Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

lazygal wrote: »

I have no evidence that he does. He doesn't do anything to show he exists so I don't see why I should believe he exists.

So you are ignoring Jesus Christ, and the eye witness accounts of His life, death and Resurrection.

Festus wrote: »

So you are ignoring Jesus Christ, and the eye witness accounts of His life, death and Resurrection.

Not ignoring them, I just don't believe them. It is not possible to come back to life after you die. And I have no evidence I can see that the God I was told to believe in exists, no evidence of anything to show me that he is the God I was told exists.

lazygal wrote: »

Not ignoring them, I just don't believe them. It is not possible to come back to life after you die. And I have no evidence I can see that the God I was told to believe in exists, no evidence of anything to show me that he is the God I was told exists.

So your position is based purely on faith, and faith that lacks evidence and so is a blind faith.

Festus wrote: »

So your position is based purely on faith, and faith that lacks evidence and so is a blind faith.

Same could be said for believers.

eviltwin wrote: »

Same could be said for believers.

How so? We do not rely on blind faith because we can see the evidence, even if you cannot.

Festus wrote: »

So your position is based purely on faith, and faith that lacks evidence and so is a blind faith.

What evidence do you have that God exists? Apart from the bible, have you any proof? Or is it blind faith?

Festus wrote: »

How so? We do not rely on blind faith because we can see the evidence, even if you cannot.

What evidence? And not some biblical story or anecdotal evidence.

eviltwin wrote: »

What evidence? And not some biblical story or anecdotal evidence.

Why is the Bible not acceptable to you?

eviltwin wrote: »

What evidence? And not some biblical story or anecdotal evidence.

The bible is also available to non believers. Many become non believers on reading it and realising how nonsensical it is.

Festus wrote: »

So your position is based purely on faith, and faith that lacks evidence and so is a blind faith.

2000 year old documents, written essentially anonymously, might be taken as reasonable evidence of mundane things. Recipes for unleavened bread, the Roman system of law, Jewish politics... fine. All stuff we can see in other unrelated sources with well-verified analogues in the present day. Man walking on water? Matter replication of fish and bread? Resurrection?

We set the bar a bit higher for extraordinary claims. That's not faith, that's scepticism, based on logic.

Festus wrote: »

Why is the Bible not acceptable to you?

It's just a book.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

2000 year old documents.

eviltwin wrote: »

It's just a book.

What about Plate, Aristotle, Homer, Socrates, and all the other authors from antiquity. Should they be dismissed so lightly too?

Festus wrote: »

What about Plate, Aristotle, Homer, Socrates, and all the other authors from antiquity. Should they be dismissed so lightly too?

Do they prove the existence of the God you believe in?

Festus wrote: »

What about Plate, Aristotle, Homer, Socrates, and all the other authors from antiquity. Should they be dismissed so lightly too?

How is calling a book a book being dismissive

eviltwin wrote: »

It's just a book.

and you can prove that, yes. Just a book, nothing else. and you can explain how multiple individuals put that book together and maintain it unchanged over millennia.

If any discussion is to be fruitful certain baselines must be set and adhered to.

If the Bible is to be dismissed state your case beyond "It's just a book". If it is "Just a book" support our claim.

Festus wrote: »

What about Plate, Aristotle, Homer, Socrates, and all the other authors from antiquity. Should they be dismissed so lightly too?

That's some lovely cherry picking right there. Address my point.

To answer your question, Plato et al should be viewed with the same scepticism as the Bible, but it's notable that they don't make anything like the magnitude of claims found in the Bible. Mostly, they write about weighty but entirely mundane topics. A lot of the time, they write purely in logical terms.

Socrates with even greater scepticism because none of his work survives.

Festus wrote: »

and you can prove that, yes. Just a book, nothing else. and you can explain how multiple individuals put that book together and maintain it unchanged over millennia.

What's to explain about that? You cited Plato- his work has survived just as long.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's some lovely cherry picking right there. Address my point.

To answer your question, Plato et al should be viewed with the same scepticism as the Bible, but it's notable that they don't make anything like the magnitude of claims found in the Bible. Mostly, they write about weighty but entirely mundane topics. A lot of the time, they write purely in logical terms.

Socrates with even greater scepticism because none of his work survives.

But they are just books. Why should anyone give them any creedance? Why do even talk about Socrates if there is no evidence for his writings.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What's to explain about that? You cited Plato- his work has survived just as long.

Is Plato true?

If Plato is true why is the Bible not true?

Did Plato even exist?

We're looking at setting a baseline here. If you want to dismiss the Bible them you must also dismiss anything else of the same age. Just because something is a certain age is no reason to dismiss it.

Festus wrote: »

But they are just books. Why should anyone give them any creedance? Why do even talk about Socrates if there is no evidence for his writings.

Why do you give the bible credence over other books?

Festus wrote: »

But they are just books. Why should anyone give them any credence?

In the case of their philosophical writings, scholars don't give them credence. The read them sceptically and mostly as a matter of historical interest. When it comes to the more purely logical writings, these are accepted because logic is logic regardless of who wrote it down or why.

Festus wrote: »

Why do even talk about Socrates if there is no evidence for his writings.

He's the other party in Plato's dialogues. You brought him up? Why are you asking me about him?

Festus wrote: »

and you can prove that, yes. Just a book, nothing else. and you can explain how multiple individuals put that book together and maintain it unchanged over millennia.

If any discussion is to be fruitful certain baselines must be set and adhered to.

If the Bible is to be dismissed state your case beyond "It's just a book". If it is "Just a book" support our claim.

You are the one who thinks it's a factual account. It's up to you to show us the evidence that it's so.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In the case of their philosophical writings, scholars don't give them credence. The read them sceptically and mostly as a matter of historical interest. When it comes to the more purely logical writings, these are accepted because logic is logic regardless of who wrote it down or why.

But still considered none the less.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He's the other party in Plato's dialogues. You brought him up? Why are you asking me about him?

Because the records of his thoughts are given creedance.

Either dismiss everything from antiquity or accept that there are some things that must be given creedance.

eviltwin wrote: »

You are the one who thinks it's a factual account. It's up to you to show us the evidence that it's so.

It is what I believe until you can convince me otherwise.

Festus wrote: »

But still considered none the less.

Because the records of his thoughts are given creedance.

Either dismiss everything from antiquity or accept that there are some things that must be given creedance.

Why does the bible prove the existence of the God you worship? Other books of antiquity don't make the same claims as the bible.

Festus wrote: »

It is what I believe until you can convince me otherwise.

Why do you believe it?

Festus wrote: »

It is what I believe until you can convince me otherwise.

It's what you believe because of circumstances. Where you raised in a Christian family? If you had been born in the middle east you would probably believe in the Koran. Anyway I'm not trying to convince you of anything, it's just my opinion that the bible is a work of fiction.

Festus wrote: »

Is Plato true?

In what sense? I'm sure he's right about some things and wrong about others. Nobody would accept Plato's writings on faith.

Festus wrote: »

If Plato is true why is the Bible not true?

Please strawman more, it's really making this a dull debate. I never said Plato was "true" whatever that would even mean. I never said the bible was "false" whatever that would mean. The bible makes plenty of mundane claims that can probably be taken at face value based on the words written in a 2000 year old book because the magnitude of the claims is small.

Festus wrote: »

Did Plato even exist?

Probably, plenty of other sources mention him and they seem to line up. None of those sources points to anything other than some guy who liked to write and think a lot. Sure, maybe it's a complex hoax, but what a boring one.

Festus wrote: »

We're looking at setting a baseline here. If you want to dismiss the Bible them you must also dismiss anything else of the same age. Just because something is a certain age is no reason to dismiss it.

Nobody said anything about dismissing the bible, they implied that it is not a sufficient source on it's own to cite as evidence in support of extraordinary claims of enormous magnitude that dwarfs anything that Plato ever wrote.

Festus wrote: »

But still considered none the less.

Because the records of his thoughts are given creedance.

Either dismiss everything from antiquity or accept that there are some things that must be given creedance.

I'm out. This is pigeon chess.