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

Benny_Cake

Mod note: I'll probably regret this, but I've moved a number of posts over to the creationism megathread, where all things Genesis can be discussed:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682

For the sake of my (remaining) sanity, please don't make me have to intervene on that thread. I'd imagine the same goes for Jernal.

Turtwig

*Hands in resignation*

Virgil°

Terrlock wrote: »

If the laws of logic are man made then why do all cultures on the planet agree to them.

What I was actually saying was: I don't think you understand what you are talking about. There are laws of logic in math. Most cultures agree with it because we can objectively demonstrate its truth over and over again. It builds bridges and flies planes. In contrast to religion, where almost nobody seems able to agree on any of it. Even within their own sects. If there is a god, hes doing a piss poor job of convincing people who he/she is. One theory of electromagentism, thousands of religions.

If laws of logic were conventional then different cultures would adopt different laws of logic(like driving on the right side of the road).

Again I really don't know what you mean by laws of logic, whats more I'm pretty sure you don't either. Math tends to be accurate regardless of culture.

Rational debate would be impossible if two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning.

Yeah. And?

BMMachine

after briefly reading some of this thread, one phrase has come to mind above all others:

Mental Gymnastics

georgesstreet

Virgil° wrote: »

If there is a god, hes doing a piss poor job of convincing people who he/she is. One theory of electromagentism, thousands of religions.

God is many things, apparently. Sometimes, he is mysterious, which usually means we are told by others we are not able to understand his will. However, at other times the same people who claim to know he is mysterious also claim they know what his will is and what he wants.

According to the bible, centuries ago god performed many miracles to demonstrate his existence. He even parted a whole sea, apparantly. However, in the last two thousand years or so he seems to have given up on performing miracles to demonstrate his existence. We have no clue why he decided to give up performing miracles.

God could easily convince many unbelievers with a few more miracles, for example. As you say, he seems to be not doing a very good job to convince many of his existence.

Brian Shanahan

SoulandForm wrote: »

The last paragraph is a perfect reason why Theists shouldnt bother discussing these issues with atheists.

Yeah, because every time theists ignore the valid evidence brought to the table by us, and favour the irrational mythologies they believe in without evidence or justification.

You can't dismiss reality as easily as you'd like to think.

Brian Shanahan

georgesstreet wrote: »

Ok, lets see you do that. How about we start at the beginning, Adam and Eve. Maybe you could begin by telling us all how the biblical story of Adam and Eve stands up to proper scientific scrutiny and logic.

Hey lets start even earlier, lets start with the seven days of creation myth, which is flatly contradicted by the garden of eden myth.

How is it that people who want us to believe two mutally incompatible creation stories have the effronety to call the evidence based theory of universal creation called the Big Bang "without reason"?

georgesstreet

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You can't dismiss reality as easily as you'd like to think.

I am afraid on this point you are wrong. Those who choose to believe some parts of the bible and claim to be christians have to suspend rational belief in order to believe in christianity, and it seems to be very easy for them to do so.

Anything difficult to rationalise they simply just ignore. From where I sit, it seems childishly simple for them to do that.

Brian Shanahan

georgesstreet wrote: »

I am afraid on this point you are wrong. Those who choose to believe some parts of the bible and claim to be christians have to suspend rational belief in order to believe in christianity, and it seems to be very easy for them to do so.

Anything difficult to rationalise they simply just ignore. From where I sit, it seems childishly simple for them to do that.

Well they can pretend reality doesn't exist all they want, but it doesn't go away, and one day it'll smack them in the face.

For example everybody who uses antibiotics to cure a disease is using medicine based in part off Evolutionary theory. As we have been told time and time again by biblical literalists Evolutionary theory is incompatible with biblical "thought", and we can be certain that at least a few biblical literalists here have at some stage used antibiotics, therefore reality has come into contact with their beliefs and triumphed.

georgesstreet

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well they can pretend reality doesn't exist all they want, but it doesn't go away, and one day it'll smack them in the face.

