Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure what your point is? We have an open question to which no one has an answer to. We acknowledge that. The difference between ourselves and yourselves is that we do not make up unsubstantiated ideas to fill in that ignorance. Rather we explore hypothesis in an attempt to find an answer. An answer that may or may never come.

You posit part-substantiated ideas and suppose them carrying more weight than unsubstantiated ideas. As if the search for a substantiated answer places you on some higher ground.

For example:

It sounds like you are trying to act like our lack of answer in some way lends your makey up one some credibility. It does not. At all. Even a little bit.

Neither of us has "credibility" - for want of substantiation. Your position remains as makey-uppy as mine until such time as substantiation for these hypothesis say otherwise.

Nor have I said, or implied, otherwise. The only difference I see between us is, as I said, your sides penchant for making things up and believing them in the face of literally zero substantiation.

The voice of an empiricist calling in the wilderness. As I say, I haven't yet seen an argument which says all must bow to the philosophy you are clearly wedded to.

There may very well be a god. As you point out there is nothing about the universe that precludes this idea.

Is Brian Shanahan in da house..?

None of this changes the fact that no one, especially yourself, is offering the slightest modicum of substantiation for the idea there actually is one.

There is no attempt to prove God here. The issue is dismantling false claims (such as Brian's) and making sure you don't clamber out of the boat we both share in the search for the higher ground. At least not by means of sleight of hand..

Geomy

Im in these boards for a while now discussing things spiritual, God, religion, atheism, agnosticism, etc

I personally know people from every persuasion.
The thing is the people who claim to be religious, spiritual and agnostic atheists seem to be more open to the idea of there being a spiritual relm, God, or higher power than Atheists who keep on looking for the substantial evidence that suit's their social background, scientific conditioning and peer's.

I had a very closed mind too, but I do clash over my confusion about organised religion and atheists belittling or portrayal of delusional theists and agnostics.

I know plenty of people who get comfort from their yoga, prayer, meditation and mindfulness.

Sitting on the fence ain't easy I tell ye :-)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure what your point is? We have an open question to which no one has an answer to. We acknowledge that. The difference between ourselves and yourselves is that we do not make up unsubstantiated ideas to fill in that ignorance. Rather we explore hypothesis in an attempt to find an answer. An answer that may or may never come.

It sounds like you are trying to act like our lack of answer in some way lends your makey up one some credibility. It does not. At all. Even a little bit.

It might help if believers didn't act with such certainty that their version is the only right one. Lets tell the truth, we chose to believe, we don't have all the answers and admitting that theirs stuff we have no idea about isn't the same as admitting that we are wrong. The old catholic idea that 'it's a mystery'

smacl

tommy2bad wrote: »

It might help if believers didn't act with such certainty that their version is the only right one. Lets tell the truth, we chose to believe, we don't have all the answers and admitting that theirs stuff we have no idea about isn't the same as admitting that we are wrong. The old catholic idea that 'it's a mystery'

For me at least, admitting that there's stuff that I don't understand and will probably never understand is a fundamental part of learning. I'm also wrong pretty regularly, and reserve the right to change my mind about things when I'm shown to be wrong. This happens often enough too, and is also key to learning. Mysteries are great, as is having a sense of wonder, both are key to driving the desire to learn. As an atheist I find the notion of a God or gods improbable enough to discount at this time. I doesn't mean I won't be proven wrong once again, just that as a working theory it is a long way down the pile. Borrowing from a more taoist way of thinking, I try not to be to intransigent in my points of view, but accept change is constant and deal with it on that basis.

Morbert

tommy2bad wrote: »

It might help if believers didn't act with such certainty that their version is the only right one

"God said" said man.

Geomy wrote: »

Im in these boards for a while now discussing things spiritual, God, religion, atheism, agnosticism, etc

I personally know people from every persuasion.
The thing is the people who claim to be religious, spiritual and agnostic atheists seem to be more open to the idea of there being a spiritual relm, God, or higher power than Atheists who keep on looking for the substantial evidence that suit's their social background, scientific conditioning and peer's.

I had a very closed mind too, but I do clash over my confusion about organised religion and atheists belittling or portrayal of delusional theists and agnostics.

I know plenty of people who get comfort from their yoga, prayer, meditation and mindfulness.

Sitting on the fence ain't easy I tell ye :-)

PML - being honest is a virtue! :pac:

I hope you don't mind a word of advice - and I'm by no means the most faithful of the faithful, I struggle every day to, not necessarily have faith, I have that, but to be 'faithful' -

If it's Christianity that is drawing you, than spend time alone with Christ. As a Catholic I would say, alone in Church, speaking with Him in faith and trust, and ask him for the gift of understanding. There are also very many Spiritual Giants you could explore - Google 'The Little Flower'...

As a Christian Catholic I would say seek him in the face of the poor - get up, go out and use the senses God gave you, because they are there for a reason, use all of them, and don't forget to carry along your mind too. See Him in the poor in spirit, spend time with people, and most of all love them.

willabur

lmaopml wrote: »

As a Christian Catholic I would say seek him in the face of the poor - get up, go out and use the senses God gave you, because they are there for a reason, use all of them, and don't forget to carry along your mind too. See Him in the poor in spirit, spend time with people, and most of all love them.

So in essence you need some people to be poor in order to find God - that quite frankly is bizarre, absurd, weird and cruel

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is Brian Shanahan in da house..?

My point, as you well know, is about the christian god as described in the bible. I'm not ruling out all gods (though I'd personally bet against if there was any point).

And my point that YHWH as is described in the bible being an impossibility still stands, no matter how often you ignore it.

willabur wrote: »

So in essence you need some people to be poor in order to find God - that quite frankly is bizarre, absurd, weird and cruel

There will always be poor people. There will always be people who think they are rich who in fact are poor, and there will always be people who are poor who are very rich indeed. Love is the measure - it's also what magnifies the Cross.

Foolishness to some - indeed it is a stumbling block.

Brian Shanahan

lmaopml wrote: »

There will always be poor people.

Wrong. We could right now pretty much permanently eliminate poverty if we wanted to, we have the resources and capacity to do so.

But by not doing so says a lot about humanity.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Wrong. We could right now pretty much permanently eliminate poverty if we wanted to, we have the resources and capacity to do so.

But by not doing so says a lot about humanity.

Yes we do, and it does, because there ARE people who reach out and try to get that message across to see Christ, or there but for the Grace of God go I ( or let's say in the case of an Atheist, their random chance birth ) - so basically get up and do something about it, that may involve 'sacrifice', but it's a common goal. It's something worth doing, because your value is not what you say in totality, but what you do about what you say...and we all will leave this world having said many words.

willabur

lmaopml wrote: »

There will always be poor people. There will always be people who think they are rich who in fact are poor, and there will always be people who are poor who are very rich indeed. Love is the measure - it's also what magnifies the Cross.

Foolishness to some - indeed it is a stumbling block.

I don't mean to be rude but this statement is so bland that it has no meaning. Everyone is poor and rich? its like a venn diagram with just one circle. No meaning!

It reminds me of speeches that Mother Theresa gave to the poor of Calcutta, utterly mind warping, ultimately harmful conjecture that cost people their lives

willabur wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude but this statement is so bland that it has no meaning. Everyone is poor and rich? its like a venn diagram with just one circle. No meaning!

It reminds me of speeches that Mother Theresa gave to the poor of Calcutta, utterly mind warping, ultimately harmful conjecture that cost people their lives

Aw somebody read about how 'awful' Mother Theresa is - after all she spoke about 'suffering' in the world and how even 'that' can be a valuable tool, and how it is something that every single person will go through one way or the other, and a big lesson because she chose to live her life with others in her own.

Love is not bland. It's something you count on every day, you count on 'justice' in love every single day, when you believe that people 'should' love and seek the good for eachother - when a total stranger loves you when nobody else does, then you realise the value of love and of those who get up off their bum cheeks, whether they are Christian or no, they are seeing humanity and seeing clearly.

willabur

lmaopml wrote: »

Aw somebody read about how 'awful' Mother Theresa is - after all she spoke about 'suffering' in the world and how even 'that' can be a valuable tool, and how it is something that every single person will go through one way or the other, and a big lesson because she chose to live her life with others in her own.

Love is not bland. It's something you count on every day, you count on 'justice' in love every single day, when you believe that people 'should' love and seek the good for eachother - when a total stranger loves you when nobody else does, then you realise the value of love and of those who get up off their bum cheeks, whether they are Christian or no, they are seeing humanity and seeing clearly.

you are quite arrogant for a "lover", I have lived for a couple of years in calcutta. I worked with people trying to believe in themselves, in the power of community not just accept the cards they have been dealt

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And my point that YHWH as is described in the bible being an impossibility still stands, no matter how often you ignore it.

