Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

mister gullible wrote: »

It's all speculation.

this is the problem. its not speculation. These Christian/Islamic/Hindu/Judaism/Norse stories are just that, stories. It is definite - God as followers of those stories know him does not exist. That is a fact.

mister gullible

God doesn't exist.
Oh yes he does
Oh no he doesn't.
Oh yes he does.
Oh no he doesn't.

10,030 odd posts and NOBODY KNOWS!! It's all speculation.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You mentioned overwhelming, would you mind giving a number of examples?

Fossil Record.

here, I'll make a deal. Because I have so many examples I'll just give you one at a time so you can focus on convincing yourself that "that isn't true because x" without just throwing a load of them out there for you.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You mentioned overwhelming, would you mind giving a number of examples?

Simple. The bible is said to have been written by people inspired by an all-knowing god. That is the claim. Therefore, if that claim is true, we should expect it to not contain any contradictions or errors. If there is even just one error, then the bible is disqualified and the god it posits is false.
In the Old Testament, it is claimed that bird's blood cures leprosy. We know for a fact that that is not true. That is one error. Therefore, the bible is disqualified and the god it posits is false.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I like to use the analogy of a student well known for failing his exams, sitting an exam while the teacher is in front of him, looking down at his answers the teacher know they are clearly wrong, but the teacher cannot intervene and correct the student during the test. Does that makes the teacher infallible for examining the student while knowing he will most likely fail?

I'll add my thoughts to this piece - more than likely, when homer911 asked why atheists continue to post here, it's a fair bet s/he was thinking of me specifically (given my stance, and given that I am perhaps the most vocal of the debaters in this thread over the past few months).

First, I like to make sure of my own stance. I said it before - I want someone to convince me, to prove me wrong. I like being proven wrong. This doesn't mean though that anyone can recite any old theological argument and expect me to accept it right then and there. No, I will attack that argument and attempt to falsify it is as many ways as possible. If the theist's arguments stand up to as intense a scrutiny as I can throw at it, then they've passed.
Second, I like listening to the other side, to see how they think and view the world. It certainly is an eye-opener when someone you've been talking to for a while reveals that they think so little of themselves that they're okay with the thought of a cosmic overlord toying with them, or of being casually wiped off the map for reasons that are not divulged to them.

Now, as for your analogy, it is flawed in several ways. First off, according to christianity, with the garden of eden scenario, that was a setup or a stacked deck. If the Eden story is true, then Adam and Eve had no choice but to fail. They may well have been told by god to not eat the magic apple, but since they don't know of good or evil before they eat it, how could they know it was "wrong" to eat it? How could they have known not to trust the snake? When god turns up and punishes them, he is punishing them for his own actions - his action in making them innocent and naive.
Second, I am not aware that I actually am taking a test of any kind. In that scenario, the student is fully conscious of and aware of the fact he is at a desk, writing his answers on a desk, and aware of the proctor.
Thirdly, if I fail a test, the resultant consequences are usually restricted to me alone. I might not get the job, or get into college or whatever. What if the test was to not use nuclear weapons? Well, the guy who pressed the launch button failed the test, and it was hundreds of thousands of other people who paid the price.

BMMachine wrote: »

What we can be certain of though is that it is 100% not the God depicted in the bible or any other form of God depicted in the stories on this planet. For that 100% certainty there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, and very basic and easy to understand evidence at that.

You mentioned overwhelming, would you mind giving a number of examples?

yeah there could be some sort of divine being or omnipotent lifeform but we are so unbelievably far away from understanding anything like that at this time.

What we can be certain of though is that it is 100% not the God depicted in the bible or any other form of God depicted in the stories on this planet. For that 100% certainty there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, and very basic and easy to understand evidence at that.

People that have faith in those stories need it and the people that defend those stories need to do that, they need to constantly convince themselves in subconscious ways. Why? Many reasons for many people, the most common in my experience is that they just don't like being wrong and like to feel above others in this very roundabout way. I seem the exact same attitudes and passion appear about many things in other people, whether its football, video games, political views.. Its all the same thing, all the same type of thinking, just with a different subject

ScumLord wrote: »

I can kind of see what your getting at, in that life is the test and god can't do it for us. But if he made us an animal with animal instinct needs and wants, then teaches us all those things we were built with were wrong, then tries to teach us with some vague text that he won't clarify most are obviously going to fail.

I am not sure were did you get the assumption that God declared all the things he built into us were wrong, am assuming you are pointing to the desires that God created within the human such as lust,greed,gluttony and envy.

But isn't this what differentiates Humans from Animals? that we have an intellect and mind to control these desires and find options around them? isn't that what makes this life really a test? to see who among us will do the best deeds, while recognising his infallibility to fall a victim to his desires, but repent once he remembers.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

sorry I couldn't understand. but who's incompetent the teacher of the student?

If its the student I understand, but how is the teacher being incompetent for giving a test? isn't it the student role to prepare for this test?

If the student keeps failing the tests then you clearly have to start to question the teachers ability to do their job.

I can kind of see what your getting at, in that life is the test and god can't do it for us. But if he made us an animal with animal instinct needs and wants, then teaches us all those things we were built with were wrong, then tries to teach us with some vague text that he won't clarify most are obviously going to fail.

It's a system rigged against the majority who take it. It's not even like peaceful society can't be done, we've developed one of the most peaceful societies in history (given the amount of people included in it) here in the west and much of it was based on scientific understanding and communication. Not strict rules and treats of never ending violence.

Even before modern society there have been civilizations that lived in peace with a lot of equality that weren't based on Christianity. The fact humans can develop better ways of living cooperatively than the bible can shows it's highly flawed for something an infallible god supposedly wrote.

marienbad

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

sorry I couldn't understand. but who's incompetent the teacher of the student?

If its the student I understand, but how is the teacher being incompetent for giving a test? isn't it the student role to prepare for this test?

And the teachers role is to teach which it appears he/she has have failed to do.

marienbad wrote: »

Just makes him incompetent in the first place

sorry I couldn't understand. but who's incompetent the teacher of the student?

If its the student I understand, but how is the teacher being incompetent for giving a test? isn't it the student role to prepare for this test?

marienbad

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I like to use the analogy of a student well known for failing his exams, sitting an exam while the teacher is in front of him, looking down at his answers the teacher know they are clearly wrong, but the teacher cannot intervene and correct the student during the test. Does that makes the teacher infallible for examining the student while knowing he will most likely fail?

Just makes him incompetent in the first place

ScumLord wrote: »

If he's not fallible and knew humans would break all his rules, why did he bother at all?

I like to use the analogy of a student well known for failing his exams, sitting an exam while the teacher is in front of him, looking down at his answers the teacher know they are clearly wrong, but the teacher cannot intervene and correct the student during the test. Does that makes the teacher infallible for examining the student while knowing he will most likely fail?

homer911 wrote: »

Are there actually any Christians on this thread or are the atheists debating with themselves?

If you are an atheist, why post here at all? unless you have doubts..? like a Christian..

I have a great interest in religion, it was such an influential part of human development. I think it's fascinating how it changed our species and I think it changed it for the better considering what we were before religion. But it is redundant now.

BMMachine wrote: »

the problem is there is just far too much evidence that God doesn't exist and the whole Christianity/Pretty much any religion are just stories.

I don't know that there is loads of evidence that there is no god at all in any shape or form, but there's certainly enough evidence to show that the holy books were written by people and are limited by peoples understanding of the world at the time. The god as described by any of the holy books is certainly made up and again limited by what people of the time thought a god would be. Basically a king that couldn't be questioned.

Perhaps something created the universe, but I'm not going to worship whatever it is and I don't think it actively administers the universe, if it's there at all.

I'd argue that a lot of those people would be evil

There's no such thing as evil in my head.

the problem is there is just far too much evidence that God doesn't exist and the whole Christianity/Pretty much any religion are just stories.
the other problem is that people really truly invest in these stories and tend to end up needing them, so will ignore really basic things in order to justify it in their head.

then a bigger problem emerges when people use these stories to commit abhorrent inhuman acts. I'd argue that a lot of those people would be evil anyway and it would show in different ways, but religion is a mental fast track for them.
Its all a story. That won't go away. In the communication age people are learning more, they are learning faster and that overwhelming weight of evidence is crashing against those stories and eroding them back to what they came from.

Stealthfins

homer911 wrote: »

Are there actually any Christians on this thread or are the atheists debating with themselves?

If you are an atheist, why post here at all? unless you have doubts..? like a Christian..

Lol the Atheists just like a good debate now and again, they're always right you know :-)

homer911

Are there actually any Christians on this thread or are the atheists debating with themselves?

If you are an atheist, why post here at all? unless you have doubts..? like a Christian..

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm not judging people in the past: I'm talking of the people I had debated in Part 1 and those who share their beliefs: most of whom said I have to believe X or suffer punishment and gleefully rejected the burden of proof.

I think we're still in a transition period. The advances that happened in the last 50, even 15 years have been astonishing. Once humans reach adulthood they're pretty entrenched in their belief system and it's difficult to get an adult human to stop using beliefs that have apparently worked for them.

Each new generation has more and more faith in science though. The benefits of a scientific approach are vast and unending and humans will always eventually go with the most productive option it can just take time. The rate of change we're going through in the modern world is unheard of in human history. Most humans went generations without any new technology being introduced. So the modern world is just something that we're unprepared for.

The benefit of humans is that children instantly adapt to the world they are born in too. So in another generation or two, children and more to the point their parents will have lived in a scientific society and they won't know religion as we knew it growing up. The tide is turning, religion will become utterly redundant, we may even see it in our lifetimes if things progress as they've been progressing.

The bottom line is you're not going to convince a religious person to change all that easily. They're set in their ways and will be until the day they die. Their children on the other hand will automatically adapt to the modern world and religion will have little to no benefit to their survival. So basically don't worry about it. Let them believe what they want to believe while they have the opportunity to believe it.

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes, today that's the sensible way of doing things, but in the past that just wasn't as much of an option. First of all Person A didn't really exist to give you an alternative. Unless you were born into the right class you probably didn't have the means to verify anything said by other people.

1000 years ago if I was living in land and someone told me the ocean was 2 days walk west, the only way I'd have of verifying that is to find someone else I trust and take their word for it, or actually spend two days walking to check. I probably wouldn't be able to read and check facts for myself, I'd probably have no formal education. It's just not fair to judge people in the past based on information that wasn't around at the time and that we've had handed to us by the generation that came before us.

I'm not judging people in the past: I'm talking of the people I had debated in Part 1 and those who share their beliefs: most of whom said I have to believe X or suffer punishment and gleefully rejected the burden of proof.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If Person A makes a claim and says "Go ahead and verify it for yourself, I don't mind, in fact I encourage it", that instantly brings up a level of trust. If Person B makes a claim and says "You have to believe this or God will throw you into hell!" and then doesn't provide compelling evidence, I can't help but distrust B.

Yes, today that's the sensible way of doing things, but in the past that just wasn't as much of an option. First of all Person A didn't really exist to give you an alternative. Unless you were born into the right class you probably didn't have the means to verify anything said by other people.

1000 years ago if I was living in land and someone told me the ocean was 2 days walk west, the only way I'd have of verifying that is to find someone else I trust and take their word for it, or actually spend two days walking to check. I probably wouldn't be able to read and check facts for myself, I'd probably have no formal education. It's just not fair to judge people in the past based on information that wasn't around at the time and that we've had handed to us by the generation that came before us.

Granted a scientist goes through an open learning process that we can clearly check for ourselves if we were bothered to do so

That's precisely it. We can check and verify for ourselves if we wanted to: we can't do that with religious claims. If Person A makes a claim and says "Go ahead and verify it for yourself, I don't mind, in fact I encourage it", that instantly brings up a level of trust. If Person B makes a claim and says "You have to believe this or God will throw you into hell!" and then doesn't provide compelling evidence, I can't help but distrust B.
The fact the opportunity and invitation is there for me to verify A's claims is enough for me...for now, that is.

Safehands wrote: »

I agree with everything you say, but that leaves us with loads of obvious questions.

Does it?

The other thing we have to take into account is peoples acceptance of people in authority. I can't actually prove much of what science says. I technically could if I learned some advanced mathematics, but I'm not going to do that. For the majority of us lay people we're just believing what people in authority tell us.

So in reality we're no different than the people that believed what their priest told them 1000 years ago. Granted a scientist goes through an open learning process that we can clearly check for ourselves if we were bothered to do so, but humans delegate and once we trust the person put in charge of a particular task that's enough for us to believe everything they tell us.

The fact is we're exactly the same machine to those people in the past and if we were in the same position as them we would more than likely behave exactly like them and accept what everybody else in our community accepted.

ScumLord wrote: »

That may happen today but it wasn't the case in the past. People could believe all kind of things, hallucinogenic drugs were often used as a gateway to god by many cultures. So maybe they did talk to animals when under the influence but they considered this a legitimate conversation because they saw themselves as being under the influence of god, not a chemical. They could also spend days, weeks months on their own or in a very small group, the human mind can play tricks on you, I know people that have had waking dreams where they've seen and talked to people that weren't there, it's common enough. Today we have science and instant communication to debunk the tricks the mind can play on you but back then you believed what you saw and there was no one that could prove what you saw was anything but the truth.

I agree with everything you say, but that leaves us with loads of obvious questions.

Safehands wrote: »

The difference with little Red Riding hood is that when a child reaches four or five logic kicks in and says that wolves don't talk. Mam and Dad confirm their doubts about talking animals, they are just stories.

That may happen today but it wasn't the case in the past. People could believe all kind of things, hallucinogenic drugs were often used as a gateway to god by many cultures. So maybe they did talk to animals when under the influence but they considered this a legitimate conversation because they saw themselves as being under the influence of god, not a chemical.

They could also spend days, weeks months on their own or in a very small group, the human mind can play tricks on you, I know people that have had waking dreams where they've seen and talked to people that weren't there, it's common enough. Today we have science and instant communication to debunk the tricks the mind can play on you but back then you believed what you saw and there was no one that could prove what you saw was anything but the truth.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I know, but I'm talking from the perspective of the remote possibility of these stories being true. It is a possibility so remote that it might as well be called impossible.
Also...why call me Nick?

Sorry Rik!!! No pun intended.

Safehands wrote: »

No Nick, the minds of the people who made up those fables should repulse you, the stories can also repulse you, all fairytale can be horrific. The difference with little Red Riding hood is that when a child reaches four or five logic kicks in and says that wolves don't talk. Mam and Dad confirm their doubts about talking animals, they are just stories. Three little pigs could never be real because pigs don't talk. Christian believing Mam and Dad do not confirm the logical queries that little Johnny may have about talking snakes or men living for nearly a thousand years. They tell little Johnny that it actually happened, because their Mam and Dads told them it actually happened when they were young. That is how the stories are perpetuated, so on it goes. All totally real, because Mam and Dad told them.

I know, but I'm talking from the perspective of the remote possibility of these stories being true. It is a possibility so remote that it might as well be called impossible.
Also...why call me Nick?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

All very good arguments. There's more to getting me to believe in and be a member of Religion X than merely (somehow) proving that Religion X's god exists. After that, you must convince me that that god is a god worth worshipping/following.
In my discussions in Part 1, I see nothing that doesn't show the christian god to be a nice fellow at all. He repulses me and disgusts me.

No Nick, the minds of the people who made up those fables should repulse you, the stories can also repulse you, all fairytale can be horrific. The difference with little Red Riding hood is that when a child reaches four or five logic kicks in and says that wolves don't talk. Mam and Dad confirm their doubts about talking animals, they are just stories. Three little pigs could never be real because pigs don't talk. Christian believing Mam and Dad do not confirm the logical queries that little Johnny may have about talking snakes or men living for nearly a thousand years. They tell little Johnny that it actually happened, because their Mam and Dads told them it actually happened when they were young. That is how the stories are perpetuated, so on it goes. All totally real, because Mam and Dad told them.

Safehands wrote: »

Maybe, if he does exist, he enjoys watching us make mistakes. Maybe he is only a young God and he is playing a young God's game. OR, maybe he didn't make us at all. Maybe we are like highly advanced snowflakes, a consequence of the environment we inhabit.

All very good arguments. There's more to getting me to believe in and be a member of Religion X than merely (somehow) proving that Religion X's god exists. After that, you must convince me that that god is a god worth worshipping/following.
In my discussions in Part 1, I see nothing that doesn't show the christian god to be a nice fellow at all. He repulses me and disgusts me.

ScumLord wrote: »

If god is infallible why does he need to meddle in people's lives telling them what to do? Doesn't meddling imply that he made a mistake and has to correct it?

The universe and everything in it has worked like clockwork since it started. It could be argued that if something did create the universe they could have done so with the intention of it producing intelligent life of some sort. They could have set the conditions of the universe which would have meant it was pretty much inevitable that an intelligent species would evolve at some point.

With the universe being such a perfect and predictable piece of work how did he make such a mess of humans, as to have them instinctively doing all the things he doesn't want us to do?

Did god misjudge how humans would turn out? Did he make mistakes? Is god fallible? If he's not fallible and knew humans would break all his rules, why did he bother at all?

Maybe, if he does exist, he enjoys watching us make mistakes. Maybe he is only a young God and he is playing a young God's game. OR, maybe he didn't make us at all. Maybe we are like highly advanced snowflakes, a consequence of the environment we inhabit.