Ah, you are a fatalist. I have known people who have believed in christ all their lives, and who died without reality ever appearing to smack them anywhere. Why are you so sure reality will smack them in the face, and what form with that take as, presumably, smack them in the face is a euphemism?

robp

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Hey lets start even earlier, lets start with the seven days of creation myth, which is flatly contradicted by the garden of eden myth.

How is it that people who want us to believe two mutally incompatible creation stories have the effronety to call the evidence based theory of universal creation called the Big Bang "without reason"?

Pretty much all the biggest denominations endorse the Big Bang. A significant amount of Protestants ones don't but still its very much a minority view. Anyway most creationists are not interested in human origins. In the same way there are plenty of atheists who have a very minimal passing interest in evolution and don't really grasp it all. Popular culture is infused with misunderstandings of evolution.

Brian Shanahan

robp wrote: »

Pretty much all the biggest denominations endorse the Big Bang.

So most christians don't believe the book which lays out what they have to believe in then?

Doesn't that make them non-chrisitan?

obriendj

georgesstreet wrote: »

According to the bible, centuries ago god performed many miracles to demonstrate his existence. He even parted a whole sea, apparantly. However, in the last two thousand years or so he seems to have given up on performing miracles to demonstrate his existence. We have no clue why he decided to give up performing miracles.

God could easily convince many unbelievers with a few more miracles, for example. As you say, he seems to be not doing a very good job to convince many of his existence.

This is where i see a flaw. Miracles. And your point proves it.

When something that was unexplained occurred 2000 years ago it was called a miracle or act of God.
Now if something occurs that is unexplained, there are people who try to find out why it happened and if it will happen again.

So I don't think God has stopped performing Miracles, it seems more likely that Miracles now have an explanation and because of that, they are not Miracles.

For many religions the Sun coming up every morning was an Act of God. But now we have a simple explanation for it.

It seems it is better to look for a reason rather than a miracle.

Benny_Cake

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So most christians don't believe the book which lays out what they have to believe in then?

Doesn't that make them non-chrisitan?

Only if you are a biblical literalist as many fundamentalist Christians are (and some atheists, it would seem).

Interesting that the person who proposed the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe was a Belgian priest, Georges LeMaitre. He remained a devout Catholic until his death.

georgesstreet

obriendj wrote: »

This is where i see a flaw. Miracles. And your point proves it.

When something that was unexplained occurred 2000 years ago it was called a miracle or act of God.
Now if something occurs that is unexplained, there are people who try to find out why it happened and if it will happen again.

So I don't think God has stopped performing Miracles, it seems more likely that Miracles now have an explanation and because of that, they are not Miracles.

For many religions the Sun coming up every morning was an Act of God. But now we have a simple explanation for it.

It seems it is better to look for a reason rather than a miracle.

Miracles (for example the sea parting) do not happen nowadays. The sun coming up every day was never claimed to be a biblical miracle.

Miracles in the bible suspend the laws of nature and are not simply things for which science will eventually find an explanation.

Brian Shanahan

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Only if you are a biblical literalist as many fundamentalist Christians are (and some atheists, it would seem).

So the book fundamental to the religion is not always fundamental to the religion? Honestly, this kind of view is saying "you don't have to believe in our religion to believe in our religion".

Interesting that the person who proposed the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe was a Belgian priest, Georges LeMaitre. He remained a devout Catholic until his death.

Newton believed in astrology, cabbalism and alchemy. Nothing interesting in smart people believing unevidenced hypotheses. Everybody does it to some extent.

robp

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So most christians don't believe the book which lays out what they have to believe in then?

Doesn't that make them non-chrisitan?

Christianity is defined as following Jesus and recognising him as Christ. Hence 'Christians' not ' biblicists'. Benny-Cakes is quite right. In fact the bible has a far more limited input to contemporary Christians then most critics claim. This is true in most mainstream denominations. In Catholicism this is very openly acknowledged in the catechism. Its really frustrating when people claims this is Christians cherry picking the nice parts of the bible. Is reading Dilbert as non literal humour cherry picking the nice parts of the newspaper.

georgesstreet

robp wrote: »

Christianity is defined as following Jesus and recognising him as Christ. Hence 'Christians' not ' biblicists'.

So how do you know how to follow christ?

robp

georgesstreet wrote: »

So how do you know how to follow christ?

Many just causes in life are shrouded in uncertainty. Living a moral life means wading through many unresolvable ethical debates. The best we can do is to seek the truth and live by it.

I almost presume you meant to say how do you know how to follow Jesus. If you recognise Jesus as Christ you are by definition recognising a Judeo-Christian notion of God and in the scale of things the difference between being a Iraqi Catholic Melkite or a Nigerian Pentecostal seems pretty darn small.

Brian Shanahan

robp wrote: »

Christianity is defined as following Jesus and recognising him as Christ. Hence 'Christians' not ' biblicists'.

So the holy book every christian, no matter what denomination, is exhorted to follow, is not the holy book every christian is exhorted to follow?

It does amaze me the amount of christians that have come on here and said that "the bible is not really important anyways" while it is the sole source of their precepts and rules.

Either christians have an obligation to follow the bible or there is no christianity.

Benny_Cake

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So the holy book every christian, no matter what denomination, is exhorted to follow, is not the holy book every christian is exhorted to follow?

It does amaze me the amount of christians that have come on here and said that "the bible is not really important anyways" while it is the sole source of their precepts and rules.

Either christians have an obligation to follow the bible or there is no christianity.

The Bible contains over 60 books from a variety of genres: records of history, proverbs, fables, parables, codes of law...

The phenomenon of biblical literalism is recent enough - even St.Augustine treated Jonah being in the belly of the whale as allegory. Is the creation narrative of Genesis a literal description of the creation of the world? Most Christians would argue that it isn't and was never intended to be - that doesn't meant that there isn't truth to be found there.

I can see how it suits many anti-theists to argue that all Christians need to accept the Bible as being single book of history, but that simply isn't the case.

tommy2bad

Oh for God sake Brian. stop telling us what we should and shouldn't follow. You're not even a believer and you claim to know how it works or should work so as to make it easy to contradict.
Anyway at this stage of the thread you must realize that it the Bible tradishion and guidance of the Spirit. If you have a problem with literal interpretation of the bible, well so do most Christians. Welcome to the club.

georgesstreet

robp wrote: »

Many just causes in life are shrouded in uncertainty. Living a moral life means wading through many unresolvable ethical debates. The best we can do is to seek the truth and live by it.

I almost presume you meant to say how do you know how to follow Jesus. If you recognise Jesus as Christ you are by definition recognising a Judeo-Christian notion of God and in the scale of things the difference between being a Iraqi Catholic Melkite or a Nigerian Pentecostal seems pretty darn small.

In the context in which I asked my question, I wanted to know from where a christian might learn how to follow jesus, if not from the bible.

robp

georgesstreet wrote: »

In the context in which I asked my question, I wanted to know from where a christian might learn how to follow jesus, if not from the bible.

I was speaking in very general terms which is not helpful for such a complex multilayer book. I believe that many of the core elements of Christianity are accessible without any knowledge of the bible. Yet you do need the New Testament to know Jesus in a really direct way and to be Christian. Thus the New Testament is profoundly important. Fortunately the historicity of it is far more concrete then early parts of the bible.

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh for God sake Brian. stop telling us what we should and shouldn't follow.

I'm not telling you what to follow, I'm not like the religious in that manner.

I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of people trying to say that following the bible is not a necessary part of christianity, as if it were some sort of make it up as you go along kind of thing.

All I'm pointing out is that if everybody in a religion is able to follow and make up the rules they want to use then you don't have a religion.

robp

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm not telling you what to follow, I'm not like the religious in that manner.

I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of people trying to say that following the bible is not a necessary part of christianity, as if it were some sort of make it up as you go along kind of thing.

All I'm pointing out is that if everybody in a religion is able to follow and make up the rules they want to use then you don't have a religion.

So if you are an atheist thinking for yourself is a good thing but if your in a religion thinking for your self is bad thing?

BTW no one has claimed the bible is an optional part of christianity. It is essential. Remember people assembled the modern bible in the first centuries AD from books that were several floating around, so its perfectly reasonable for people analyse it and establish the historical parts, the oral myths and the moral order.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think social pressure may have more influence than education or poverty.

Quite likely. Making the correct prostrations in a society in order to fit in with your peers and not be in a distrusted minority likely helps a hell of a lot to bolster the figures of religions. I guess we would be equivocating then over actual belief and espoused belief. I would say social pressures have a massive effect on people acting like the believe when they do not while good education likely has a correlative effect on people ACTUALLY believing or not.

The more of the latter we have therefore, and hence the more people who fail to espouse belief in god, the less pressure we are likely to have on people feeling to feed the status quo. So it is all connected in the end.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's not education that reduces religion but the type of education.

That would be stating the obvious I guess. For example perpetuating a strong education in Cookery in a society is not going to have the same inverse correlation on religious meme infection as we observe with a strong education in the mathematics, sciences, and a firm foundational knowledge of the fallacies and how to avoid them.

M.Byrne wrote: »

I have to say this topic infuriates me. I think religion has its place in the sense that it's nice to think that loved ones who have passed have gone somewhere rather than ceasing to exist.

Maybe it is. But if you are shot it might also be nice to believe that you do not have a painful gaping wound on you too. Alas believing you are ok when you are not is rarely a good approach and I view grief as being very much an injury that needs to be dressed and treated.

So the "quick fix" solution of simply paper macheing over ones grief with unsubstantiated religious claims... or reincarnation fantasies such as we have had badly touted over the last few pages of the thread.... might feel good at the time but I am highly unconvinced of the utility or wisdom of engaging in it.

SoulandForm wrote: »

I dont believe for a moment that atheists are atheists for intellectual reasons

Thankfully we do not need your belief for it to be true. It stays true regardless. Nor do we need your acceptance or approval to engage in it. The simple fact is that people like myself fail to believe in god for the sole and simple reason that you and your cohorts have failed utterly to provide a simply reason upon which we could base such a belief.

SoulandForm wrote: »

the arguments of atheists are much more shallow than their ones.

That would be what is called the "idiot effect". The "idiot effect" says "Do not argue with idiots because you have to go down to their level and look like an idiot too".

Similarly the arguments of atheists can only be as good as the arguments they are designed to address. Given no one, much less yourself it seems, has provided a single shred of argument, evidence, data, or reasoning to support the idea there is a god.... the replies of atheists are going to be at that level too.

And the attempts made by theists to support their idea there is a god range from arguments from emotion.... to arguments from ignorance (eg god of the gaps).... to arguments from outright assertion.

And if that is the standard of discourse we are being offered on the subject, then the standard of reply is going to be naturally matching.

Terrlock wrote: »

There is no rational reason to believe that God doesn't exist.

The complete lack of any substantiation for a claim IS a rational reason to dismiss the claim and proceed on the working assumption the claim is false.

You are making the classic and common (and often contrived) error of equivalence here. In that you think if you make something up on the spot and specifically define it so no evidence supporting it, or negating it, is even possible.... then therefore the ideas that it exists or not are equivalent.

It does not work that way.

You have simply made something up (eg "there is a god") and the burden of supporting and substantiating that claim is entirely yours.

georgesstreet

robp wrote: »

I believe that many of the core elements of Christianity are accessible without any knowledge of the bible. .

So where did you learn the core elements, which you mention, from?

pauldla

Still waiting for my critique of atheism using the basic laws of logic.

I hope it's as entertaining as the rest of this thread!

georgesstreet

pauldla wrote: »

Still waiting for my critique of atheism using the basic laws of logic.

Am I the only one who has no idea what your critique of atheism might be? Or why you are waiting for your own critique of atheism?