Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad wrote: »

Life is too short , if you are not interested in engaging so be it . Surprising how defensive faith posters are when it comes down to it.

Nothing defensive about it

I believe an God but cannot prove He exists. That does not negate His existence.
You do not believe in God but cannot prove the He does not exist.

If neither of us can prove our positions we have stalemate. After that it is a matter of one forcing the other to resign, and that's pointless.

Festus wrote: »

Nothing defensive about it

I believe an God but cannot prove He exists. That does not negate His existence.
You do not believe in God but cannot prove the He does not exist.

If neither of us can prove our positions we have stalemate. After that it is a matter of one forcing the other to resign, and that's pointless.

This is meaningless . Every belief system since the dawn of time can say the exactly same thing. And they can equally say you can't prove I am wrong ,- so what ?

If we took that as the standard we would never get out of bed in the morning .

If you have faith that good luck to you , but leave it at that .

Festus wrote: »

Nothing defensive about it

I believe an God but cannot prove He exists. That does not negate His existence.
You do not believe in God but cannot prove the He does not exist.

If neither of us can prove our positions we have stalemate. After that it is a matter of one forcing the other to resign, and that's pointless.

Festus, you're going back and forth. I've read your comments over the last few pages - you say on one hand you have evidence for your god, now here you say cannot prove he exists.
Which is it?
Are you thinking in terms of absolute, ultimate proof?

I'm also starting a new thing for myself here - I'm going to demand an apology from you. Much like how it's not nice to tell Person A they're worthless or deserve negative treatment for something beyond their control (such as their sex, race, sexual orientation etc), I view your comments towards me about my deserving hell for not being convinced of your god claim to be equally, if not far worse, than racial/sexual slurs.
This isn't about whether or not such claims are true. It's about social harmony and general politeness. It may be true that, for example, women tend to be physically weaker (not always, but tend to be) in upper body strength than men, but that does not then give one a licence to fling sexual slurs towards women.
I view it the same way regarding my not believing your god claim. It is out of my hands, because I have not been convinced (how does one somehow choose what to believe, to be convinced of?). Even if your god claim is true, it does not entitle you to espouse that I somehow am deserving of eternal torment.

Safehands wrote: »

Your "evidence" is purely based on a book or books written thousands of years ago, when science was largely unknown.

Where did I say that is my evidence or are you being presumptive or even omniscient. If the latter perhaps you can prove to me that is my evidence.

Safehands wrote: »

If you ignore science and take the stories which are impossible within the laws of physics, as being literally true, then you absolutely need to close your mind and say "this actually happened, even though I know there is no way it can be explained".

Are you suggesting there is a conflict between faith and science or religion and science?

If you are saying that in order to believe in God one must reject science then you are also suggesting that all scientists are atheists. Can you categorically state that and prove it?

Safehands wrote: »

For the sake of argument, if you had never ever heard about God or the Bible until you were a well educated 21 year old, and it was suddenly presented to you as the real way things happened, do you think you would be convinced?

I take science papers literally but what you are talking about is not a scientific paper. It has prose and poetry in it, and indeed some science -albeit presented in a literary manner- but why should I take it literally.
I understand it was written to speak to all men over all ages so I would also have to take that into account.

Safehands wrote: »

Do you think you could abandon everything you had studied about physics evolution and science and latch on to this new story you had just heard about?

There is no conflict so why should I?

marienbad wrote: »

This is meaningless

If that is true you can prove what I said is wrong.

Festus wrote: »

If that is true you can prove what I said is wrong.

Why would I even try ? I can say right now my God is God and you can't prove me wrong . So what ?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Festus, you're going back and forth. I've read your comments over the last few pages - you say on one hand you have evidence for your god, now here you say cannot prove he exists.
Which is it?

I'm not going back and forth, I am stating my case. I have evidence which satisfies my faith but I have as much proof He exists as you have that He does not.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Are you thinking in terms of absolute, ultimate proof?

If there is a lower form of proof that is acceptable to you please state it.

marienbad wrote: »

Why would I even try ? I can say right now my God is God and you can't prove me wrong . So what ?

Are you saying that for the sake of saying it or do you believe your God is God?