I'm not at all ignoring your point claim. You claim that the laws of the Universe prohibit YHWH. So begin the case to support same.

willabur wrote: »

you are quite arrogant for a "lover", I have lived for a couple of years in calcutta. I worked with people trying to believe in themselves, in the power of community not just accept the cards they have been dealt

Well good on you - because the children of Calcutta who are now heading up the schools, and hospitals that once were a place to send your child, are dealing with the stigma of being 'children' of the same Calcutta, with it's casts etc. and the face of it's faithful reflecting not an imported one, but their own features - the face of the poor - the ghetto children who are reaching out and are educated and trying to make a difference are still there, living in the caste system and providing an oasis through love of others..

They aren't honoured so much, just like Christ wasn't honoured in his own homeland. If you tried to help, well good on you -

As for me, I'm crap at helping mostly, I'm too busy surviving these days, mores the pity, and it's my shame, big talker, but not enough action, I carry it with me. So you won't be telling me something new.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Lets tell the truth, we chose to believe

As a believer, I have absolutely no idea what those words mean (i.e. chose to believe)

Whilst one can argue about the nature and validity of evidence (in it's most elemental form, evidence is that which brings about belief) one doesn't chose whether or not to believe.

Rather, one is convinced (or not) by the evidence. You might weigh it up, put it to the test, wrestle with it. But ultimately it's not a matter of choice (in any arbitrary sense). You are brought to belief by the evidence itself, the only choosing involved is how it is you reckon to assess it.

I think it's pretty much a truth that when one searches in earnest, and know their own warts and all, and seek the face of God, want to know the 'truth' that Pilate wondered about....and Jesus says he quite literally embodied, that they will find it, but also find out to their astonishment that God was always with them and sought them out first - and they start on the path having known him, and can stay or wander....

Just like the Isrealites circled the walls of Jericho, he circles hearts until the walls tumble that we build around them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a believer, I have absolutely no idea what those words mean (i.e. chose to believe)

Whilst one can argue about the nature and validity of evidence (in it's most elemental form, evidence is that which brings about belief) one doesn't chose whether or not to believe.

Rather, one is convinced (or not) by the evidence. You might weigh it up, put it to the test, wrestle with it. But ultimately it's not a matter of choice (in any arbitrary sense). You are brought to belief by the evidence itself, the only choosing involved is how it is you reckon to assess it.

Yeah, it's a problem with how we use words. Believe might mean 'to be convinced of something' but that's not how it would have been used up until recently, not in a faith context. It comes from 'to allow' and would orignaly have meant something more like 'I give ascent to this'.
This is where choice comes in, unlike how now we use believe as a synonym of know.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah, it's a problem with how we use words. Believe might mean 'to be convinced of something' but that's not how it would have been used up until recently,

Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is ... the evidence of things not seen."

I believe (i.e. I am convinced of..) because I have faith (a.k.a. spiritual evidence). Just like I believe anything else - because I have evidence.

'I give assent to this'. This is where choice comes in, unlike how now we use believe as a synonym of know.

Why would you assent to this? On what basis? If you have no evidence to support the belief then the belief is blind. Surely?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is ... the evidence of things not seen."

I believe (i.e. I am convinced of..) because I have faith (a.k.a. spiritual evidence). Just like I believe anything else - because I have evidence.

Why would you assent to this? On what basis? If you have no evidence to support the belief then the belief is blind. Surely?

Because somethings are worth believing in! Why would you believe competition was better than cooperation or vise versa? Why believe that democracy is better than dictatorship?
I have no evidence to support the concept of a God, in fact theirs far more evidence of a lack of God/gods. None the less I have faith and believe. But I don't confuse faith with evidence, faith can lead to evidence but in itself it evidence of nothing more than that you believe.

Brian Shanahan

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes we do, and it does, because there ARE people who reach out and try to get that message across to see Christ,

A big part of the problem is religion. Why strive for a paradise tomorrow when we know that we can cultivate the garden here? Therefore the religious hierarchies spend a lot of the time selling the line that "there will always be poor people, and they are poor only becauce they deserve to be poor" (the well known jam tomorrow principle).

And then of course you've got the problem that organised religion has one main purpose, the maintenance and increase of power into the hands of the hierarchy (hence all the threats of excommunication recently over the non-abortion abortion law). And poor, hungry, uneducated people are easier to keep under your thumb than prosperous, full and educated people.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A big part of the problem is religion. Why strive for a paradise tomorrow when we know that we can cultivate the garden here? Therefore the religious hierarchies spend a lot of the time selling the line that "there will always be poor people, and they are poor only becauce they deserve to be poor" (the well known jam tomorrow principle).

And then of course you've got the problem that organised religion has one main purpose, the maintenance and increase of power into the hands of the hierarchy (hence all the threats of excommunication recently over the non-abortion abortion law). And poor, hungry, uneducated people are easier to keep under your thumb than prosperous, full and educated people.

I think it's called the pie in the sky when you die principal when talking about religion.:D
I disagree that religion is a big part of the problem as religions tend to promote a better chance of a better afterlife on the basis that you produce a better before life here on earth. You are closer to the truth when you say organised religion has one purpose, the maintenance and control of power.
But that's a human failing; organised humans always fall into the trap of maintaining power to those that have it. Organised religion is just around longer and has become better at it!

Manach

The advantage of religion is that it just the opposite of the utopian ideas. Since the eclipse of the sense of community, various competing ideologues have proclaimed the perfectibility of man if just do/follow X (Burleigh). It never works as planned, because of man's inherently flawed nature (as per Steven Pinker) or original sin as it is known (K. Minogue). So some scapegoat is found and blames for the woes of society. Back in the day, used to be the British, now the Church, and soon the EU superstate. Religion promotes useful civic and moral pride and lays the foundation of a society (borrowing from Chesterton) - its absence uncuts that sense of real community and instead we have just a servile state.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Because somethings are worth believing in! Why would you believe competition was better than cooperation or vise versa? Why believe that democracy is better than dictatorship?

Okay. I get that sense

I have no evidence to support the concept of a God, in fact theirs far more evidence of a lack of God/gods. None the less I have faith and believe

.

What is 'faith' in this context? You believe because it's worth believing. Once you find it worthy the belief follows.

But I don't confuse faith with evidence,

The Bible seems to equate it. Indeed provision of evidence seems to be something God majors in both in Old and New testaments

faith can lead to evidence but in itself it evidence of nothing more than that you believe.

You'll have clarified what you mean by faith above. I'll try to understand this then..

Cheers

A lot of it is trust and hope. Or love if you prefer as Jesus once said "All you need is Love" or it could have been John Lennon, I often mix them up

tommy2bad wrote: »

A lot of it is trust and hope. Or love if you prefer as Jesus once said "All you need is Love" or it could have been John Lennon, I often mix them up

Okay. So you believe in God exists because he's (or rather, that concept is) worth believing in. That you hope and trust that your belief is well founded and true is faith.

Would you agree that without evidence, your hope and trust is blind - relying solely on your own view that God's existence is something worth believing in (or preferable to alternative things you could believe in).

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A big part of the problem is religion.

I think I'll have to disagree with you - the big part of the problem is pride and greed!

Why strive for a paradise tomorrow when we know that we can cultivate the garden here? Therefore the religious hierarchies spend a lot of the time selling the line that "there will always be poor people, and they are poor only becauce they deserve to be poor" (the well known jam tomorrow principle).

You misunderstand what 'poor' means to a Christian. Poor means not only those who are struggling to feed their families and are our very own family, but it also means those who are poor in Spirit too.

These can come in any form, they can be very rich, but devastatingly poor because their heart is restless and knows no rest except in what they are told feeds their soul, but it never fills them.

And then of course you've got the problem that organised religion has one main purpose, the maintenance and increase of power into the hands of the hierarchy (hence all the threats of excommunication recently over the non-abortion abortion law). And poor, hungry, uneducated people are easier to keep under your thumb than prosperous, full and educated people.

Well, Brian, you are perfectly free to believe that we are calculating and want to take over the world to have 'power', but I think you are very hasty in your estimation, because we are just people, we are not a 'hierarchy' we are quite simply people who are 'organised', and power is not where the best of us live - chop off the Kings head! Doesn't quite fit!

I'm sorry we let you down so much, that you see only a 'regime', others don't, but that's not good enough. I wish it were different, I'll spend my life trying to make a difference to that perception - I'm sorry you feel that way.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. So you believe in God exists because he's (or rather, that concept is) worth believing in. That you hope and trust that your belief is well founded and true is faith.

Would you agree that without evidence, your hope and trust is blind - relying solely on your own view that God's existence is something worth believing in (or preferable to alternative things you could believe in).

The thing is once you make the commitment it's hard to be completely objective about the evidence. You start seeing things through a lense of faith.
What to me looks like the work of God might look like random chance to a non believer.
It becomes a balance of probality and the scales are weighed by faith.

I heard the expression 'live in the leap' somewhere and I think it best describes my position, make the leap of faith but don't land on the other side.