Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

RikuoAmero · 27-02-2015 08:56PM

ScumLord wrote: »

The first signs of life on earth were about 4 million years ago. Although, that's just when we have evidence for life on earth, life could have formed sooner in other parts of the universe. Although there is a limit on how long life could be around for. The solar systems in our galaxy would have had to form, die and form again for their to even be the building blocks of life.

I think you mean 4 billion, there, mate, although last I heard it was 3 point something or other billion years.

ScumLord · 27-02-2015 10:07PM

katydid wrote: »

That would be a "they haven't", then...

Why would that mean they haven't?

katydid · 27-02-2015 10:14PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Why would that mean they haven't?

Because they haven't.

marienbad · 27-02-2015 10:19PM

orubiru wrote: »

Nobody has ever called you out on that?

The main problem with this "debate", for me, is that folks like yourself don't actually have the tools to make it a worthwhile discussion.

So, the only conclusion I have is that you don't actually bother to think about things or to educate yourself.

Atheism is a lack of belief. It is not a belief that there is no God. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

So if Person A states "God exists" and Person B says "well there's no evidence for that so I can't agree with you". Are you seriously proposing that Person B has faith that there is no God? No. They are simply saying that the evidence provided is not good enough therefore they cannot believe.

I would require proof that God exists. There is no proof. Therefore I don't need to have faith that God doesn't exist.

IF, on the other hand, you were providing good (reasonable) evidence for God and I choose not to believe then, yes, I would absolutely concede that I would be denying God in the face of evidence and that denial would be faith-based.

If you have no proof for a thing then I do not need faith to "believe" the non existence of that thing.

kathydid , do you have a reply to this post ?

RikuoAmero · 27-02-2015 10:46PM

Considering what a certain someone said, I'll leave this newly released video up.

katydid · 27-02-2015 10:51PM

marienbad wrote: »

kathydid , do you have a reply to this post ?

I do. I replied.

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY · 27-02-2015 11:47PM

katydid wrote: »

I do. I replied.

i admire katy for sticking by her views...... i send this as a measure of my tolerance for the so called existence of a god......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_5FLMXknQ

looksee · 28-02-2015 01:24AM

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

i admire katy for sticking by her views...... i send this as a measure of my tolerance for the so called existence of a god......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_5FLMXknQ

I played about 10 seconds of that but it really upset my cat.

Why would you admire views that are totally flexible and slide around with a complete disdain for consistency, rationality and understanding of language?

marienbad · 28-02-2015 01:27AM

katydid wrote: »

I do. I replied.

My mistake, I thought you were going to actually answer the post .

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY · 28-02-2015 03:15AM

looksee wrote: »

I played about 10 seconds of that but it really upset my cat.

Why would you admire views that are totally flexible and slide around with a complete disdain for consistency, rationality and understanding of language?

To understand why i sent that post you need a level of intelligence above the standard 10 per cent brain average

orubiru · 28-02-2015 10:47AM

katydid wrote: »

An atheist BELIEVES that, despite the evidence all around us of the wonder and complexity of creation, there is no creator, no force beyond our understanding which is responsible for it. That is as much a belief as a belief that such complexity and wonder must have a driving force.

NO.

I do not know how The Universe started. I do not know how life began on Earth. I do not know how it will all end (if it even ends at all).

I do not "belive" that I do not know. I do not have "faith" that I do not know. I do not know.

If someone proposes that an asteroid "seeded" life on Earth, I don't believe it because they don't present evidence. I do not have faith that they are wrong I just see no proof and so I am comfortable dismissing that hypothesis. It does not mean that they will never be able to prove it. They cant prove it now so I don't believe it because... I do not know. It has nothing to do with belief or faith.

You propose that God sparked everything off. Many people go further than that and say that God created Man "in his own image". Many go even further than that and say that God is actively involved in our lives and listens to, and answers prayer etc and we will go to Heaven or Hell or... whatever. There is no evidence for this. No evidence for any of this. So I do not believe it because I do not know that it is true.

I can dismiss God easily because there is no evidence. How did the universe get here? How did we get here? What is consciousness? I do not know. Does it require faith to not know? Why should I fill in the blank spaces in my knowledge with "God"? I can't fill in the blanks with "God did it" because there is no proof. So the blanks remain blank until someone gives me proof.

You can't prove to me that God exists so it follows that I do not believe in God. No faith or belief required for me to hold that position.

Do I "believe" that I do not know or do I actually just not know?

The more interesting question here is why you insist that lack of belief in a hypothesis, that has no evidence, is a faith based position? It isn't.

looksee · 28-02-2015 11:52AM

Katydid, try this.

'I believe I can fly' - leaving aside aids like aeroplanes, I can argue that I can fly in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I haven't tried it but I believe I can fly. People have jumped off high buildings on the basis of this belief. Other people know they cannot fly, they do not say 'I believe I cannot fly' - a lack of belief is not relevant, they know they cannot. People have very convincing dreams that they can fly, they don't take that to mean that it is actually possible.

Delirium · 28-02-2015 12:44PM

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

To understand why i sent that post you need a level of intelligence above the standard 10 per cent brain average

it would be better for the discussion to explain what your point was rather than suggest others aren't smart enough to understand it.

Thanks for your attention.

J C · 28-02-2015 02:53PM

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

religion has spilled more blood than it has saved...... why would you follow it ???????????

... and your evidence for this sweeping and prejudicial statement is???

J C · 28-02-2015 03:00PM

orubiru wrote: »

Nonsense. I do not even bother trying to explain everything in the world, materialistic or otherwise. For the most part I just get on with life, for the most part fulfilling my obligations and trying to enjoy myself where I can.

It is not a mirror image of your belief system.

If you live your life with God in mind and you have an awareness of God. The mirror image of that would be someone who lives their life actively denying God.

I do not think about the existence or non-existence of God all that often. I don't praise non-God in the same way that you praise God. I don't believe in non-God the way that you believe in God.

Think of all the ways that God is present in your life. For an Atheist, they don't go acknowledging "no God here".

Those aspects of your life, your personality and your thought processes that are dominated by God do not exist for a nonbeliever. When you say "thank you God for this food" or whatever, you don't have "mirror image" Atheists sitting down at dinner saying "well I know for sure this food didn't come from God".

Thinking that non belief is a form of belief really just shows that you have not really developed your ability to think logically.

I'd go as far as to say that subconsciously you see the flaws in logic that come with believing in God and mistakenly think that you can tangle the "other side" (Atheism) in the same kind of logical "red tape". You can't.

If there are 999 Gods that I could possibly believe in but I am not convinced by any of them how can you seriously hold the view that I "still believe in something"? It's a silly defence mechanism designed (well, evolved actually) to protect your own beliefs. Sad.

You guys say ye don't think about God and ye don't deny Him ... yet ye post at least as much on this forum as most of the Christians on it ... and your postings largely revolve around denying the evidence for the existence of God.
Sounds like ye do believe in something ... and that something is the denial of the existence of God.
... and just like every other belief, it brings with it a whole set of other beliefs and ways of viewing the world and everything in it.

J C · 28-02-2015 03:05PM

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

when we are all dead and a more intellectually advanced race is on this earth..... religion will not be thought about

I think that some Atheists will ensure that religion will be thought about always because of their stong denials of God ... even people of lukewarm religious faith will be stimulated to look further into the proofs for the existence of God, in respose to the questions raised by many Atheists.:)

J C · 28-02-2015 03:12PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I think you mean 4 billion, there, mate, although last I heard it was 3 point something or other billion years.

... million ... billion ... and quadrillion ... big numbers (no matter what their size) will not make something patently impossible ... possible.:)

catallus · 28-02-2015 03:24PM

The funny and sad thing about "unbelief" or "atheism" is that the proponents of such a zero-sum point of view always have to retreat into a position where they are so obviously blind to the miracle of creation.

As for those who do see that creation and believe, I can see how such a position looks just as ridiculous from an atheistic point of view, but only insofar as one blinds oneself to all of philosophy. Great minds over the centuries have struggled with such questions, from the old theologians to the modern philosophers; Wittgenstein was thinking deeply when he came up with "...whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"; the greatest influences for me are modern novelists and poets, who question the whole hullaballoo through the "rag and bone shop" of the human heart.

katydid · 28-02-2015 03:50PM

marienbad wrote: »

My mistake, I thought you were going to actually answer the post .

I did. You need to follow the thread, not jump in and out. I'm not going to repeat answers to facilitate you.

katydid · 28-02-2015 03:51PM

orubiru wrote: »

NO.

I do not know how The Universe started. I do not know how life began on Earth. I do not know how it will all end (if it even ends at all).

I do not "belive" that I do not know. I do not have "faith" that I do not know. I do not know.

If someone proposes that an asteroid "seeded" life on Earth, I don't believe it because they don't present evidence. I do not have faith that they are wrong I just see no proof and so I am comfortable dismissing that hypothesis. It does not mean that they will never be able to prove it. They cant prove it now so I don't believe it because... I do not know. It has nothing to do with belief or faith.

You propose that God sparked everything off. Many people go further than that and say that God created Man "in his own image". Many go even further than that and say that God is actively involved in our lives and listens to, and answers prayer etc and we will go to Heaven or Hell or... whatever. There is no evidence for this. No evidence for any of this. So I do not believe it because I do not know that it is true.

I can dismiss God easily because there is no evidence. How did the universe get here? How did we get here? What is consciousness? I do not know. Does it require faith to not know? Why should I fill in the blank spaces in my knowledge with "God"? I can't fill in the blanks with "God did it" because there is no proof. So the blanks remain blank until someone gives me proof.

You can't prove to me that God exists so it follows that I do not believe in God. No faith or belief required for me to hold that position.

Do I "believe" that I do not know or do I actually just not know?

The more interesting question here is why you insist that lack of belief in a hypothesis, that has no evidence, is a faith based position? It isn't.

You BELIEVE there is no God.

katydid · 28-02-2015 03:53PM

looksee wrote: »

Katydid, try this.

'I believe I can fly' - leaving aside aids like aeroplanes, I can argue that I can fly in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I haven't tried it but I believe I can fly. People have jumped off high buildings on the basis of this belief. Other people know they cannot fly, they do not say 'I believe I cannot fly' - a lack of belief is not relevant, they know they cannot. People have very convincing dreams that they can fly, they don't take that to mean that it is actually possible.

And all this is relevant how? It has been proven that human beings can't fly, so it is irrelevant to a discussion about something that has not and cannot be proven.

Gunney · 28-02-2015 03:54PM

J C wrote: »

I think that some Atheists will ensure that religion will be thought about always because of their stong denials of God ... even people of lukewarm religious faith will be stimulated to look further into the proofs for the existence of God, in respose to the questions raised by many Atheists.:)

I think you have that wrong. The problem with atheists is that they do not question. They do not question why the universe is here, why the Big Bang happened, why life started. Heck, they cannot even ask the question how the universe exists or how life exists. If they they only have two answers - the perpetual ignorance of "I don't know" or some unreasonable, unproveable theory that might as well be "I don't know".
Ignorance might be bliss but willful ignorance is foolish.

tommy2bad · 28-02-2015 03:59PM

catallus wrote: »

The funny and sad thing about "unbelief" or "atheism" is that the proponents of such a zero-sum point of view always have to retreat into a position where they are so obviously blind to the miracle of creation.

As for those who do see that creation and believe, I can see how such a position looks just as ridiculous from an atheistic point of view, but only insofar as one blinds oneself to all of philosophy. Great minds over the centuries have struggled with such questions, from the old theologians to the modern philosophers; Wittgenstein was thinking deeply when he came up with "...whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"; the greatest influences for me are modern novelists and poets, who question the whole hullaballoo through the "rag and bone shop" of the human heart.

Well yes the atheist world view is as ridiculed as the faith world view, easy to mock as they say.
The difference is an atheist has no need to defend his world view, he is already adjusting it as evidence accrues.
Yeah I get the thing about atheists having a belief, some do act as if the non existence of god was an article of faith, but that's not what atheism is, if right was right atheists and believers would share a closer world view, one that explored possibilities and learned from evidence and reason. Unfortunately both sides feel threatened by the other. Not without reasons, believers have form in persecuting unbelievers, so do atheists.

J C · 28-02-2015 04:04PM

Gunney wrote: »

I think you have that wrong. The problem with atheists is that they do not question. They do not question why the universe is here, why the Big Bang happened, why life started. Heck, they cannot even ask the question how the universe exists or how life exists. If they they only have two answers - the perpetual ignorance of "I don't know" or some unreasonable, unproveable theory that might as well be "I don't know".
Ignorance might be bliss but willful ignorance is foolish.

You are correct ... but Atheists think that they question everything ... but they actually question nothing that is required to bolster their Atheism ... because if they did ... they'd probably cease to be Atheists.

I know ... because I was that soldier ... always questioning the (many) weaknesses of religion ... but never really questioning anything that might undermine Atheism.

Gunney · 28-02-2015 04:14PM

J C wrote: »

I know ... because I was that soldier ... always questioning the (many) weaknesses of religion ... but never really questioning anything that might undermine Atheism.

How do you undermine something that has no foundation and stands on nothing?

catallus · 28-02-2015 04:15PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

...
The difference is an atheist has no need to defend his world view, he is already adjusting it as evidence accrues.

"Making it up as they go along"?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Unfortunately both sides feel threatened by the other. Not without reasons, believers have form in persecuting unbelievers, so do atheists.

Everyone's an <snip>

/thread

marienbad · 28-02-2015 04:23PM

katydid wrote: »

I did. You need to follow the thread, not jump in and out. I'm not going to repeat answers to facilitate you.

I actually thought you were going to answer what was asked though,silly me.

marienbad · 28-02-2015 04:31PM

catallus wrote: »

The funny and sad thing about "unbelief" or "atheism" is that the proponents of such a zero-sum point of view always have to retreat into a position where they are so obviously blind to the miracle of creation.

As for those who do see that creation and believe, I can see how such a position looks just as ridiculous from an atheistic point of view, but only insofar as one blinds oneself to all of philosophy. Great minds over the centuries have struggled with such questions, from the old theologians to the modern philosophers; Wittgenstein was thinking deeply when he came up with "...whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"; the greatest influences for me are modern novelists and poets, who question the whole hullaballoo through the "rag and bone shop" of the human heart.

This is just the same outlook as when we first looked up at the sky and thought we were the centre of the universe, and no different to those Brazilian tribes when they first saw an aeroplane , you can still see it in those Cargo Cults in the Pacific Islands referred to earlier in the thread.

Can just give one example ,since the dawn of time , where what was previously attributed to God/Gods/Religion etc was not subsequently debunked by the march of science ?

I asked this before and never got an answer.

Gunney · 28-02-2015 04:34PM

marienbad wrote: »

I asked this before and never got an answer.

There is no answer because science cannot debunk God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit.

J C · 28-02-2015 04:46PM

Gunney wrote: »

How do you undermine something that has no foundation and stands on nothing?

One way would be, by finding out that God exists ... loves us and created us

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments