Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Turtwig · 28-11-2013 10:06PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm sorry to say that I know less about Buddhism than I probably should. From my experience of Theravada Buddhism when I spent a few months living in Thailand though it seemed that it was strongly influenced by Hinduism and local folk religion / animism (most apparent in all the "spirit houses" that are outside homes and places of business). Theism in the sense that the Abrahamic religions would understand it? Probably not, but a belief in the supernatural nonetheless.

I always thought that Buddhism, stripped to it's core, took the position that the existence or non-existence of God was essentially irrelevant in that it was a question that couldn't be answered. Bit of a bucket of cold water over this thread if that's the case!

It's an ancient religion so I think it's probably best to just start interviewing buddhists.

They've got a huge spectrum to their beliefs and branch off from different schools. Some, I think, or at least were led to believe, almost follow a scientific method of inquiry of sorts, others are deeply spiritual and reflective that involve prayer and worship. We also have to remember that with every religion the way people practice it ultimately leads to splits in how it is understood. One "misconception" among one generation in a geographic area becomes accepted truth a few generations later.

Brian Shanahan · 28-11-2013 11:54PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

You otoh seem to be determined to prove that their is no god of any kind. So who's proselytizing who?

No I'm not, all I'm doing is using the supposed words of your god to show his impossibility. Just because you don't like someone coming here and speaking the truth to you doesn't mean you can tar me with the same characteristics you yourself display.

tommy2bad · 29-11-2013 12:53AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No I'm not, all I'm doing is using the supposed words of your god to show his impossibility. Just because you don't like someone coming here and speaking the truth to you doesn't mean you can tar me with the same characteristics you yourself display.

Sorry Brian, I never tared you with anything. All the brush work is on your side.
I made no claims and offered only an explanation. You are the one presuming I'm saying something I'm not. Try to actually read my posts rather than spending the time trying to demolish arguments I never made.
As to your efforts at demonstrating the impossibility of God or at least the Judeo Christian God. I'v been around the block with that, both with Christians and atheists. That neither of you can do more than reject my arguments without any effort at refuting them tell it's own story.

georgesstreet · 29-11-2013 09:19AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Sorry Brian, I never tared you with anything. All the brush work is on your side.
I made no claims and offered only an explanation. You are the one presuming I'm saying something I'm not. Try to actually read my posts rather than spending the time trying to demolish arguments I never made.
As to your efforts at demonstrating the impossibility of God or at least the Judeo Christian God. I'v been around the block with that, both with Christians and atheists. That neither of you can do more than reject my arguments without any effort at refuting them tell it's own story.

Out of all the gods that have been worshipped by humans over the millennia, why is the god you choose to worship the only one which is real?

I am guessing you were brought up in a Christian environment. Does it ever give you pause for thought that someone who was brought up in, for example, a Muslim environment holds very similar views to you about his Muslim god. Similarly someone who was brought up in a Hindu environment about their god, and so and so on?

What is it about the god you choose to worship which shows us their gods are false and your god is real?

tommy2bad · 29-11-2013 11:00AM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Out of all the gods that have been worshipped by humans over the millennia, why is the god you choose to worship the only one which is real?
Been over this before and anyway it's a whole other thread probably going to take a zillion pages to explain.
I am guessing you were brought up in a Christian environment. Does it ever give you pause for thought that someone who was brought up in, for example, a Muslim environment holds very similar views to you about his Muslim god. Similarly someone who was brought up in a Hindu environment about their god, and so and so on?
Never a pause, why should it?
What is it about the god you choose to worship which shows us their gods are false and your god is real?

I never said that their God was false, I don't claim anything more than that the God described in the Christian tradition is, imnsho, the closest to what God is. It might not be as close as we would like to think but or a whole lot closer than the Hindu vision.
If it's the arrogance of religions when it comes to the faith of others that you object to then I'm with you as I'm against the arrogance of atheists presuming that their world view is the only right one.

georgesstreet · 29-11-2013 11:05AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I never said that their God was false, I don't claim anything more than that the God described in the Christian tradition is, imnsho, the closest to what God is. It might not be as close as we would like to think but or a whole lot closer than the Hindu vision.
If it's the arrogance of religions when it comes to the faith of others that you object to then I'm with you as I'm against the arrogance of atheists presuming that their world view is the only right one.

You seem to be misquoting me in your post.

I am confused as to what it is you are arguing for, or what your position is.

This thread is about the existence of God, and I am at a loss to know what your argument is.

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-11-2013 11:38AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I never said that their God was false, I don't claim anything more than that the God described in the Christian tradition is, imnsho, the closest to what God is.

On what basis do you assert that however?

This thread is about whether god even exists or not. You are by passing that and not only asserting that it exists but this evidence devoid entity is one you can differentiate between descriptions of. Separating which descriptions are more accurate than others.

So while the rest of us here are trying to work out if such an entity even exists, you seem to have access to information about actual attributes and characteristics of it.

What stream of information are you privy to that the rest of us have been precluded exactly?

And do you see no irony whatsoever in railing against the "arrogance" of other religions and/or atheists while all the while asserting.... so far seemingly based on nothing.... that one religion has it more correct than any other?

But in short, how do you know what "god is" when you appear to not even have the first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the assertion THAT "god is" in the first place. Which, again, is what this thread is about.

tommy2bad · 29-11-2013 01:21PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

On what basis do you assert that however?

This thread is about whether god even exists or not. You are by passing that and not only asserting that it exists but this evidence devoid entity is one you can differentiate between descriptions of. Separating which descriptions are more accurate than others.

So while the rest of us here are trying to work out if such an entity even exists, you seem to have access to information about actual attributes and characteristics of it.

What stream of information are you privy to that the rest of us have been precluded exactly?

And do you see no irony whatsoever in railing against the "arrogance" of other religions and/or atheists while all the while asserting.... so far seemingly based on nothing.... that one religion has it more correct than any other?

But in short, how do you know what "god is" when you appear to not even have the first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the assertion THAT "god is" in the first place. Which, again, is what this thread is about.

The problem is that the existence of God isn't a question that can be answered using the narrow amount of evidence you allow. If we cant use logic reason and intuition imagination emotion together then we cant answer this question. For some reason you seem to start from the position that physical scientific evidence is the only acceptable evidence. Again I would point out that is as much a religious position as claiming that masturbation is a sin. It's an unproveable assertion.

georgesstreet · 29-11-2013 01:29PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

The problem is that the existence of God isn't a question that can be answered using the narrow amount of evidence you allow. If we cant use logic reason and intuition imagination emotion together then we cant answer this question. For some reason you seem to start from the position that physical scientific evidence is the only acceptable evidence. Again I would point out that is as much a religious position as claiming that masturbation is a sin. It's an unproveable assertion.

have you considered telling us what your evidence is, rather than your edited version of your opinion as to what someone else's evidence might be?

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-11-2013 02:18PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

The problem is that the existence of God isn't a question that can be answered using the narrow amount of evidence you allow.

Given I have at no point detailed any criteria on the evidence I will or will not "allow" I think you are merely knee jerk making things up about me now as a cop out to the discussion at hand.

I am perfectly willing, as I have said on many threads before, to consider and discuss ANY and ALL evidence, argument, data and reasoning you wish to put before me on the subject of god.

Alas you are not presenting any and are instead choosing to pre-decline the evidence on my behalf before I even know what it may or may not be.

tommy2bad wrote: »

For some reason you seem to start from the position that physical scientific evidence is the only acceptable evidence.

Do I? Again when and where did I state or impose these criteria? You appear to be doing it, once again, on my behalf.

EVERY time I enter a discussion on god I always use the phrase above "Any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god". And invariably it is YOU guys, not me, that brings science into it. I never impose any such limitations from the outset but you and your cohort consistently do it on my behalf.

So rather, just once, than speaking ABOUT the evidence or whether you believe I will accept it or not.... why not just once actually present some of it? It would be a welcome breath of fresh air because in 2 decades of asking for it, no one seems to be forthcoming and responses such as yours which deflect from actually doing that are what I consistently and invariably receive.

To repeat the above: You not only seem to be privy to streams of data that confirm to you there IS a god, but do so to the extent that you can make differentiation and value judgements about the accuracy of different descriptions about said entity. I merely am curious to know what data this is that you are privy to that I have been precluded. As the only other conclusion available to me is that you are simply making it up as you go along.

tommy2bad · 29-11-2013 02:56PM

While your own emotions may, for you, be enough evidence for the existence of a god, to expect others to be persuaded to believe in anything because of your subjective emotions demonstrates why emotion is an inferior method as a means of proof or evidence.

Arguments from emotion do not a substantiation make

One from each of you. If I go back far enough I'll dig up more cursory dismissals of anything other than physical evidence.
Again this is point less as you won't be convinced by anything I say. All you will do is attack my reasoning and attempt to convince me I'm wrong.
Still for **** n giggles I'll take the time and post my personal reasoning for why I believe in God. I won't prove that He exists but I can and will show the process I have used to reach the position I'm in.
more later.

georgesstreet · 29-11-2013 03:01PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

have you considered telling us what your evidence is, rather than your edited version of your opinion as to what someone else's evidence might be?

tommy2bad wrote: »

One from each of you. If I go back far enough I'll dig up more cursory dismissals of anything other than physical evidence.
Again this is point less as you won't be convinced by anything I say. All you will do is attack my reasoning and attempt to convince me I'm wrong.
Still for **** n giggles I'll take the time and post my personal reasoning for why I believe in God. I won't prove that He exists but I can and will show the process I have used to reach the position I'm in.
more later.

It seems you are not able to actually make your case, and prefer instead to do anything other than make your arguments, so it seems pointless prolonging the (lack of) discussion with you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-11-2013 03:36PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

One from each of you. If I go back far enough I'll dig up more cursory dismissals of anything other than physical evidence.

So of all the types of evidence you could present, I explain at some length why I reject ONE of them.

And having rejected ONE of them you morph this into "dismissals of anything other than physical evidence".

Leap to non sequitur exaggerated conclusions much? This makes as much sense (that is to say, none) as if you claimed I reject all and every type of food except chips. And in SOLE support of that you reference a day when you offered my peas and I declined.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again this is point less as you won't be convinced by anything I say.

No. It is pointless if YOU pre-decline and pre-reject all your supposed evidence before even presenting it, and then justify that to yourself by taking one piece or category of evidence and exploding that... solely in your own head.... to being a blanket rejection of all but one type of evidence.

You are contriving here to build a fantasy framework.... on our behalf.... for what we will and will not accept/reject in order to obfuscate the fact that you simply are not presenting anything at all TO accept or reject.

And conversation on the topic of this thread can not move forward in that form because until you start presenting something.... anything at all.... you can simply just sit there and declare and assert we will not accept what you present anyway.

But it is you... not us.... proporting to have not just evidence this god exists but evidence enough that you can discern relative accuracy in descriptions about that god. For the third time I repeat my simply question: What data are you using to make such evaluations that you have access to but I and others are precluded. Or are you, as I suspect, simply making it up as you go.

tommy2bad wrote: »

All you will do is attack my reasoning and attempt to convince me I'm wrong.

I have no interest in convincing YOU of anything. This is a social discussion group.

You are entirely correct however that if I find your reasoning lacking I will explain exactly how and why I find it lacking. "Attack" is not the right word but otherwise you are entirely correct. I fully intend to evaluate and discuss any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you present.

But I will not be doing it in order to mock _you_ or convince _you_ of anything. I will be doing it for the general good of the art of discourse for which this forum, and specifically this thread in this case, exist to facilitate.

If you choose to take any of it personally at any point then so be it, but please do so while realizing this is 100% your choice and 0% my intention.

lmaopml · 30-11-2013 12:42AM

Jernal wrote: »

Nah, point still stands buddhism is an atheist religion. Some buddhists aren't atheists obviously. But many flavours of buddhism don't involve any personal God.

I think Buddhism, having explored it on the surface is a form of 'sprituality' that covers a vast array of beliefs - it's certainly not solely 'Atheist' - although it may have tenets of non belief in 'one' God, this is true.

I would certainly not call every Buddhist an 'Atheist'. I doubt very much serious Buddhists would call themselves such..in fact, I'd say they wouldn't imagine an association at all.

I think it's kind of like the Protestant version of Hinduism looking at the history - which is quite an old religion - and has some very cool tenets and not so cool.

I don't think it's 'Atheist' - tbh, I think that's just a grab in the dark.

Interesting topic though.

feargale · 30-11-2013 12:54AM

Well, after 7750 posts or so, have you figured out whether there is a god or not. Has anybody had their mind changed?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-11-2013 07:52AM

At least you people seem to debate over here, the A&A forum feels like a college fraternity dorm at times, with people posted childish memes and saying things like "cool story brah" instead of engaging in the questions posed.

I think they invent insults for themselves also like you 'filthy heathen.'

You guys for the most part are mature and express your views very well. Real Debate, not school yard nonsense.

PopePalpatine · 30-11-2013 02:47PM

Yes, because trying to explain evolution to creationist trolls is definitely "immature". :rolleyes:

tommy2bad · 30-11-2013 08:18PM

OK I promised to do this and so....
I was asked to provide evidence for the existence of God, straight away lets be clear I am nor providing evidence just my reasons and thinking for why I believe in God.
I believe in God. As you can imaging this is not a statement proving anything more than that I believe. It more manifesto or mission statement than factual claim. So why do I believe? A combination of things, first the something rather than nothing argument. Second the way the universe works from chaos to complexity. Third the testimony and record of Gods interaction with man since, well since man became aware of himself.
I fully realize that this is not 'a scientific claim' and never say so but science isn't the only form of knowledge. I don't need cat scans to know I love my wife, I don't need any instruments to know how I feel about something.
I believe that the juadeo christian version of God is the closest to what this God is like. This is my opinion based on how I understand God and how He reveals Himself to man. It's the best approximation we have.
I admit it's probably not a good approximation and that a lot of the stuff we attribute to God is self aggrandizement and egocentric bull but again this is not a set of rules and laws, it's a relationship, a personal relationship with God. It always was.

I don't expect anyone to be convinced by my beliefs or to live according to them, I can only offer my view and if it helps then well and good, if not..well it's your life.

Now stuff I don't believe;
I don't believe God talks to anyone like we talk to each other, it more by inspiration. I don't believe God sends people to hell for what they do with their genitalia. I don't believe God micro manages the world to the benefit of the pious or chosen or blessed. And I don't think God cares much what we think of Him. He dose care what we do to each other and how we treat one another.
Sorry I have no evidence to offer, nor any amusing stories of voices talking or bushes burning. All I have is that as a human who uses what I know to make sense of the world and give it meaning my faith works as well as anything else I'v seen and better than most.
Oh and don't bother asking why do I need meaning, we all need meaning, it explains the world to us, you know like science dose? Remember all of science is an attempt to explain aspects of the world to ourselves, the arts and religion add to this explanation, not take from it.

nagirrac · 30-11-2013 08:50PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, because trying to explain evolution to creationist trolls is definitely "immature". :rolleyes:

Trying to explain the theory of evolution to "creationists", as in followers of YEC or ID, regardless of whether they are genuine or trolls, is a colossal waste of time. In particular creationists from the ICR school of thought (YEC). A creationist will never be convinced by any amount of scientific evidence, as creationism is not based on science. By its very definition. For something to be regarded as science (as it is understood and defined today), it has to be testable, and creationism is not testable, therefore not science.

What many posters in A&A fail to grasp however is that the great majority of believers, regardless of their religion or absence of religion, not alone have no problem with the fact of evolution, but have no problem with the ongoing development of the theory of evolution. For example, of the roughly 2.5 billion Christians worldwide, 75% comprising Catholics and Orthodox have no issues with the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution. I don't have the breakdown for Protestant churches, but by no means are all Protestants YEC.

Turtwig · 30-11-2013 08:55PM

I swear!

I'm going to be seeing that e-word in my nightmares for sometime to come. Those creationism threads are like chewing through barbed wire encased in glass.

nagirrac · 30-11-2013 09:02PM

Fortunately you can always come over here for a bit of real R&R Jernal

On some of those threads Ritalin and Redbull alone are not sufficient

Benny_Cake · 30-11-2013 09:07PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Fortunately you can always come over here for a bit of real R&R Jernal

On some of those threads Ritalin and Redbull alone are not sufficient

You haven't seen the resident evolution megathread here then?! If only it was restricted to A&A! I'd add gargling with sulphuric acid to Jernal's list of tortures.

Turtwig · 30-11-2013 09:16PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You haven't seen the resident evolution megathread here then?! If only it was restricted to A&A! I'd add gargling with sulphuric acid to Jernal's list of tortures.

Yeah and who's Idea was it to resurrect that thread again?

Benny_Cake · 30-11-2013 09:23PM

Jernal wrote: »

Yeah and who's Idea was it to resurrect that thread again?

Not my finest moment. Hopefully it'll be off the first page soon.

nagirrac · 30-11-2013 09:23PM

I forgot about that thread, shame on me!
In fairness there's a limit to how much torture one can take.

Manach · 30-11-2013 11:02PM

For evolution discussion (with added dinosaurs), feel free to join in on the Palaeo forums, new posters are always welcome.

J C · 30-11-2013 11:13PM

Manach wrote: »

For evolution discussion (with added dinosaurs), feel free to join in on the Palaeo forums, new posters are always welcome.

Do you want a Creation Paleontologist over there ... or is there already one in residence?;)

Turtwig · 30-11-2013 11:24PM

Manach run! Get the palaeo forums out of here while you still can!

J C · 30-11-2013 11:34PM

Jernal wrote: »

Manach run! Get the palaeo forums out of here while you still can!

No sweat ... not going there anytime soon.:D

Manach · 30-11-2013 11:50PM

J C wrote: »

Do you want a Creation Paleontologist over there ... or is there already one in residence?;)

Sorry mate - I think I'm there on the kindness of the other posters and as well as because I'm orthodox in my Geological world-view.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments