Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Gintonious wrote: »

You say you believe in god, but then you say you aren't claiming it?

So what aren't you claiming? A belief or that there is a God?

I've already stated it.
So you don't understand the difference then.

I believe God exists, I don't claim that he does or doesn't.

I believe Alien life exists, I don't know if it does or doesn't.

Do you claim that God does not exist, or do you lack belief that he does, which is it ?

Gintonious wrote: »

So are you or are you not claiming a belief in God? My post was directed at your post.

Saying that my post was a straw man fallacy is just a cop-out on your part. The point of your belief/claim being an Existential claim is pretty much spot on, in that you are claiming a belief in god.

So then I ask you, do you or do you not claim that god exists?

A belief is a belief, a claim is a claim, can you answer the questions I have asked you ?

Gintonious wrote: »

Ok, so basically you can't get into a direct discussion about the existence of a god, but you will believe it nonetheless.

I go by the atheistic proposition, which is the following:
It may not be said that there is no god, it may be said to say that there is no reason to believe that there is one.

Or you could just simply say, like most atheists, you lack belief, because you've yet to see a good enough reason for you to believe. Which would be fine. Then there is nothing to debate.

You're not making any false claims or false arguments against theism/Christianity based on any false premises, fallacies, etc.

If you have any claims against theism/Christianity that aren’t based on any false premises, fallacies, etc. I'd be glad to hear them . . .

I'd also be intrested to hear any examples of what type of evidence or reason would alter your believe to non belief and why it would be a good enough reason / evidence ?

Cen taurus wrote: »

Or you could just simply say, like most atheists, you lack belief, because you've yet to see a good enough reason for you to believe. Which would be fine. Then there is nothing to debate.

You're not making any false claims or false arguments against Christianity based on any false premises, fallacies, etc.

If you have any that aren’t I'd be glad to hear them . . .

Well thats more or less what I did say with the proposition, that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a god.

The assertions come from the Christian side of the debate. The claim that God made us, sent his only son, born to a virgin, to perform a range of miracles like curing people of their sickness, feeding many people, exorcisms, rising from the dead and other controls over natural things, like water into wine etc.

From what we now know about the natural world, and how the cosmos was formed, the above is nothing more than a fairytale. Then bear in mind where this all, apparently, took place. Illiterate, backwards bronze age parts of the middle east, not in a society where they could read or write, or practise early forms of science.

Then the orders and claims from what can only be described as a truly evil god, the blood soaked Old Testament where genocide, racism, tribalism, slavery, are called for and recommended, is it even right to believe in such a thing?

Then with the arrival of Jesus, it is told that if we do not follow him, then you are condemned to hell for eternity, a perfectly immoral doctrine.

This type of thing undermines us in our most essential integrity, and to say that we are born in sin, the foundation for sending Jesus back to die for the sins for which we were gifted, again, a true insult.

Why do I think that this is untrue and immoral? Adam and Eve were punished for eating fruit from a talking snake in the Garden of Eden after god created the earth in a matter of days (all of which has been conclusively disproven). We now know that Adam and Eve did not exist in the Garden of Eden, and we are evolved, not created. So the sins that Jesus was sent back to forgive us for, never occurred. The basis for it is false.

So, with that in mind, not only is there no evidence to believe that anything that took place in the bible is true, it is a very good thing to see that there is no reason to believe it is true. It makes us owned, it makes us objects of a divine dictator who created us either to punish us, or was lazy, inept and capricious and cruel. It underlines our existence in the most essential ways possible, that we couldn't know right from wrong unless god sent his only son to die for the sins which were gifted to us.

In more recent years, I have probably gone more from the Atheist mind set to that of an anti-theist. The idea that there is a controlling power in the sky, who watches over us is truly reprehensible. Being told that we are held responsible for the events of 2,000 years ago and that we are born in sin, this is just a way of trying to control us through fear.

That might have gone off the topic of our direct conversation in this thread, but it is my position more recently on religion, and this is a thread about the Existence of God, and not only is there no evidence to support it, I am glad there isn't.

Cen taurus wrote: »

Anything sound, not based on false claims or false arguments based on any false premises, fallacies, etc.

Got anything ?

Can I ask, what makes you believe in the Christian god?

Ah good Atheism ++

For starters, can we have proof for these claims please :

Gintonious wrote: »

1. From what we now know about the natural world, and how the cosmos was formed, the above [christian belief] is nothing more than a fairytale.

Gintonious wrote: »

2. We now know that Adam and Eve did not exist in the Garden of Eden

Gintonious wrote: »

Can I ask, what makes you believe in the Christian god?

Nothing "makes" me. I've explained several times over why I believe in God, you'll find it in my posts, I'm not repeating it over again.

Cen taurus wrote: »

Yes indeed I do marienbad, your Freudian slip from earlier . . .

Anything to contribute, any independent thought ,any point of your own ?. Are you so frightened of doubt that you need reassurance from atheists ?

Any answers ..ever ?

Got anything ?

Cen taurus wrote: »

Ah good Atheism ++

For starters, can we have proof for these claims please :

Originally Posted by Gintonious View Post
1. From what we now know about the natural world, and how the cosmos was formed, the above [christian belief] is nothing more than a fairytale.

We now know that the earth was not formed in 6 days, by god, creating certain elements per day, and then he was a bit tired so he rested then on the 7th day. We now know that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands. The miracles that were claimed in the bible go against scientific research and knowledge, no one rises from the dead, walks on water. turns water into wine.

Which is more probable? That the laws of physics and nature have been suspended, or that you're under a misapprehension? And thats if you saw it for yourself, so when you take the stories have filtered through different writers and corrupt texts throughout the centuries, from bronze age Palestine, the leap of faith that must be made, is that of a very large scale. And if you were to believe any of them, you would literally believe anything.

Originally Posted by Gintonious View Post
2. We now know that Adam and Eve did not exist in the Garden of Eden

Genetics would point you towards this one. Modern genetics and research has pointed towards the origins of the human species to East Africa, not the middle east or in the locations as to where the bible stories were set. Mitochondrial Eve also originated somewhere between 99,000 to 200,000 years ago, which does not match the timeline in the bible.

Genetic data shows that the human species came from thousands of individuals, not just 2, as stated in the bible story.

Is there any mention in the bible about any form of science? About the universe? DNA? Diseases? Natural disasters like earthquakes and volcanos?

No, there is not. Why do you think that is? Because these creation myths and legends that are in the bible are exactly that, myth, legend and fairytale.

Manach wrote: »

Well thankfully historically the Church has been one of the mainstays of reason and attempting to keep a balance between the differing magisterium of religion and science injecting a respect of logic in the latter based on first principles and reminding the latter of the importance having a moral dimension when viewing the world through the scientific world view.

A moral dimension? Is this a joke post?

The church has a long history of repression and persecution against scientists throughout the ages. Galileo was arrested for publishing his evidence that supported the Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The church actively pursued those who would contradict the bible, they would persecute scientists and stop books by these scientists from being read by the general public.

We would be at a far higher status with science if it were not for the interference of the church and their acts against science. So your statement above is laughable.

And to say that the church has an impact on the morality of a scientific world view, if we took our morals from the bible, rape, genocide and slavery would still be allowed. The doctrine of vicarious redemption by sacrifice is utterly immoral. Is that morality?

Who said it was ? I endorse the theory of evolution, as does the largest Christian denomination, the Catholic Church.

The Genesis story, the apparent word of god which states that God created the world in 6 days and then rested on the 7th. There is no a stance in the Catholic Church that the story of genesis is not to be taken literally, but as some form of fable, so while the church does accept evolution (it is a fact after all), it is still doing a bit of goal post moving or akin to "want my cake and eating it", that god created us and then let evolution do its thing. Its good PR, but it is still misses the point, and again, it back-pedals on the origins of Christianity, no Adam and Eve, so no original sin, and therefor no need for a divine saviour.

Actually, science has found all currently living human beings, decend in a direct unbroken, maternal line, from one woman, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago, she was traceable, because all mitochondrial DNA generally is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers.

Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor, the most recent common male ancestor, from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally, lived between 163,900 and 260,200 years ago.

Note : These are the most recent common ancestors on the male / female line, they may not have existed at the same time, there may be other common ancestors that have not been traced yet.

Quite true, I was wrong on this one. You proved my point better than me. Thanks for that.

You ask me a question, and you answer? Well the answer is it’s not a science book and never claimed to be. It's a canonical collection of texts for Judaism and Christianity. It contains many forms of literature from parables, to poetry, to song, to human experiences, to letters. Categorising it as a science book would be a category error. It's no more a science book than any other non-science book.

It wouldn't be a category error, it would be intellectual suicide. It is now claimed that it is just a from of stories, and that it is not to be taken literally. I don't think that this is the case for quite a few people, especially some posters in this forum. If you don't take it literally then I applaud that, but I am afraid you would be in a minority on that front (correct me if I am wrong on the assumption that you don't take it literally).

The bible makes rather extraordinary claims for itself, and also claims to be the word of god. You say that you believe in god, particularly the Christian god, and yet you say above, that the bible is full of poetry, parables and experiences. So if the bible is not true in its literal form, what are your grounds for believing in the god mentioned in the bible? You have said before that "I believe God exists, I don't claim that he does or doesn't." What makes you believe that god exists if the bible is just a partial truth?

Gintonious wrote: »

The Genesis story, the apparent word of god which states that God created the world in 6 days and then rested on the 7th. There is no a stance in the Catholic Church that the story of genesis is not to be taken literally, but as some form of fable, so while the church does accept evolution (it is a fact after all), it is still doing a bit of goal post moving or akin to "want my cake and eating it", that god created us and then let evolution do its thing. Its good PR, but it is still misses the point, and again, it back-pedals on the origins of Christianity, no Adam and Eve, so no original sin, and therefor no need for a divine saviour.



Quite true, I was wrong on this one. You proved my point better than me. Thanks for that.



It wouldn't be a category error, it woulliteralist lectual suicide. It is now claimed that it is just a from of stories, and that it is not to be taken literally. I don't think that this is the case for quite a few people, especially some posters in this forum. If you don't take it literally then I applaud that, but I am afraid you would be in a minority on that front (correct me if I am wrong on the assumption that you don't take it literally).

The bible makes rather extraordinary claims for itself, and also claims to be the word of god. You say that you believe in god, particularly the Christian god, and yet you say above, that the bible is full of poetry, parables and experiences. So if the bible is not true in its literal form, what are your grounds for believing in the god mentioned in the bible? You have said before that "I believe God exists, I don't claim that he does or doesn't." What makes you believe that god exists if the bible is just a partial truth?

Actually their is no stance in the Catholic church that genesis must be read literally, never was!

The bible is a Cole tion of books. You seem to have trouble with this concept, at no time was it ever taught to be otherwise. You say this is not the case for most people, based on what? Is it a case of " that's just, like, your opinion" because you insist on this despite the evidence of several posters here telling you the opposite..
Why do you need a written record and 8x12 glossy photos before you believe?

marienbad wrote: »

tommy ,are you saying that in the RCC The Garden of Eden ,Adam and Eve , The Fall etc. are allegorical ?

It's a little more complicated than the texts being allegory or metaphors or history. They are all 3 and none. You are free to read the entirety of genesis as any one of them As long as you take the lesson that in our relationship with God we are created creatures in His image who through sin have fallen and are in need of redemption. I can freely say genesis is allegory to tell this truth and you are equally free to claim it's history, everything happened as described. Theologically both of us are on solid ground though you will be mocked mercilessly for believing in 7 day creation only able to find solace from J.C.