Festus wrote: »

I'm not going back and forth, I am stating my case. I have evidence which satisfies my faith but I have as much proof He exists as you have that He does not.

If there is a lower form of proof that is acceptable to you please state it.

Evidence and proof tend to mean the same thing (although in the precise technical sense, proof is only ever really meant to be talked about in mathematics).
Faith is a belief in X without proof. So you're saying...you have evidence that makes you believe X without proof/evidence. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Can you share your evidence?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm also starting a new thing for myself here - I'm going to demand an apology from you. Much like how it's not nice to tell Person A they're worthless or deserve negative treatment for something beyond their control (such as their sex, race, sexual orientation etc), I view your comments towards me about my deserving hell for not being convinced of your god claim to be equally, if not far worse, than racial/sexual slurs.
This isn't about whether or not such claims are true. It's about social harmony and general politeness. It may be true that, for example, women tend to be physically weaker (not always, but tend to be) in upper body strength than men, but that does not then give one a licence to fling sexual slurs towards women.
I view it the same way regarding my not believing your god claim. It is out of my hands, because I have not been convinced (how does one somehow choose what to believe, to be convinced of?). Even if your god claim is true, it does entitle you to espouse that I somehow am deserving of eternal torment.

Present the supporting evidence for this allegation. Or go back to the post where you allege this occurred and report it.

Festus wrote: »

Are you saying that for the sake of saying it or do you believe your God is God?

what difference does it make ? None for the purpose of this discussion . If you have proof to whatever standard then lets see it.

If it is valid it will convince others as it did you. On the other hand if it is just faith than that is a whole different ballgame

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Evidence and proof tend to mean the same thing (although in the precise technical sense, proof is only ever really meant to be talked about in mathematics).

Not true for if it was there would never be a miscarriage of justice.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Faith is a belief in X without proof. So you're saying...you have evidence that makes you believe X without proof/evidence. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I guess it depends on what you understand by faith.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Can you share your evidence?

I said before that I wasn't going to spoon feed you. If you want to find God you have to do it on your own. He wants you to find Him. He does not want me to take you by the hand and bring you to Him.

Festus wrote: »

Present the supporting evidence for this allegation. Or go back to the post where you allege this occurred and report it.

This comment here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93070376&postcount=8376

and here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93070949&postcount=8382

Also on this comment
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93071563&postcount=8387
you said "I believe atheists probably don't exist."
So in your view, it's not that I am not convinced of the truth of your claim. In your view, I do believe your god exists, but am actively rejecting him. Thus, what you say in the first link comes into play, and I am somehow deserving of "hell by default" for rejecting your god.

marienbad wrote: »

what difference does it make ? None for the purpose of this discussion . If you have proof to whatever standard then lets see it.

No offense and excuse the sweeping generalization but why should I deliberately expose myself to ridicule on this thread? And as I said to you before it is evidence, and it is evidence that satisfies me, not proof.

marienbad wrote: »

If it is valid it will convince others as it did you. On the other hand if it is just faith than that is a whole different ballgame

As I said to another poster on this thread, if you what to find God you have to do it on your own. The truth is there to be found. It is not just faith but that is a significant part to it - after all, this is the Christianity forum.

Festus wrote: »

I said before that I wasn't going to spoon feed you. If you want to find God you have to do it on your own. He wants you to find Him. He does not want me to take you by the hand and bring you to Him.

No I believe your precise words were

For me God exists and I see the proof of Him every day.

and

If you are truly interested in proving the existence of God you may find the proof.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93080311&postcount=8395

So again, you're going back and forth. On the one hand, you mention proof, you mention you have it and see it, you mention you have evidence, you say I can find proof, then up above you say you can't prove your god.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This comment here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93070376&postcount=8376

and here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93070949&postcount=8382

Also on this comment
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93071563&postcount=8387

What you said I said is not supported by these posts. If you disagree I suggest to make a formal compaint to the mods.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

you said "I believe atheists probably don't exist."

That is true and I have presented supporting evidence for this belief in a later post.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So in your view, it's not that I am not convinced of the truth of your claim. In your view, I do believe your god exists, but am actively rejecting him. Thus, what you say in the first link comes into play, and I am somehow deserving of "hell by default" for rejecting your god.

