeless.

And Dodos.

Improbable

Festus wrote: »

That would depend on the person with the questions.

Exactly. Someone who believes in god needs to have that hole filled. For someone who does not, there is no hole. You can't claim that atheists need to believe something because you need to believe that there is something.

Festus wrote: »

Is there anything in the universe you can prove to have no purpose?

That's not an answer to my question. It's a disingenuous attempt to redirect the issue. Purpose is something that is assigned to various things that have an end goal. That is not a scientific argument, in this context, it falls squarely within the bounds of the religious to define such purpose. Just as you can ask the loaded question of "Is there anything in the universe you can prove to have no purpose?", I can frame the question as "Is there anything in the universe which you can prove to have a purpose?". I could of course answer your question scientifically which you would of course deny and you could answer mine philosophically/religiously, which of course I would deny.

So why don't we stick to the original question, i.e. Why does something need to have a purpose attached to it?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Is this relevant to faith and belief?

Yes. Most people wouldn't consider lying down to require any energy. Now if you use all definitions of the word energy, lying down would require energy to simply continue living, for your organs to continue working etc. Running requires the same energy that lying down does, but it requires a lot more of it and uses it in different ways. Same with religion and atheism. Atheism requires the smallest amount of faith if you take into account all the definitions of the word. But religion requires that same faith, and a whole lot more. If you relate faith to physical activity, atheism is lying down and religion is running.

Festus wrote: »

That's okay. I know God exists and I disagree with your belief system.

So, personal omniscience is impossible (your words), but you know God exists? Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical? I've already freely admitted that I can't know whether God exists or not. I really don't think he does, and I don't believe he does... yet you know he does. Could you perhaps share that information you have which has led you to know he exists with the world? I'm sure the scientific community would be very eager to examine and investigate your reasons. And I'm sure since you know he exists, your reasons will have no trouble being proved right scientifically, right?

Unless of course, the reasons why you know he exists can't be measured scientifically, in which case, you can't possibly know he exists without personal omniscience, which by your own admission, is impossible.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

I'm not asking you to believe me, or the other members of whatever religion you have in mind.

You asking to be believed is irrelevant to the point. I don't believe you, whether you ask or not, nor do I believe the claims made by other members of your religion in relation to the existence of your god, thus I don't believe in Christianity. Just like billions of other people i would point out. I also don't believe in any religious claims I've heard so far presented by humans. Thus I'm an atheist.

How much you care or want to be believed is not important to that. The point is that me not believing you is not an act of faith under any definition of faith I'm aware of.

Festus wrote: »

I have asked straight questions which were either not answered or the answer was avoided with disohonest illogical obfuscated waffly double talk about dragons, faries, belief in no belief and running about the place along with a few obviously inflammatory comments about the the contents of the Bible and disrespectful comments about the faith of Christians.

You asked questions attempting, one assumes, to try and demonstrate that atheism is an act of faith. Through the answers to those questions it should have been made clear to you that actually it isn't.

You seemed unprepared for that and now seem to have no where to go, which is why I'm guessing you seem reluctant to respond to the points raised in the answers you yourself requested, dismissing them instead as being "dishonest", apparently because they did not help you demonstrate your pre-conceived notion.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Yes. Most people wouldn't consider lying down to require any energy. Now if you use all definitions of the word energy, lying down would require energy to simply continue living, for your organs to continue working etc. Running requires the same energy that lying down does, but it requires a lot more of it and uses it in different ways. Same with religion and atheism. Atheism requires the smallest amount of faith if you take into account all the definitions of the word. But religion requires that same faith, and a whole lot more. If you relate faith to physical activity, atheism is lying down and religion is running.

So, personal omniscience is impossible (your words), but you know God exists? Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical? I've already freely admitted that I can't know whether God exists or not. I really don't think he does, and I don't believe he does... yet you know he does. Could you perhaps share that information you have which has led you to know he exists with the world? I'm sure the scientific community would be very eager to examine and investigate your reasons. And I'm sure since you know he exists, your reasons will have no trouble being proved right scientifically, right?

Unless of course, the reasons why you know he exists can't be measured scientifically, in which case, you can't possibly know he exists without personal omniscience, which by your own admission, is impossible.

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

Sorry, but I can't predict the future. I think it will, and I believe it will, and all the scientific evidence we have tells us that it will, but I can't absolutely 100% definitely know that it will because that requires personal omniscience, and that would be impossible, wouldn't it?

So again, do you know God exists (personal omniscience (which is impossible)), or do you believe he exists (faith)?

tommy2bad

Himnextdoor ;
I just think that knowledge trumps belief.

As far as it can yes, but theirs a point where knowledge runs out and belief is required.
Its probably something you do every day yet when it comes to the existence of God you stop. I can understand that, I won't go as far as some people will with belief but that still doesn't invalidate belief, it is necessary for us to function as humans.

Festus

Improbable wrote: »

So why don't we stick to the original question, i.e. Why does something need to have a purpose attached to it?

Because everything has a purpose otherwise why would it exist.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

So again, do you know God exists (personal omniscience (which is impossible)), or do you believe he exists (faith)?

Why does it matter to you?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Why does it matter to you?

Trust me, it's not keeping me up at night. But this is a debate. You made a claim that atheism requires more faith than religion. I'm simply pointing out that I think your claim is wrong and have shown to the best of my abilities why I think that. I've even conceded on some points (that some definitions of 'faith' could loosely be attached to atheism, and that I can't know for sure that God does or doesn't exist) though these points were not substantial enough to change my position.

You however, just like you have done with the post I'm referring to, have done nothing but dodge questions, answer questions with questions and dismiss points raised:

Festus wrote: »

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

Festus wrote: »

That's okay. I know God exists and I disagree with your belief system.

Festus wrote: »

Is this relevant to faith and belief?

Festus wrote: »

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

Festus wrote: »

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

Festus wrote: »

So you do believe all that rubbish. Fascinating! That must require a lot of faith.

Festus wrote: »

Well you implicated yourself as belonging to a system that has a doctrine and a belief and then said you don't have faith. That is self contradictory illogical balderdash. In short, it was all rubbish.

Festus wrote: »

Do you really believe this rubbish?

Festus wrote: »

Do you believe that?

I'll ask one last time, do you know God exists (personal omniscience (which is impossible)), or do you believe he exists (faith)?

tommy2bad

Festus wrote: »

Because everything has a purpose otherwise why would it exist.

Hold on right their!
What purpose? Why dose it need a purpose? Is it possible that existence itself is the purpose?
What the purpose of God?

ISAW

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Well yes as in we "believe" that the laws of physics are a certain standard.

some philosophies of science might suggest there are no laws of physics and the best we have are approximations. In fact with every "complete" theory in the past which explained everything we ended up changing the theory to consider other things. Thus physics and natural science and cosmology originally diverged in heaven and earth. newton put them noth under one set of rules but that still wanst enpough; Maswells equations brought in electromagnetism and we thoug we kenw it all. But then we diszcovered radiation and the neucleus. even QED (quqntum electro dynamics) wasnt enough because we couldnt unite gravity. The Chromo version QCD still sint enough.
All these are seeming working towards some complete ideal which we dont know exists but many believe does (although some philosophies of science -which are still scientific- differ) Even if we had a complete physics that still would nt be enought to explain the mind brain problem for example.

so the "standard" of today does not demonstrate why one should believe in "laws of nature" no more than it explains why we should believe in God.

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.

Ah but it does claim if you dont believe in the law of gravity and jump off a high building it is not going to help the inevitable conclusion if you keep saying at every floor "so far so good"

if you refuse to believe in the chemical reactions of explosives and point a loaded weapon at someone based n that belief then society will restrain you.
that brings us to the following -one can demonstrate explosives explode. but one can also demonstrate something like the Mass happens to have significance -i mean the peoplke turning up for it proves that doesnt it?
and demoting the social significance as opposed to the chemical significance is back into a type of mind body problem and comparing social phenomena with physical or biological or chemical phenomena. Society isnt an extension of biology no more than the consequences of shooting someone are an extension of physics.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Because everything has a purpose otherwise why would it exist.

What is God's purpose and who decided it?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

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

do you really believe that?

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

Most of the ons on boards are as far as I can see. they work themselves up into a froth about demands the church have lists of them leaving and the terrible influence they think the church has on education and the level of pclerical abuse when in reality they constitute maybe
hundreds at most and probably at bst dozens of people e.g. the same few that post boards and other fora and not much else. Militant atheists and those promoting atheism are tiny in number (i mean even Islam in irland is a single didgit percentage and islam dwarfs atheism Ireland) but they are entitled to their view.

Can you explain how promoting atheism as a central tenet of their philosophy will not oppose religion ? every time atheism was promoted in the past it ended up in a mess.

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

Nice definition -all non atheists are "outsiders" -the same idea used by authoritarians.
Close to the Stalinist Society of the Godless.

Promoting atheism if you wish. Christians wont say you cant. but they will oppose your views. that isnt oppression.Meanwhile christians will get on with alll the Pastoral work and helping the sick while atheists complain about them do little or nothing as atheists to help the Third world and ruminate on the conspiracy theories of the church not having lists of atheists at their sparsely attended militant atheist meetings.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

You however, just like you have done with the post I'm referring to, have done nothing but dodge questions, answer questions with questions and dismiss points raised:

Yes, it was interesting pretending to be an atheist for a bit.
Obviously I wouldn't be a very good atheist as I don't have the required level of faith in myself.

I accept your point however do review the number of questions I asked which could have been answered with a simple Yes or No, and no such answer was provided.
If you believe some of my responses where evasive or as some might suggest disingenuous, though I would dispute that and suggest it is more likely a case of projection, call it a case of "monkey see, monkey do"

I have no issue with open and honest discourse, and indeed welcome it, however my experience leads me to believe most atheists, present company excluded, are capable of neither.

For example, most if not all atheists on this forum are far from ignorant of either God or Christianity, hence to present any argument that refers to it being "a lack of faith" is little more than a superfluous non sequitur as to lack belief in a society where the concept of God is known is an impossibility. You either believe or do not, the latter being a rejection of God. If this is not the case then why do so many atheists attack Faith?

So I figured to follow " do unto others etc etc etc", to see if I could draw out those who see no benefit to being supercillious and had otherwise left their axes at the door to see who could conduct a respectful exploration.

I also need to reduce the spam levels and now have a candidate list.

So here we are. If the above does not rankle we may continue...

Penn wrote: »

I'll ask one last time, do you know God exists (personal omniscience (which is impossible)), or do you believe he exists (faith)?

I know Jesus walked the earth and I know He both claimed and proved he is the Son of God, and by His actions God incarnate. I know He rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God. All of this is recorded in the Bible.

Penn

Fair enough. Let's move past that and move forward with the discussion as you suggested.

Festus wrote: »

I know Jesus walked the earth and I know He both claimed and proved he is the Son of God, and by His actions God incarnate. I know He rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God. All of this is recorded in the Bible.

But is the Bible the only thing which can back up what you claim to know?

What about books with similar significance in other religions? Why are they wrong, yet the Bible is true? In terms of evidence they should be exactly the same.

If someone says they believe in God not just because of the Bible but because it's what they feel to be the truth, it's what they believe to be true... I can understand that. I disagree with it's validity, but I can understand it. But that's faith. Faith is the belief in something without proof or evidence. But it also means that they don't know God exists. They truly believe he does and there is no doubt in their mind that he exists, and to them there is no question, they know God exists. But that doesn't mean he does. It's not enough. It's enough for them, but not when viewed from the outside.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

But is the Bible the only thing which can back up what you claim to know?

No. There is also the Church which Jesus Christ founded, and its history since it's foundation, along with the lives and works of Her Saints, scholars, scientists and miracles at the least.

Penn wrote: »

What about books with similar significance in other religions? Why are they wrong, yet the Bible is true? In terms of evidence they should be exactly the same.

If they were exactly the same then any form of Christian evangelisation, especially in the early centuries, would be doomed to failure. History records otherwise. What is in the Bible trumps all others.

Penn wrote: »

If someone says they believe in God not just because of the Bible but because it's what they feel to be the truth, it's what they believe to be true... I can understand that. I disagree with it's validity, but I can understand it. But that's faith. Faith is the belief in something without proof or evidence. But it also means that they don't know God exists.
They truly believe he does and there is no doubt in their mind that he exists, and to them there is no question, they know God exists. But that doesn't mean he does. It's not enough. It's enough for them, but not when viewed from the outside.

Have you tried viewing it from the inside?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

No. There is also the Church which Jesus Christ founded, and its history since it's foundation, along with the lives and works of Her Saints, scholars, scientists and miracles at the least.

If they were exactly the same then any form of Christian evangelisation, especially in the early centuries, would be doomed to failure. History records otherwise. What is in the Bible trumps all others.

But other religions have the same equivalent things. Why is the Bible and the Church any more valid than the Quran and Mosques, or the Book of Mormon and the Church of the Latter Day Saints?

And Islam has approx 1.65bn followers with Christianity having about 2bn. Why are they all wrong yet Christianity is right when both have a holy book and an organised church?

Festus wrote: »

Have you tried viewing it from the inside?

Yeah. Raised Catholic, went to a Catholic primary school, a Christian Brothers secondary school and went to mass regularly until I was nearly 18 (didn't fully believe all the way up to that age, but was still present in church). Was also an altar boy for 2 years. My whole family are Catholics.

If something like God is true, it has to be true both on the inside, and the outside. That no matter what way you look at it, you still believe it to be the truth. As I learnt more about the world, religion just made less and less sense to me. It wasn't something I sought out or chose. I simply cannot believe in something that I don't believe in.

I could decide right here and now to become a Catholic. To go to Mass, to pray to God, to follow the teachings of the church etc etc. But I'd still be an atheist, because belief isn't something you can choose. I don't believe in God, so if I were to do what I said above, I'd be going through the motions but in my mind I know I would still not believe in God.

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

But other religions have the same equivalent things. Why is the Bible and the Church any more valid than the Quran and Mosques, or the Book of Mormon and the Church of the Latter Day Saints?

the Islamic view of the Koran is fundamentalist. they believe it was dictazted by God directly to Mohammed (well through an angel Gabriel ) and then the angel came back and corrected all the mistakes. So no human interpretation is involved.
I wont go into the pun argument that you are talking through your hat but the Book of Mormon is antecedent to apostolic succession and the Magisterial as indicated.

And Islam has approx 1.65bn followers with Christianity having about 2bn. Why are they all wrong yet Christianity is right when both have a holy book and an organised church?

christianity had originally 12 followers. It isnt about numbers.
Anyone speaking the truth is infallible.

Yeah. Raised Catholic, went to a Catholic primary school, a Christian Brothers secondary school and went to mass regularly until I was nearly 18 (didn't fully believe all the way up to that age, but was still present in church). Was also an altar boy for 2 years. My whole family are Catholics.

good for you. As the church would see it (in, my opinion) You wont have to learn a lot if you regain your faith. If you ever discover something missing you have the knowledge where to find it.

If something like God is true, it has to be true both on the inside, and the outside. That no matter what way you look at it, you still believe it to be the truth.

Indeed even an non christian like may be infallible

As I learnt more about the world, religion just made less and less sense to me. It wasn't something I sought out or chose. I simply cannot believe in something that I don't believe in.

This is a very respectful position. But knowledge isnt everything.

I could decide right here and now to become a Catholic. To go to Mass, to pray to God, to follow the teachings of the church etc etc. But I'd still be an atheist, because belief isn't something you can choose. I don't believe in God, so if I were to do what I said above, I'd be going through the motions but in my mind I know I would still not believe in God.

Reasonable. but reason can only gt on so far. do you have faith in anything? Human judgement, love? values?

a heart surgon saifd to a brain surgeon
"I operate on hearts every day. I only see biological sells . the idea of a human heart as a spirit seems silly to me i dont believe in it and i find that quite reasonable." the brain surgeon replied "I operate on brains every day. I only see biological sells . The idea of a human mind or a spirit does not seem silly to me I believe in it and I find that quite reasonable."

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

the Islamic view of the Koran is fundamentalist. they believe it was dictazted by God directly to Mohammed (well through an angel Gabriel ) and then the angel came back and corrected all the mistakes. So no human interpretation is involved.
I wont go into the pun argument that you are talking through your hat but the Book of Mormon is antecedent to apostolic succession and the Magisterial as indicated.

And how are they any less believable than the Bible? Why is the Bible right and they are wrong? And if they're all right, shouldn't there only be one religion?

ISAW wrote: »

christianity had originally 12 followers. It isnt about numbers.
Anyone speaking the truth is infallible.

But how do you know they were speaking the truth?

ISAW wrote: »

good for you. As the church would see it (in, my opinion) You wont have to learn a lot if you regain your faith. If you ever discover something missing you have the knowledge where to find it.

I'll keep that in mind.

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed even an non christian like may be infallible

This is a very respectful position. But knowledge isnt everything.

So, if a non-christian said there is no God, how do we determine if he is wrong or infallible? He's speaking what he perceives to be the truth. People who disagree with him so so because of what they perceive to be the truth. Knowledge and opinion cannot settle such an argument. Only evidence can. Evidence, proof and facts can give the closest interpretation of the truth within the limits of science. I admit, we don't know everything, and science hasn't discovered everything. But the results it gives are the nearest thing we have to what the unbiased truth is.

ISAW wrote: »

Reasonable. but reason can only gt on so far. do you have faith in anything? Human judgement, love? values?

a heart surgon saifd to a brain surgeon
"I operate on hearts every day. I only see biological sells . the idea of a human heart as a spirit seems silly to me i dont believe in it and i find that quite reasonable." the brain surgeon replied "I operate on brains every day. I only see biological sells . The idea of a human mind or a spirit does not seem silly to me I believe in it and I find that quite reasonable."

Depends what you mean by faith.

Andrewf20

Festus wrote: »

Why are you introducing the Bible into the answer to a question on science? Do you believe there is a link?

A link as in, are they compatible with each other? Im not sure on this one but to a large degree I think they are not. From reading the discussion it seems theres posts that mention science & religion from Penn, hence my comment / angle on the religon vs science debacle. Being a catholic forum and being personally more familiar with the bible than any other religion, I mentioned that as an example.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

But other religions have the same equivalent things. Why is the Bible and the Church any more valid than the Quran and Mosques, or the Book of Mormon and the Church of the Latter Day Saints?

And Islam has approx 1.65bn followers with Christianity having about 2bn. Why are they all wrong yet Christianity is right when both have a holy book and an organised church?

The Bible provides instructions on how to discern false prophets and both Qur'an and Mormon meet the criteria written centuries before.

Penn wrote: »

Yeah. Raised Catholic, went to a Catholic primary school, a Christian Brothers secondary school and went to mass regularly until I was nearly 18 (didn't fully believe all the way up to that age, but was still present in church). Was also an altar boy for 2 years. My whole family are Catholics.

If something like God is true, it has to be true both on the inside, and the outside. That no matter what way you look at it, you still believe it to be the truth. As I learnt more about the world, religion just made less and less sense to me. It wasn't something I sought out or chose. I simply cannot believe in something that I don't believe in.

I could decide right here and now to become a Catholic. To go to Mass, to pray to God, to follow the teachings of the church etc etc. But I'd still be an atheist, because belief isn't something you can choose. I don't believe in God, so if I were to do what I said above, I'd be going through the motions but in my mind I know I would still not believe in God.

Presumably then if you believe atheism to be right then you can prove all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be wrong. Perhaps you would care to provide an example of an element of religion that does not make sense to you.

tommy2bad

Festus;
Presumably then if you believe atheism to be right then you can prove all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be wrong. Perhaps you would care to provide an example of an element of religion that does not make sense to you.

Festus, are you hard of thinking? The bit an atheist finds nonsensical is the God bit. They use the other bits to show how inconsistent the evidence is. An atheist dose not believe in the existence of God. They don't have to agree or disagree with the moral teachings to be atheist just the existence of God, god, gods.

Benny_Cake

Festus wrote: »

Presumably then if you believe atheism to be right then you can prove all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be wrong. Perhaps you would care to provide an example of an element of religion that does not make sense to you.

If someone doesn't believe in God, then surely matters such as transubstantion, original sin, the resurrection and so on are profoundly irrelevant to them?

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

And how are they any less believable than the Bible? Why is the Bible right and they are wrong? And if they're all right, shouldn't there only be one religion?

they both have some things in common. Im referring to the differences in nature. it is a bit like fringe fundamentalist Christians insist creationism must be true based on the bible account. they represent a tiny percentage of christians. In Islam however fundamentalism (and i refer only to scripture here Im not saying they are all Islamofacists) is mainstream. im sure having being brought up an irish catholic you can see a difference between them and westboro Baptist or an Ayatulla or Sharia Law ?

But how do you know they were speaking the truth?

That is an ontological matter not an epistemological one.

How we know and what we know are different questions.
Needless to say it may involve empirical research but is not restricted to it.
this does not say it should be dismissed no more than any scholarly field should. although it isnt exclusively hard empirical science ill give you that.

I'll keep that in mind.

hope springs eternal even without empirical evidence to prove it

On a related note I saw a BBC 4 documentary on Catholics last week. This episode was about women in Westminster cathedral. One woman had even lived in Rome for years and not gone to Mass or inside a church since she was eight. sixty years later she returned to the church and she says looking back she realises there was always something missing and she knew that all along but ignored it all that time.

So, if a non-christian said there is no God, how do we determine if he is wrong or infallible?

We dont. We can only use reason to a degree; after that ther is faith. I reckon it matters not whether this is a great leap of faith otr a small step. It is a chooise and has to be taken.

By the way another thing about Islam. If you leave there is no coming back. christianity doesnt have that rule.

He's speaking what he perceives to be the truth. People who disagree with him so so because of what they perceive to be the truth. Knowledge and opinion cannot settle such an argument. Only evidence can. Evidence, proof and facts can give the closest interpretation of the truth within the limits of science. I admit, we don't know everything, and science hasn't discovered everything. But the results it gives are the nearest thing we have to what the unbiased truth is.

You remind me of Socrates cave allegory.
Have you heard of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

Even when you are aware that objects cast shadows you may not be
aware of the outside world.
science may explain the cave but metaphysics delvs into the outside.

Depends what you mean by faith.

I mean belief.
http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/ulysses/cyclops1.html
And of course Bloom had to have his say too about if a fellow had a rower's heart violent exercise was bad. I declare to my antimacassar if you took up a straw from the bloody floor and if you said to Bloom: Look at, Bloom. Do you see that straw? That's a straw. Declare to my aunt he'd talk about it for an hour so he would and talk steady.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

Festus, are you hard of thinking? The bit an atheist finds nonsensical is the God bit.

It is not reasonable to declare all of theology nonsense!

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

that brings us to the following -one can demonstrate explosives explode. but one can also demonstrate something like the Mass happens to have significance -i mean the peoplke turning up for it proves that doesnt it?

Judging by the number of people that turnout for Star Trek conventions, by your logic, Star Trek is a true story.

Barr125

Sorry to have taken so long to answer but moving internet providers means I gotta steal the college Net when I can.

Festus wrote: »

1. 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.

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.

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

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

I've read your previous posts answering other posters, and it seems pretty clear that you don't actually know what atheism actually is. Atheism is the null position on belief in deities. It is not an ideology. Atheists have no belief in God because there is no reasonable evidence from any religion, including Christianity, that any supernatural being(s) exist. I can't speak for other atheists, but my atheism is based on the fact there is no evidence. But as has been said in posts above, I don't know if there is or isn't a God. I'm basing (not believing, in case you decide to say what is my belief on that) my atheism on the complete lack of evidence for a God(s). Atheism doesn't need to provide evidence as we are not making the claim ''God doesn't exist.'' We are rejecting your claim, ''God exists.'' and it is on you and your religion to provide evidence, not Atheists.

Personal faith is ones own belief in God, but with the understanding that others have other belief systems or lack thereof. The one you seem to be adhering to is organised religion, a religion that everyone should believe or you will be punished for not believing. You have every right to have your faith. Just don't shove it in my face, saying ''This is what you should believe too, otherwise bad things will happen to you.''

None, yet you have no evidence other than a 2000 year old Holy Book written by Bronze Age farmers about a magic man who created everything, and his supposedly magical Son to believe in God, so have some faith.

This is a Atheism Thread. I'm an Atheist. Kinda speaks for itself.
I didn't realize I needed a special invitation to be here.

Barr125

ISAW wrote: »

It is not reasonable to declare all of theology nonsense!

But it's OK for guys like Festus to say that Atheism and science is quote ''rubbish''?

Festus wrote: »

Do you really believe this rubbish?