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)

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

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you.

That's nothing more than cowardice. I am not here to convert you. If you are here to convert me have the courage of your convictions state your case.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Given everything we understand about biology, physics and chemistry, we can safely and confidently rule this possibility out. Humans need oxygen to breathe. There is no oxygen on the moon (it doesn't have an atmosphere to contain the oxygen). There are no organic materials on the moon that could be used as food. We have also mapped the moon fully, although of course, no-one has yet set foot on the far side of the moon.
Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of life forms living underground that are completely unlike any form of life we recognize, but then again, they couldn't exactly be called "men who dress like Quakers" now could they?
What you did there is as erroneous as asking someone who's rolling a six-sided die "How do you know you'll never roll a 7? You could". You're completely ignoring the possibilities (a six sided die with the numbers 1 through 6 can NEVER roll a 7, we can observe and confirm a 7 is not there before we roll), just like with your moon men (every bit of evidence we have, which is a lot, rules out any possibility of humans living on the moon)

Do try to keep up. I was showing another posting the illogicality of using a "what if " argument.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, so Smith was wrong about the moon and hence his credibility with you has suffered. Okay good. That's how I roll too. However, why is it you don't apply this to the bible? There are plenty of false statements in the bible. O.T has things like bird's blood curing leprosy for example, and the stories about genesis and Moses. We know for a fact those things are false. So how come you're applying skepticism to Smith, but not to christianity? That is the logical fallacy of special pleading there, which you have confirmed before when you said that belief in the christian god is the default position for you.

Forgive me for not believing you when you tell me what you think the Bible says. You will need to me more specific if you want to use the Bible for your attack.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes, there are contradictions, and the fact they exist massively undermine christian theology. For example, I'm pretty you yourself have in the past said that Jesus was the culmination of prophecy (or a similar phrase). Among those so called prophecies was one saying he would be a descendant of David. However, since when did Jewish law and prophecies accept a step-son? How can Jesus be called a descendant of David, when the parent that is claimed to be a descendant (Joseph) is not actually his biological father, according to the story? It'd be like me being adopted into the British royal family and thus legally becoming a possible successor to the crown (not sure if this would be allowed), but biologically, I'm not related to them. Paul says in Romans 1:3 https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%201:3

If you accept the premise that Mary was a virgin, then no, Paul either spoke false here (and thus this should for you undermine his credibility, just like what happened with Smith) or Jesus cannot be the fulfillment of the "descendant of David" prophecy.
(Speaking of Joseph, there's two different genealogies for him in Matthew and Luke. You can't have two accounts, call them both true, and then just ignore their conflicts)

The genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1 states...."The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew 1:1) The genealogy establishes the linage of Jesus through His step father Joseph. Luke 3:23-38 is Jesus' linage through Mary his mother. Luke states in verse 23 ..."And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." The differences in the two genealogies is that Matthew 1 is Joseph's linage and Luke 3 is Mary's. In Matthew 1:16 Jacob is said to be the father of Joseph the husband of Mary. It does not say that Joseph begat Jesus, but only that Joseph was Mary's husband, and Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Luke's records, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23) Therefore the verse is indicating that Joseph was Jesus' step son, and that this genealogy is not of Joseph, which clearly if a genealogy of Jesus, would mean this is Mary's linage. Therefore, Jesus was a descendant of Mary, who was a descendant of David and of the Tribe of Judah.

a question asked by some who do not believe in the Virgin Birth, and who want to claim that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph. The answer to both is the same. Christ is of the line of David through His foster father Joseph. The lack of physical connection between the two does not change the reality that Jesus Christ is St. Joseph's son--by adoption, yes, but that is enough to make Him of the line of David.
St. Matthew's Gospel testifies to this. He traces Christ's descent from King David through St. Joseph, yet St. Matthew also declares that St. Mary was a virgin, who conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. Since St. Matthew saw no contradiction, neither should we.
More interesting is the fact that at least two passages of Scripture (Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8) refer to Christ as being "of the seed of David," which implies direct physical descent, rather than adoption. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that most of the Fathers of the Church interpreted this to mean that St. Mary herself was descended from King David, even though no such genealogy is included in the Scriptures. In this tradition, St. Mary and St. Joseph are distant cousins, and both are physically descended from King David. Thus Christ is "of the seed of David" from his mother Mary, and "of the line of David" through his foster father Joseph.

sources for the above

http://bible-truth.org/FAQ-Contradictions.html
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/01/04/reader-question-how-is-christ-the-son-of-david.htm

UCDVet wrote: »

This thread is some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. On the one hand, I've enjoyed it. On the other hand, it's hard for be to believe that people actually believe the the things they've posted here.

I agree

Can you imagine someone believing that alcoholism is a belief in alcohol

This thread is some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. On the one hand, I've enjoyed it. On the other hand, it's hard for be to believe that people actually believe the the things they've posted here.

Safehands wrote: »

Ok I’ll answer that. Here is a posting you made:
I have gone through the exercise of questioning the existence of God and can find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Therefore God exists. That is not logical and it seems to be the basis for all your beliefs.

If I said "therefore God probably exists in the absence on any evidence to the contrary" would that also be illogical in your opinion.

Neither atheism in its current form nor agnosticism make any claim to the non existence of God therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

Safehands wrote: »

I could make a similar statement about Fairies, Leprechauns and Unicorns. There is no evidence that they don’t or didn’t exist, does that mean therefore that they do or did? Illogical reasoning.

You could and your kind frequently do but there is no direct comparison between God and mythological creatures. All mythological creatures have limitations imposed on them by humans. God does not. Is it logical to compare apples with oranges?

Safehands wrote: »

You seem to ask for proof in a huge amount of replies, yet you are a little inconsistent.
When asked for proof you replied: 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. That's a strange statement from someone who so often asks for proof to defend his own position.

I have my position which I will defend from attack. Asking me for proof is not an attack. So my response is not strange especially given that all your kind are capable of is dismissing whatever evidence is presented to you using strawmen, fallacious argument and irreverent mockery

Safehands wrote: »

For example: When querying a quote, you said: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.

Best response to someone twisting my words or inventing a position for me.

Safehands wrote: »

Or: Other apologists may give you a better run for your money but for me as the proof of the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt is not possible, and neither is the proof of the non existence of God, the exercise while interesting up to a point, is ultimately futile. If proof doesn't matter to you why do you ask for it so often from the people who present a sensible argument against the existence of God.

Simple - there is no sensible argument against the existence of God.

Festus wrote:

The claim that God exists is not a claim that I make, it is the claim that God makes. I think you are directing your requests for evidence at the wrong person.

Nope. I am not aware of a divine being coming to me and saying "I exist". I am aware only of people such as yourself who are making the claim, and claiming to make the claim via proxy. You and people like you are the only beings I can discuss this issue with. What you're doing there is yet again another sign of your complete unwillingness to actually debate the topic at hand.
If someone tells me dragons exist, I would not accept for a second if he told me to go and take it up with the dragons. Burden of proof is on you.

What if there really are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old only we can't find them because they live on the other side of the moon, does that not mean lazygal is right and you are wrong?

Given everything we understand about biology, physics and chemistry, we can safely and confidently rule this possibility out. Humans need oxygen to breathe. There is no oxygen on the moon (it doesn't have an atmosphere to contain the oxygen). There are no organic materials on the moon that could be used as food. We have also mapped the moon fully, although of course, no-one has yet set foot on the far side of the moon.
Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of life forms living underground that are completely unlike any form of life we recognize, but then again, they couldn't exactly be called "men who dress like Quakers" now could they?
What you did there is as erroneous as asking someone who's rolling a six-sided die "How do you know you'll never roll a 7? You could". You're completely ignoring the possibilities (a six sided die with the numbers 1 through 6 can NEVER roll a 7, we can observe and confirm a 7 is not there before we roll), just like with your moon men (every bit of evidence we have, which is a lot, rules out any possibility of humans living on the moon)

I would suggest that he is wrong about the moon and hence any other testimony of his carries a risk.

Okay, so Smith was wrong about the moon and hence his credibility with you has suffered. Okay good. That's how I roll too. However, why is it you don't apply this to the bible? There are plenty of false statements in the bible. O.T has things like bird's blood curing leprosy for example, and the stories about genesis and Moses. We know for a fact those things are false. So how come you're applying skepticism to Smith, but not to christianity? That is the logical fallacy of special pleading there, which you have confirmed before when you said that belief in the christian god is the default position for you.

I take it you cannot be more specific then, or can find only differences and no contradictions.

Why is there more than one history book for any given historical event? Surely one would suffice?
When more than one record exists for a historical even how do we discern which records aretrue and which are false?

Yes, there are contradictions, and the fact they exist massively undermine christian theology. For example, I'm pretty you yourself have in the past said that Jesus was the culmination of prophecy (or a similar phrase). Among those so called prophecies was one saying he would be a descendant of David. However, since when did Jewish law and prophecies accept a step-son? How can Jesus be called a descendant of David, when the parent that is claimed to be a descendant (Joseph) is not actually his biological father, according to the story? It'd be like me being adopted into the British royal family and thus legally becoming a possible successor to the crown (not sure if this would be allowed), but biologically, I'm not related to them. Paul says in Romans 1:3 https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%201:3

the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

If you accept the premise that Mary was a virgin, then no, Paul either spoke false here (and thus this should for you undermine his credibility, just like what happened with Smith) or Jesus cannot be the fulfillment of the "descendant of David" prophecy.
(Speaking of Joseph, there's two different genealogies for him in Matthew and Luke. You can't have two accounts, call them both true, and then just ignore their conflicts)

Festus wrote: »

Where is my reality illogical? Are you claiming that my reality is illogical?

Ok I’ll answer that. Here is a posting you made:
I have gone through the exercise of questioning the existence of God and can find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Therefore God exists. That is not logical and it seems to be the basis for all your beliefs.
I could make a similar statement about Fairies, Leprechauns and Unicorns. There is no evidence that they don’t or didn’t exist, does that mean therefore that they do or did? Illogical reasoning.

Festus wrote: »

If the burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim can you prove your claim that my reality is illogical?

You seem to ask for proof in a huge amount of replies, yet you are a little inconsistent.
When asked for proof you replied: 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. That's a strange statement from someone who so often asks for proof to defend his own position.

For example: When querying a quote, you said: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.

Or: Other apologists may give you a better run for your money but for me as the proof of the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt is not possible, and neither is the proof of the non existence of God, the exercise while interesting up to a point, is ultimately futile. If proof doesn't matter to you why do you ask for it so often from the people who present a sensible argument against the existence of God.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

More of your ad hominem I guess, especially given the failures in definition were yours not mine. However the reality is that my definition of what I mean by god has been very clear and you have simply ignored it.

Sorry, no, I really do have to point out that your understanding of-ism is far too limited and wildly inaccurate because of this.
Your asserting that your definition of anything in the light of this carries no weight.

Festus wrote: »

given your capacity for definition and recent display of etymologism I have no longer have any faith that that your current definition bears any relation to your previous definition

More of your ad hominem I guess, especially given the failures in definition were yours not mine. However the reality is that my definition of what I mean by god has been very clear and you have simply ignored it.

I am happy to repeat it. When I am talking about god I am talking about the monotheistic one as "A non-human intentional and intelligent agent, responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe".

That is MY definition. If however YOU have substantiation for the existence of a god, then I am all ears to hear your definition of what you mean by god.... as that is the one that is relevant, not mine.

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, thank you for your time I guess.

Another wasted discourse after the last attempt to have some clarity cast on the differences in belief.

My apologies but I don't see how any answer to your question can assist in providing the clarity you seek.

Besides, I'm currently dealing with toothache so my issue is less with a tooth fairy and more with a tooth goblin so I would have some difficulty in providing you with the answer you want.

Okay, thank you for your time I guess.

Another wasted discourse after the last attempt to have some clarity cast on the differences in belief.

Deleted User wrote: »

So you'll be refusing to answer the question? I can't see how my motives have anything to do with your answer to it to be honest

Another poster likened this to a game of chess. Lets just say I've looked a number of moves ahead and have decided that I see no merit in following this particular question.

So you'll be refusing to answer the question? I can't see how my motives have anything to do with your answer to it to be honest

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a bit strange no? I don't deny that I'm presuming you've heard of the tooth fairy, but is the above not a little overly defensive?

No, it is not overly defensive. It is highly defensive. I don't trust your motives.

Festus wrote: »

so you are assuming I have a framing of nozz's position and you assume that I have a position on a tooth fairy.

I think you are being somewhat presumptuous or are making a claim to being omniscient

This is a bit strange no? I don't deny that I'm presuming you've heard of the tooth fairy, but is the above not a little overly defensive?

In any case, how about if I re-write it as

Could I ask you to detail the difference between your understanding of / thoughts on

nozzferrahhtoo's position on a god (as you've outlined in this thread)
your own position on a tooth fairy

?

Are these different? If so, how?
Thanks

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked you to use your framing of nozzferrahhtoo's position. I assume you know your own position on a tooth fairy.

so you are assuming I have a framing of nozz's position and you assume that I have a position on a tooth fairy.

I think you are being somewhat presumptuous or are making a claim to being omniscient

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Odd thing to say given I gave a very clear, concise and specific definition more than once in this thread, one of which you replied to.

given your capacity for definition and recent display of etymologism I have no longer have any faith that that your current definition bears any relation to your previous definition

Festus wrote: »

not without knowing which god nozz has no or a lack of belief in or what evidence you have for knowing what my position is on a tooth fairy.

I asked you to use your framing of nozzferrahhtoo's position. I assume you know your own position on a tooth fairy.

Festus wrote: »

not without knowing which god nozz has no or a lack of belief in or what evidence you have for knowing what my position is on a tooth fairy.

because nozz might believe in some and not others?

Festus wrote: »

not without knowing which god nozz has no or a lack of belief in

Odd thing to say given I gave a very clear, concise and specific definition more than once in this thread, one of which you replied to.

Deleted User wrote: »

Festus. Can you explain how your framing of nozzferrahhtoo's position on belief in a god is different from your own position on belief in a tooth fairy please?

Without special pleading if you could.

not without knowing which god nozz has no or a lack of belief in or what evidence you have for knowing what my position is on a tooth fairy.

Festus. Can you explain how your framing of nozzferrahhtoo's position on belief in a god is different from your own position on belief in a tooth fairy please?

Without special pleading if you could.

Festus wrote: »

Case not closed unless you want me to do this

So you have simply changed the sentence I did say, into a sentence I did not say, and want me to reply to that?

Keep your words out of my mouth, I have more than enough of my own.

Festus wrote: »

there are many other usages where it has no such meaning.

And this is not one of them.

Safehands wrote: »

It really amuses me Festus, the way you keep asking for proof or evidence when it suits you, yet you refuse to offer any proof for your pronouncements of illogical reality.

Where is my reality illogical? Are you claiming that my reality is illogical?

If the burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim can you prove your claim that my reality is illogical?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My understanding is fine. Yours is the one failing in that you are willfully ignoring the "ISM" part when evaluating the etymology of a-theos-ism.

a- => Without
-theos- => God
-ism => Belief.

Without god belief. No god belief. Case closed. QED.

Case not closed unless you want me to do this

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No god belief

no god belief - the belief there is no god.

is that your claim - you believe in no god?

Lets do the etymology properly because when it comes to -ism you made that up. -ism does not mean belief. As already stated the verb "to believe" is pisteuo

ism in and of itself means not a lot and certainly has no firm grounding in latin or greek and it certainly does not explicitly mean belief. I accept that it can in some usages but there are many other usages where it has no such meaning.

for example does orchidism mean you believe in testicles? or does it mean you have a testicular condition?

Here's something for you to practice on your own: What does onanism say you believe in?

Festus wrote: »

I know that's what you want but why should I?

I do not remember implying any "should" on this. The thread is a debate thread on the existence of god and I am asking you if you are capable of presenting any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiation the idea there is a god.

Evidently you can not. Which is answer enough for me. Conversation over.

Festus wrote: »

your options are then to either read wider or to learn ancient Greek to get a broader understanding.

My understanding is fine. Yours is the one failing in that you are willfully ignoring the "ISM" part when evaluating the etymology of a-theos-ism.

a- => Without
-theos- => God
-ism => Belief.

Without god belief. No god belief. Case closed. QED.

Festus wrote: »

stating something "is not there" is a positively explicit positive claim.

And I am claiming that argument, evidence, data and reasoning to support the claim there is a god is not here. Not available to me. And is certainly not coming from you. More than that I have not said. If anyone else is making other claims, take it up with them, not me.

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove that?

It really amuses me Festus, the way you keep asking for proof or evidence when it suits you, yet you refuse to offer any proof for your pronouncements of illogical reality.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If someone wants to label that, they are welcome to, but I do not personally.

Apisteuism. pronounced a-pisst-yoo-ism

From the Greek a- : no, not , without, un; and pisteuo: to believe

Apisteuist pronounced a-pisst-yoo-ist

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I want you to offer argument, evidence, data or reasoning that supports the contention that a god actually exists.

I know that's what you want but why should I? I believe that God exists am more than happy with that belief. The claim that God exists is not a claim that I make, it is the claim that God makes. I think you are directing your requests for evidence at the wrong person.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you think "god" does not exist but is nothing more than an "idea" then we are likely very much on the same page and this conversation is essentially over.

For me it is more than an idea but it was you who said an idea is a claim and you wanted evidence for an idea. I am suggesting that producing evidence for a thought is tricky.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not a usage that is mentioned in any of the etymologies on the word atheist though, so not really relevant.

your options are then to either read wider or to learn ancient Greek to get a broader understanding.

for example if you take the word typical and put a- in front of it does the word atypical now not mean not typical.

or anhydrous. does this mean no water or without water, or both depending on the context?

Or is your argument moot given that your definition includes "belief" as in "the lack of" but the greek word for "belief" is not part of the word "atheist"?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually even the usage most people, yourself included, use for "agnostic" does not match the definition of Huxley, the person who actually coined the term.

I myself do not use atheist OR agnostic to describe myself or my position. I simply do not identify with either term, or find utility in either term.

Perhaps you are an apisteist

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Rejection implies existence. Which no atheist does. So your meaning would be wrong.

Equally my meaning could be right. My knowledge and understanding of Greek suggests to me that my meaning is more correct than yours.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One can not reject what is not there any more than I can refuse a dinner you have not offered me.

stating something "is not there" is a positively explicit positive claim. Can you prove that what you are rejecting is not there to be rejected?

Festus wrote: »

You want me to produce evidence for an idea. Is that even possible?

I want you to offer argument, evidence, data or reasoning that supports the contention that a god actually exists.

If you think "god" does not exist but is nothing more than an "idea" then we are likely very much on the same page and this conversation is essentially over.

Festus wrote: »

in Greek a- also means "no" hence the original definition of it being a belief there is no god.

Not a usage that is mentioned in any of the etymologies on the word atheist though, so not really relevant.

Actually even the usage most people, yourself included, use for "agnostic" does not match the definition of Huxley, the person who actually coined the term.

I myself do not use atheist OR agnostic to describe myself or my position. I simply do not identify with either term, or find utility in either term.

Festus wrote: »

However if one stays with the meaning "without" the meaning becomes one who rejects god.

Rejection implies existence. Which no atheist does. So your meaning would be wrong. One can not reject what is not there any more than I can refuse a dinner you have not offered me.

My world view is simple. I subscribe to substantiated claims. I do not subscribe to unsubstantiated claims. The idea there is a god lacks all substantiation. Much less so from you. Therefore I do not subscribe to the idea there is a god.

If someone wants to label that, they are welcome to, but I do not personally.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The idea there is a god is some claim, and is the topic of this thread. Can you back it up with evidence? Bring on the evidence!

You want me to produce evidence for an idea. Is that even possible?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your etymology is willfully incomplete. The A- part does indeed mean without. The theos part is where we get "god". The ISM part however refers to belief, which you are simply leaving out of your etymology in a contrived fashion. A-theos-ism: Without a belief in god.

in Greek a- also means "no" hence the original definition of it being a belief there is no god.

However if one stays with the meaning "without" the meaning becomes one who rejects god. There are those who follow God and hence are with God, and those who reject God and hence are without God.