Your version of my view is nothing more than your opinion and I reiterate I did not say you are deserving of anything.

But I do have to commend you on the leap of faith required for your jump to the conclusion you believe you have arrive at.

Festus wrote: »

What you said I said is not supported by these posts. If you disagree I suggest to make a formal compaint to the mods.

That is true and I have presented supporting evidence for this belief in a later post.

Your version of my view is nothing more than your opinion and I reiterate I did not say you are deserving of anything.

But I do have to commend you on the leap of faith required for your jump to the conclusion you believe you have arrive at.

For now, I won't make a formal complaint to the mods, although I do believe I can make a strong argument towards them that espousing a belief in hell violates Article 3 of the charter

"3. Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own."

especially with your comments about atheists (crude generalisation). What else is one supposed to call it when you lump a group of people together, say they are lying about what it is they professing to belief/not believe and then say they choose hell by default, which in your view, is the worst thing ever (being apart from your god and being aware of it).
Your comments and believe can also be said to violate Article 6

6. Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. The goal of this forum is to be a place where ideas relating to Christianity are expounded, debated and challenged. While discussion is encouraged, each member is expected to remain within the boundaries of taste and decency. If you disagree with a opinion expressed, please do so in a well mannered fashion.

Expressing a belief that someone ought to go or is bound for eternal torment is within the boundaries of taste and decency?

So I'm going to ask this. If I insulted your sex or race, and made disparaging comments about you and what I think you deserve for being that sex or race, would you not at the very least demand an apology for my uttering such vile speech?
If so, can you not see that you are doing the very same thing to me, in that you are taking something that I am (atheist), that I have no control over whatsoever, and saying this horrible thing will happen to me because of it, that I somehow choose this thing by default?

Benny_Cake

RikuoAmero wrote: »

For now, I won't make a formal complaint to the mods, although I do believe I can make a strong argument towards them that espousing a belief in hell violates Article 3 of the charter

especially with your comments about atheists (crude generalisation). What else is one supposed to call it when you lump a group of people together, say they are lying about what it is they professing to belief/not believe and then say they choose hell by default, which in your view, is the worst thing ever (being apart from your god and being aware of it).
Your comments and believe can also be said to violate Article 6

Expressing a belief that someone ought to go or is bound for eternal torment is within the boundaries of taste and decency?

So I'm going to ask this. If I insulted your sex or race, and made disparaging comments about you and what I think you deserve for being that sex or race, would you not at the very least demand an apology for my uttering such vile speech?
If so, can you not see that you are doing the very same thing to me, in that you are taking something that I am (atheist), that I have no control over whatsoever, and saying this horrible thing will happen to me because of it, that I somehow choose this thing by default?

Mod: Just FYI - if you feel that a post violates the charter, you should report it rather than taking it up point-by-point on the thread. Backseat moderation is definitely against the charter. Feel free to report posts or drop a mod a PM if you have any questions - thanks.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mod: Just FYI - if you feel that a post violates the charter, you should report it rather than taking it up point-by-point on the thread. Backseat moderation is definitely against the charter. Feel free to report posts or drop a mod a PM if you have any questions - thanks.

I don't want to report Festus, since I can presume that if you agree with me, then you will prevent him from posting for some length of time? I don't want his speech silenced.
Another reason I don't to report him is that this would put you, the moderators, in a difficult position, of having to make a judgement call as to whether christianity as a religion violates its own charter (with regards to the hell belief it espouses).
All I want is an apology from Festus.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

For now, I won't make a formal complaint to the mods, although I do believe I can make a strong argument towards them that espousing a belief in hell violates Article 3 of the charter

especially with your comments about atheists (crude generalisation). What else is one supposed to call it when you lump a group of people together, say they are lying about what it is they professing to belief/not believe and then say they choose hell by default, which in your view, is the worst thing ever (being apart from your god and being aware of it).
Your comments and believe can also be said to violate Article 6

Expressing a belief that someone ought to go or is bound for eternal torment is within the boundaries of taste and decency?

Please, make a formal complaint.

The reason I responded to your post on "Testomonies Of People Who have Claimed To See Heaven or Hell" in the first place was your crude generalization of all Christians, and possibly some Jews, as gullible.

That and your inflamatory and somewhat insulting (IMO) description of the Bible as "a highly suspect translation of a collection of books with no known authors"

Now, I believe (pardon the pun) that I have responded to you in a reasonably well manner fashion and I am more than happy to put my faith (pun intended) in the mods on this matter.

Festus wrote: »

Please, make a formal complaint.

The reason I responded to your post on "Testomonies Of People Who have Claimed To See Heaven or Hell" in the first place was your crude generalization of all Christians, and possibly some Jews, as gullible.

That and your inflamatory and somewhat insulting (IMO) description of the Bible as "a highly suspect translation of a collection of books with no known authors"

Now, I believe (pardon the pun) that I have responded to you in a reasonably well manner fashion and I am more than happy to put my faith (pun intended) in the mods on this matter.

I will apologize then for what I said about christians being gullible.
However, about the description I gave the bible? I will retract the part about "no known authors" since I remember that bible scholars the world over have a consensus that the books attributed to Paul were indeed written by him. The same cannot be said for any of the other books (such as the gospels or those in the OT). However, the part about the KJV (remember, this is what I was talking about, the KJV in particular, not the original bible manuscripts) is true, since it is a suspect translation.

Festus wrote: »

No offense and excuse the sweeping generalization but why should I deliberately expose myself to ridicule on this thread? And as I said to you before it is evidence, and it is evidence that satisfies me, not proof.

As I said to another poster on this thread, if you what to find God you have to do it on your own. The truth is there to be found. It is not just faith but that is a significant part to it - after all, this is the Christianity forum.

Why would you be ridiculed for giving the evidence for the existence of God any more than you are now ? And it might be the Christianity forum but the thread is the existence of God debates , so a bit more latitude I suppose.

If you say it is evidence and not proof , that is a different matter .

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

I have evidence which satisfies my faith

Where is that evidence?

Safehands wrote: »

Where is that evidence?

Everywhere.

Festus wrote: »

Everywhere.

Talk about not being specific...Also, shouldn't this answer count as you 'spoonfeeding' us non-believers? I thought you said you wouldn't do that.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Everywhere.

Sorry Festus, If that is the best you can do then you really don't have any. Imagine an answer like that being presented in court. Where is your evidence for the existence of God and you give us that pat answer. It is not everywhere!

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Talk about not being specific...Also, shouldn't this answer count as you 'spoonfeeding' us non-believers? I thought you said you wouldn't do that.

and I won't. I was asked where the evidence is and I answered honestly. I see it everywhere, everyday.

If you want to find God you will. All you have to do is look for Him.

Safehands wrote: »

Sorry Festus, If that is the best you can do then you really don't have any. Imagine an answer like that being presented in court. Where is your evidence for the existence of God and you give us that pat answer. It is not everywhere!

I'm not in court, am I?

Just because I am not prepared to tell you my evidence does not mean I don't have any. You can assert what you like about me but ultimately it is opinion, nothing more.That your lack of faith blinds you to the evidence for God that is everywhere is not my problem to fix.

Why do you not want to find God?

Squeedily Spooch

Festus wrote: »

Everywhere.

There's none. Zip, nada, zilch, zero evidence a god or gods exist.

Lady Chuckles

Festus wrote: »

Everywhere.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Talk about not being specific...Also, shouldn't this answer count as you 'spoonfeeding' us non-believers? I thought you said you wouldn't do that.

Safehands wrote: »

Sorry Festus, If that is the best you can do then you really don't have any. Imagine an answer like that being presented in court. Where is your evidence for the existence of God and you give us that pat answer. It is not everywhere!

I don't think you're being fair on Festus.
He obviously has enough "evidence" to satisfy himself of the existence of God. I don't understand why you'd even ask for "evidence" in the first place. Besides, I sense that nothing a theist could ever say in this matter would make you go "Oh, I see where you're coming from...." so why pressure someone to convince and defend if you don't enter with an open mind?