Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…257258260262263…327

Comments

  • #7772
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    debate

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means


  • #7773
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    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.


    That is a pretty sincere and honest post Tommy. Good on you for being an honest and sincere person, not everybody will agree 100% of the time, much as people like others, and not everybody will agree at all sometimes, but one thing is for sure, you are quite perfectly 'you' - it's good to know yourself and 'wisdom' starts out with, according to Scripture what has been called 'fear of God' but has commonly been understood as awe and wonder at everything, including ones own self..( translation/understanding ) I think you have that gift! Never lose it...


  • #7774
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Tbh if someone believes in god but doesn't crucify anyone who doesn't follow their beliefs, or tries to stand in their way using their religion as the means to do that, I really don't care what they believe and I really don't see any issue with that if they get comfort out of it.

    I'd really like that if everyone could do their own thing and there would be no problems at all with opposing views on this subject.
    Sadly that's not how everyone operates, though.


  • #7775
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Manach wrote: »
    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. :)
    ... why are you in there on the 'kindness of other posters' ... is it some kind of 'members only' forum??

    ... and what do you mean that you are 'orthodox in your Geological world-view'?
    ... are there people over there who are 'atheist' in their Geological world-view?


  • #7776
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Tbh if someone believes in god but doesn't crucify anyone who doesn't follow their beliefs, or tries to stand in their way using their religion as the means to do that, I really don't care what they believe and I really don't see any issue with that if they get comfort out of it.

    I'd really like that if everyone could do their own thing and there would be no problems at all with opposing views on this subject.
    Sadly that's not how everyone operates, though.
    I certainly have no problem with anybody expressing their worldview, whatever it may be ... but I have encountered many people who are grossly intolerant of me expressing mine.


  • Advertisement
  • #7777
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    I certainly have no problem with anybody expressing their worldview, whatever it may be ... but I have encountered many people who are grossly intolerant of me expressing mine.

    If your religion teaches to discriminate against certain groups of people then yes, you keep that stuff to yourself. That's not discrimination, that's being told to rightfully feck off because your religion is not means enough to justify it.

    If more religions did that there'd be far less problems.


  • #7778
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    If your religion teaches to discriminate against certain groups of people then yes, you keep that stuff to yourself. That's not discrimination, that's being told to rightfully feck off because your religion is not means enough to justify it.

    If more religions did that there'd be far less problems.
    ... so you guys can discriminate and 'bad mouth' Creationists with impunity then?

    As a Christian I believe in loving everyone as myself ... so I certainly don't believe in discriminating against any group or individual.

    Sounds like you're not living up to the standards you expect from everybody else.


  • #7779
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you guys can discriminate and 'bad mouth' Creationists with impunity then?

    As a Christian I believe in loving everyone as myself ... so I certainly don't believe in discriminating against any group or individual.

    Sounds like you're not living up to the standards you expect from everybody else.

    Considering the evidence and religious support for creationism bad mouthing creationists isentierly justified. They are knaves or fools. Both need to be mocked, the knaves to reduce the damage they might cause and fools to correct their foolishness, all in the spirit of christian love of course.


  • #7780
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Considering the evidence and religious support for creationism bad mouthing creationists is entierly justified.
    Bad mouthing your opponent is an infallible sign that you have lost the argument ... otherwise all you need to do is point to the evidence in favour of your position and against your opponents position. No need to get involved in personal abuse.

    Christian Creationists are taking the first item of the Christian Creed and proving it to be true. This sounds like something that all Christians (who procalim the Apostles and Nicene Creeds that God Created Heaven and Earth and all things visible and invisible) should be doing.

    tommy2bad wrote: »
    They are knaves or fools. Both need to be mocked, the knaves to reduce the damage they might cause and fools to correct their foolishness, all in the spirit of christian love of course.
    Should be easy to prove that what they say is untrue then.
    ... something that hasn't happened in thousands of pages on the Boards.
    ... indeed the reverse is true ... and Evolution (from Pondkind to Mankind) hangs 'naked and folorn' ... without evidential support.
    ... and even the Evolutionists are giving up on it ... in its current incarnation of Natural Selection of Random Mutation.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87695919&postcount=1
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87721650&postcount=16


  • #7781
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    The NEXT utterance of creationism/evolution/young earth in this thread will earn the poster a permanent ban. Ok maybe not a ban but it will make this Mod and Benny print out your post and stab it and burn it and shred it it until all the rage and frustration is released! Then finally delete the tattered wreck!


  • Advertisement
  • #7782
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jernal wrote: »
    The NEXT utterance of creationism/evolution/young earth in this thread will earn the poster a permanent ban. Ok maybe not a ban but it will make this Mod and Benny print out your post and stab it and burn it and shred it it until all the rage and frustration is released! Then finally delete the tattered wreck!
    Thanks Jeranal.

    ... so why do Atheists have such problem with the love of Jesus Christ for them and all other people?
    ... and why don't they just go and get Saved ... and be done with it?


  • #7783
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Thanks Jeranal.

    ... so why do Atheists have such problem with the love of Jesus Christ for them and all other people?
    ... and why don't they just go and get Saved ... and be done with it?
    Because it's all made up.

    MrP


  • #7784
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Because it's all made up.

    MrP
    Here's the thing ... it isn't made up ... God is real ... and wants to Save you.


  • #7785
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Here's the thing ... it isn't made up ... God is real ... and wants to Save you.
    Prove it. I'm looking for proof off you for ages now.

    Mod edit: <SNIP> Creationism megathread please!


  • #7786
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    first the something rather than nothing argument.

    A terrible argument/thought however given the assumption it clings to. It assumes that "nothing" is the default and the "something" has to be explained. Given our endless ignorance as a species as to the mechanisms of reality, what justification have we for making such an assumption? None that I can think of. Why is it not just as valid to say "something" is the default and the onus is on you to explain why you feel "nothing" is dominant.

    Further the argument is not even an argument. It is a question. And open questions are not evidence, as we have seen so starkly in the recent abject and embarrassing failure to support the hypothesis of Reincarnation. Unanswered questions are NOT evidence for fantastical assertions and hence "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not evidence at all for "There is a god".
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Second the way the universe works from chaos to complexity.

    What of it? You simply throw that out there without qualifying it in any way.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Third the testimony and record of Gods interaction with man since, well since man became aware of himself.

    Or more precisely the second hand testimony of witch doctors and clergy with a vested interest in their own career? Hardly convincing.

    So alas I am not seeing any evidence for you here. What I am seeing is you up front believing in god and then justifying such belief in retrospect with anything you can lay your hands on.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Sorry I have no evidence to offer

    No problem. It is refreshing to hear such an admission rather than, as I said in an earlier post, those people who go on and on and on about how much evidence there is out there.... all the while performing linguistic back flips of the most egregious nature to get out of being pinned down on presenting any of it.


  • #7787
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    J C wrote: »
    Here's the thing ... it isn't made up ... God is real ... and wants to Save you.

    Ah welcome back to actually being on topic for the thread. That is exactly what this thread is discussing. Alas we are discussing IF that is true. So you merely asserting it is true and running off does not exactly move the conversation forward.

    Have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to support the hypothesis that a non human intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe? Or are we to merely make do with your assertions on the matter?


  • #7788
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    A terrible argument/thought however given the assumption it clings to. It assumes that "nothing" is the default and the "something" has to be explained. Given our endless ignorance as a species as to the mechanisms of reality, what justification have we for making such an assumption? None that I can think of. Why is it not just as valid to say "something" is the default and the onus is on you to explain why you feel "nothing" is dominant.

    Further the argument is not even an argument. It is a question. And open questions are not evidence, as we have seen so starkly in the recent abject and embarrassing failure to support the hypothesis of Reincarnation. Unanswered questions are NOT evidence for fantastical assertions and hence "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not evidence at all for "There is a god".
    I agree it's a terrible argument but it's one that apples to everything if we regress back far enough. Every form of evidence goes back to a presumption. We always begin from 'if a then b' go back enough and their is and cant' be evidence of 'a' without it becoming circular. One of those things we are stuck with.


    What of it? You simply throw that out there without qualifying it in any way.
    The fact that it happens this way rather than from complexity to chaos is evidence of something, laws of physics, random chance or a direction of creation.


    Or more precisely the second hand testimony of witch doctors and clergy with a vested interest in their own career? Hardly convincing.
    You misunderstand, it's the existence of the record that convinces me, not the contents of the record.
    So alas I am not seeing any evidence for you here. What I am seeing is you up front believing in god and then justifying such belief in retrospect with anything you can lay your hands on.



    No problem. It is refreshing to hear such an admission rather than, as I said in an earlier post, those people who go on and on and on about how much evidence there is out there.... all the while performing linguistic back flips of the most egregious nature to get out of being pinned down on presenting any of it.

    See again you insist that the evidence be what you conciser evidence. Which is to completely miss the point, religion/faith isn't science, not an empirical one anyway. It never claims to be ( unlike some of it's followers). It's a way to knowledge which along with science and art allows us to understand and give meaning to the world and our part in it.
    Data is not knowledge, we have to put the data into a context.


  • #7789
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    You really make it difficult to reply to you when you quote me and then change what I said in that quote by adding your own. If you require any lessons on proper use of the quote function I am willing to offer some if you want.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I agree it's a terrible argument but it's one that apples to everything if we regress back far enough.

    Which only weakens any theist argument rather than strengthens it. What you are essentially pointing out is that we can never really know anything for sure, something that is actually built into the foundations of science. And because of that uncertainty... this some how lends credibility to something someone somewhere simply made up out of nowhere.

    Our uncertainty in knowing anything for sure does not add credibility to the notion there is a god, it removes from it, if there were any to be removed. Do we make assumptions at the foundations of things like science? Absolutely. But they work. They build civilisations, technologies, even the system through which we are having this discussion. We are not just making assumptions, we are verifying to the furthest degree our limited abilities allow that those assumptions are warranted.

    The assumptions built into the core of the god argument, or the "something rather than nothing" question, however are in no way validated. It is a false equivalence you attempt to build by pointing to our uncertainty in other areas in order to make them equivalent to the vast ones in this area.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    The fact that it happens this way rather than from complexity to chaos is evidence of something, laws of physics, random chance or a direction of creation.

    A sentence that uses a lot of words but once you unpack it says precisely nothing. "That it happens that way is evidence of something" merely states the obvious. Of course it is evidence of _something_. The fact there is currently an apple on my table is evidence of _something_. But that does not lend credibility in isolation to me just making up that _something_ to be whatever I like.

    It is evidence of _something_ but in isolation it is in no way evidence there is a god, which is what this thread is about.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    You misunderstand, it's the existence of the record that convinces me, not the contents of the record.

    Then it is you that misunderstands me because my point is not related to or negated by that. The existence of testimony is in itself not convincing. What that testimony is and how we can independently verify it is. And this is clearly evidenced by you yourself. There exists testimony on many subjects. Yet you lend credence to some and withhold it from others. That is cherry picking and dilutes the usefulness of the point you are trying to make.

    How is, for example, you saying that any different from saying the _exact same words_ about the existence of UFOs and abduction with anal probing? Why is the existence of that record, that testimony, not instantly as convincing? Clearly it can only be, as I said in the post previous to this one, that you have in advance picked the belief (in this case god over UFOs) and are retrospectively retrofitting the justification for that. Even to the point of selectively applying arguments where they suit, and rejecting those self same arguments where they do not.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    See again you insist that the evidence be what you conciser evidence.

    No I do not. That is once again you building a framework on my behalf that makes the paucity of your own arguments more palatable to you. I am explaining at great length why I am rejecting the arguments presented. I am not suggesting or touting and "constrants". In fact my definition of evidence is very simple indeed:

    1) State clearly what it is you are claiming.
    2) State clearly the things you think support that claim.
    3) State clearly exactly how the things in 2 support the things in 1.

    That is hardly a constraint. It is very wide and accepting in fact. Alas you are truly vague on part 1), doing pretty ok at part 2), and pretty much bypassing entirely part 3).


  • #7790
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You really make it difficult to reply to you when you quote me and then change what I said in that quote by adding your own. If you require any lessons on proper use of the quote function I am willing to offer some if you want.



    Which only weakens any theist argument rather than strengthens it. What you are essentially pointing out is that we can never really know anything for sure, something that is actually built into the foundations of science. And because of that uncertainty... this some how lends credibility to something someone somewhere simply made up out of nowhere.

    Our uncertainty in knowing anything for sure does not add credibility to the notion there is a god, it removes from it, if there were any to be removed. Do we make assumptions at the foundations of things like science? Absolutely. But they work. They build civilisations, technologies, even the system through which we are having this discussion. We are not just making assumptions, we are verifying to the furthest degree our limited abilities allow that those assumptions are warranted.

    The assumptions built into the core of the god argument, or the "something rather than nothing" question, however are in no way validated. It is a false equivalence you attempt to build by pointing to our uncertainty in other areas in order to make them equivalent to the vast ones in this area.



    A sentence that uses a lot of words but once you unpack it says precisely nothing. "That it happens that way is evidence of something" merely states the obvious. Of course it is evidence of _something_. The fact there is currently an apple on my table is evidence of _something_. But that does not lend credibility in isolation to me just making up that _something_ to be whatever I like.

    It is evidence of _something_ but in isolation it is in no way evidence there is a god, which is what this thread is about.



    Then it is you that misunderstands me because my point is not related to or negated by that. The existence of testimony is in itself not convincing. What that testimony is and how we can independently verify it is. And this is clearly evidenced by you yourself. There exists testimony on many subjects. Yet you lend credence to some and withhold it from others. That is cherry picking and dilutes the usefulness of the point you are trying to make.

    How is, for example, you saying that any different from saying the _exact same words_ about the existence of UFOs and abduction with anal probing? Why is the existence of that record, that testimony, not instantly as convincing? Clearly it can only be, as I said in the post previous to this one, that you have in advance picked the belief (in this case god over UFOs) and are retrospectively retrofitting the justification for that. Even to the point of selectively applying arguments where they suit, and rejecting those self same arguments where they do not.



    No I do not. That is once again you building a framework on my behalf that makes the paucity of your own arguments more palatable to you. I am explaining at great length why I am rejecting the arguments presented. I am not suggesting or touting and "constrants". In fact my definition of evidence is very simple indeed:

    1) State clearly what it is you are claiming.
    2) State clearly the things you think support that claim.
    3) State clearly exactly how the things in 2 support the things in 1.

    That is hardly a constraint. It is very wide and accepting in fact. Alas you are truly vague on part 1), doing pretty ok at part 2), and pretty much bypassing entirely part 3).

    Ahhh I get you now. Some confusion as to what you are arguing here on my part. We agree more than we disagree it seems. Like you I have no evidence for the existence of God. I never claimed to have.
    All I am presenting is an explanation as to why I believe in God. I, as I stated previously don't claim that my believing proves anything.
    You seem to insist on scientific evidence as the only evidence. Which id fair enough, I do the same for most things. But and here's the difference. I don't use science as a philosophy or way of understanding the world or myself. It's too restricting and leaves out most of what makes humans human.
    Hell I'm in this debate to argue that their is no evidence. I will however continue to argue that that isn't the end of the story. For you no evidence = no belief, for me no evidence is irrelevant to belief. I don't need evidence that a way of living is better for me other than the old proof of the pudding.

    Any help with the cutting posts up into slices would be appreciated, I can't seem to make it work.


  • #7791
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    You seem to insist on scientific evidence as the only evidence.

    You have said that before and I corrected you. At some length. Do you think repeating it makes it true?

    Please quote me where I specified such a criteria please or stop making up things about me that are not true. I did not bring science into it, you did.

    I asked if there was there any evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer that lends credence to the claim there is a god. Nothing in that question mentions science, let alone limits the discourse to science.

    If one distills your post down it seems all you are actually saying is "I believe it because I believe it" and I am afraid that does not in any way help further conversation on the matter.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Any help with the cutting posts up into slices would be appreciated, I can't seem to make it work.

    I will change the square brackets to () brackets here for explanation purposes only. Change them back when you are actually doing it to the usual sqaure brackets.

    When you reply to a post like I just did to yours, the post starts with something like (QUOTE=tommy2bad;87800071) and ends with (/QUOTE)

    Simply copy and paste those two things to before, and after, the text you are trying to quote.


  • Advertisement
  • #7792
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Lends credence for whom? I have explained why I believe, as you say "I believe it because I believe it". I don't expect this to prove anything or convince anyone of anything.
    It's a simple argument; I believe X because when I look at the data I an inclined to go with X. It a stance or position to use.

    Again I am saying that their is no evidence, no proof and no need for any. Belief is an act of faith and hope and trust. It's not something we just prove and leave at that, it has to be lived.

    Theirs a big error in a lot of atheist thinking in assuming that believers believe because they think it's a fact, they don't. God knows all the evidence they see daily runs counter to that. It's something they believe because it leads to a better way of being for them. Yes their are nut jobs and idiots but that doesn't mean all believers are nuts and fools.

    Would it make you feel better if it was couched in the language of philosophy or a moral tale? Because most of it is, unless you chose to take a literal reading. In which case your in the same boat as JC, just paddling in opposite directions.


  • #7793
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I have explained why I believe, as you say "I believe it because I believe it". I don't expect this to prove anything or convince anyone of anything.

    That is all well and good but as I said this doesn't help with conversation at all. And this is, last time I checked, a conversation forum. Fine, you believe it because you believe it. I got it. But that sort of kills discourse here doesn't it? The word "Debate" is in the thread title, not "soap box" or "witness" and I do not see a way to discuss or debate "I believe it, just cause". I am interested in conversation and debate, but your post essentially draws a line under and possibility for it so we just have to move on.


  • #7794
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That is all well and good but as I said this doesn't help with conversation at all. And this is, last time I checked, a conversation forum. Fine, you believe it because you believe it. I got it. But that sort of kills discourse here doesn't it? The word "Debate" is in the thread title, not "soap box" or "witness" and I do not see a way to discuss or debate "I believe it, just cause". I am interested in conversation and debate, but your post essentially draws a line under and possibility for it so we just have to move on.

    Debate on what? the existence of God? it's been debated back and forth for millenium and still no one is convinced by either side. I'm only here to insist that such debate is both pointless and frustrating. The question is not, dose God exist? it's, do you believe in God? Then you define what you mean by 'god' and then on to what you believe about God. Dose God exist is a meaningless question, like a child's "why? daddy why?", it will go on forever recursively into eternity.
    In the end it boils down to an atheist position which states, that their is not enough evidence to support the existence of God therefore it's wrong to believe in a God. Opposite the theist position that, first you believe and then you know from the effect that believing has on your life. I'm going with the latter from personal experience, the suck it and see principal.


  • #7795
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Debate on what? the existence of God? it's been debated back and forth for millenium and still no one is convinced by either side. I'm only here to insist that such debate is both pointless and frustrating. The question is not, dose God exist? it's, do you believe in God? Then you define what you mean by 'god' and then on to what you believe about God.

    We know so little about our solar system let alone the universe that contains billions of solar systems, how can we say, with even a micron of certainty that this or that is how it all began. God or a spiritual being could and probably does exist. Does an ant looking over the Cliffs of Moher realise that a vast continent exists beyond the water that he sees? No! We are much smaller in the overall scheme of things than that ant and yet we claim to have all the answers about creation and the existence of a supreme being. Does God exist? Yes, in some form, no doubt he does, but not as we are taught in Mass.


  • #7796
    Mar Mar Marmalade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 140 ✭✭Mar Mar Marmalade


    You know, I truthfully think that everyone is entitled to believe in what they want and people should respect that whether they are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic etc... yet I simply do not understand a lot of people of believe in Atheism. Have nothing against the belief aspect because as I said, everyone's entitled to any belief but just looking at the Athiest forum and it's ridiculous. It has actually has nothing to do with their believe, it's basically just a 'bash every religion/religious person thing'. Then of course a lot of Atheists whom I have met or seen on the internet will judge/call people names with a religious belief saying that their belief is wrong yet they resort to aggression when it comes to their side being taken a go of. Bit hypocritical, eh?

    I wasn't even brought up in a religious household. Father was atheist and then my Mother, as much as she's a Christian, was very private and never 'forced' religion on me. I chose my own belief. I can't understand why there's so much conflict about religion. Why do people (not even just Atheists, religious people too) have to bash one-another just because you believe something different? Come on.


    Everyone of every belief, leave people to themselves and respect them for it. Not everyone's the same. :P


  • #7797
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Mar Mar Marmalade wrote: »
    yet I simply do not understand a lot of people of believe in Atheism.
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.


  • #7798
    Mar Mar Marmalade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 140 ✭✭Mar Mar Marmalade


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    I apologize if my grammar mistake is a major issue.


  • #7799
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Mar Mar Marmalade wrote: »
    I apologize if my grammar mistake is a major issue.
    No, that wasn't it. I was talking about atheism. One doesn't 'believe in atheism' they just don't see any evidence to make them theists. They/we see no reason to be theists on account of seeing no compelling reason to be so.

    Consider this the next time you hear someone say something you don't believe, and how you'll seek evidence before you will believe. You aren't necessarily saying it isn't true, just that you would like to see some reason to believe it is true.

    Just out of curiosity/in case I'm wrong in the above, please explain what you understand by 'believe in atheism'.


  • #7800
    Mar Mar Marmalade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 140 ✭✭Mar Mar Marmalade


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    No, that wasn't it. I was talking about atheism. One doesn't 'believe in atheism' they just don't see any evidence to make them theists. They/we see no reason to be theists on account of seeing no compelling reason to be so.

    Consider this the next time you hear someone say something you don't believe, and how you'll seek evidence before you will believe. You aren't necessarily saying it isn't true, just that you would like to see some reason to believe it is true.

    Just out of curiosity/in case I'm wrong in the above, please explain what you understand by 'believe in atheism'.

    What I mean't by 'believe in Atheism' is that you think or as I said in the previous post, believe there is no god/afterlife/etc and you do not agree with religion, which is fair enough. That sentence wasn't typed correctly so it didn't come out as clearly.

    I'm not too sure what the second paragraph is referring to as I would not disregard an opinion of someone unless I was acknowledged of it. I have considered many alternatives to my current opinion before and I am very open to other's beliefs, whether it be a theist view or an atheist view.


  • Advertisement
  • #7801
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    They/we see no reason to be theists on account of seeing no compelling reason to be so.

    Correct, but because atheists see no compelling reason to be a theist does not mean there is no reason to be a theist. It simply means there is no compelling reason for an atheist to become a theist. Normally that is, as with everything there are exceptions.

    Also, atheism can be a negative (I lack belief in God) or a positive (I don't believe in God) position, which I suspect is where mar mar Marmalade is coming from. The former includes all entities that have not considered the question, new born babies, chairs, etc. while the latter assumes the question has been considered and rejected.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement