Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 11:23AM

orubiru wrote: »

An argument or evidence for Atheism?

OK. Let's do this.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s).
I lack belief in God.
Therefore I am an Atheist.

I don't know anyone who is disputing you are an atheist, is there ?

orubiru wrote: »

Argument - People who lack belief in God are Atheists.
Evidence - There are people who lack belief in God.

The only argument I can possibly think of against Atheism is that everyone has belief in God and so it's impossible for anyone to be an Atheist. This argument is obviously false though.

You've left out the claim of your argument, which I presume is "atheists exist" ?

Is anyone claiming they don't ?

Surely you're not back to straw manning so soon ?

silverharp · 15-03-2015 11:26AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

The whole point is, do you, or any other atheist here have any arguments or evidence for atheism and/or against Christianity, that are not based on claims about individual posters, or misrepresentation, strawmen, false premises, or common fallacies ?

I have responded to your posts a few times with various comments simiar to below , you never responded to them to the best of my recollection

Why did God not reveal himself to the first Humans in Africa over 200,000 years ago?

secondly there was never really a first human , it was a process of evolution and by implication there was never a perfect creation , it was always an imperfect one with nature (including man and pre man) struggling with limited resources with a not so finely tuned planet to exist on.

The Jewish god story doesnt bare any relation to how we got here today. It was local lore, nothing more nothing less. Hence christianity is not based on anything real

orubiru · 15-03-2015 11:26AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Look up state atheism, and the countries that implimented it, and then have a look at the results.

I think that by calling them "atheist states" you are confusing a government that is anti-religion and actively tries to eliminate religion with a government that has belief, or lack of belief, in a religious doctrine.

People were killed in attempts to suppress religion. In the Soviet Union people were not killed "in the name of atheism"
the idea was to get rid of religion because they saw religion as a tool, being used to control and exploit the masses.

It was NOTHING to do with the belief or lack of belief in God. It was about power and control.

tommy2bad · 15-03-2015 11:28AM

Gintonious wrote: »

Respectful post, tip of the hat.

We will agree to disagree, the underlying premise of your post above is that there is a god in the first place., whereas I would argue that there is no evidence to support that.

I would also say that we are not fallen, and the only thing that can make us fallen would be adhering to the doctrine of Christianity, which undermines us in our most essential integrity. Saying we could not know right from wrong, or good from bad if it were not from supervision from above, makes us owned and slaves, something which I think is morally wrong.

If you've come across some of my other posts you'll know I don't buy into the objective morality argument. I think the notion that God created a morality that we are subject to is a nonsense. It makes no sense to creat a creature and fit Him into a morality, it's the very definition of square pegs and round holes. Any morality humans are bound to comes from humans, not cats or lambs or gods.
By the way, we knew right from wrong from the start, otherwise we would be innocent of disobeying God. We were not, the story is not about us discovering good from evil but tasting evil, I.e. committing an act of evil. Anyway agreeing about genesis as if it explained things is pointless. it's not an explanation, it's diversion from "where did it all come from daddy" to " this is why we are here" Trying to make it fit anything else is useless.
Yes of course it presupposes a God, it's a religious myth. That's kinda what they do.
I wouldn't look to genesis for evidence of the existence of god or any other part of the bible, it's all written on the assumption that God exists.

I don't claim theirs any evidence in the empirical meaning for God, the opposite, their isn't any unless you take the existence of everything as proof of their having been a single cause. Even that assumption is not sound, creation may have existed infinitely and their still be an infinitely existing God. Trying to avoid explaining this in hand waive theological terms and vague spiritualisms is not easy, believe depends on believe in more than empempirical evidence.

And theirs the problem, if proof for you requires physical evidence then their is none, for me it's more deductive, inspirational and aspiration. I don't require physical proof of things that are not physical.
Should you start telling me that God hates Brussels sprouts and we should burn them and kill all who eat of the mini cabbages then I'm going to insist on some physical evidence, mathematical proof and repeatable results from e experiments showing God pushing the sprouts under the mash.
If you tell me God says don't eat sprouts as a signs of loyalty, well ok I might be persuaded. See what I'm getting at?

orubiru · 15-03-2015 11:29AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I don't know anyone who is disputing you are an atheist, is there ?

You've left out the claim of your argument, which I presume is "atheists exist" ?

Is anyone claiming they don't ?

Surely you're not back to straw manning so soon ?

But you are asking about an argument for atheism.

What do you mean by that?

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 11:36AM

orubiru wrote: »

I think that by calling them "atheist states" you are confusing a government that is anti-religion and actively tries to eliminate religion with a government that has belief, or lack of belief, in a religious doctrine.

People were killed in attempts to suppress religion. In the Soviet Union people were not killed "in the name of atheism"
the idea was to get rid of religion because they saw religion as a tool, being used to control and exploit the masses.

It was NOTHING to do with the belief or lack of belief in God. It was about power and control.

What is an "atheist state" btw ? You're the first one to mention the term. I asked you to look up state atheism, which is the official promotion of atheism by a government, and the results of its implementation in the countries where it has been implemented to date. State atheism has everything to do with a lack of belief in God, that is its core principle.

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 11:38AM

orubiru wrote: »

But you are asking about an argument for atheism.

What do you mean by that?

A sound argument that supports any assertion that atheism is correct, e.g. one for atheism and/or against theism.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 11:45AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

If you've come across some of my other posts you'll know I don't buy into the objective morality argument. I think the notion that God created a morality that we are subject to is a nonsense. It makes no sense to creat a creature and fit Him into a morality, it's the very definition of square pegs and round holes. Any morality humans are bound to comes from humans, not cats or lambs or gods.
By the way, we knew right from wrong from the start, otherwise we would be innocent of disobeying God. We were not, the story is not about us discovering good from evil but tasting evil, I.e. committing an act of evil. Anyway agreeing about genesis as if it explained things is pointless. it's not an explanation, it's diversion from "where did it all come from daddy" to " this is why we are here" Trying to make it fit anything else is useless.
Yes of course it presupposes a God, it's a religious myth. That's kinda what they do.
I wouldn't look to genesis for evidence of the existence of god or any other part of the bible, it's all written on the assumption that God exists.

I don't claim theirs any evidence in the empirical meaning for God, the opposite, their isn't any unless you take the existence of everything as proof of their having been a single cause. Even that assumption is not sound, creation may have existed infinitely and their still be an infinitely existing God. Trying to avoid explaining this in hand waive theological terms and vague spiritualisms is not easy, believe depends on believe in more than empempirical evidence.

And theirs the problem, if proof for you requires physical evidence then their is none, for me it's more deductive, inspirational and aspiration. I don't require physical proof of things that are not physical.
Should you start telling me that God hates Brussels sprouts and we should burn them and kill all who eat of the mini cabbages then I'm going to insist on some physical evidence, mathematical proof and repeatable results from e experiments showing God pushing the sprouts under the mash.
If you tell me God says don't eat sprouts as a signs of loyalty, well ok I might be persuaded. See what I'm getting at?

Great post.

I would suggest that many Atheists are so vocal and appear so aggressively anti-religious is because there ARE people out there who do have attitudes equivalent to "God hates Brussles sprouts".

A lot of arguing, even on this thread, would be avoided if more people adopted your viewpoint rather than trying to misrepresent Atheism or to take the stance of "well you can't prove its not true!".

I have no problem at all with the idea that there may be some kind of "God" but specific claims such as "Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected" need specific proof.

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 11:46AM

orubiru wrote: »

I have no problem at all with the idea that there may be some kind of "God" but specific claims such as "Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected" need specific proof.

As do claims that he didn't

orubiru · 15-03-2015 12:11PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

A sound argument that supports any assertion that atheism is correct, e.g. one for atheism and/or against theism.

Yes, and what I am saying to you is that some of your statements don't make any sense.

What do you mean by "Atheism is correct" ?

What do you mean by "an argument for Atheism"?

Since the statements make no sense you would need to rephrase them or expand on the ideas or concepts. So you'll have to do that.

I lack belief in God in the same way that I have never been to Mexico

If someone asks me to make an argument that supports any assertion that never going to Mexico is correct. I am going to say "what?". I've never been to Mexico. That's it. I lack belief in God. That's it.

You appear to be saying that if I have never been to Mexico then it must be for some reason other than "I just havent been" and instead of accepting that you are just hammering on the point "you cant give me a good reason for not going to Mexico!" What?

I just lack belief. Thats it. Atheism is a lack of belief. Thats it.

You want me to argue for non belief? Sure. If you dont believe then you dont believe. Thats it.

Atheism and Theism are definitions. They cant be argued for or against.

You'd be as well asking "can you give me an argument for The Sun". It doesnt make any sense.

OR you could try explaining yourself. Explain you point. Explain the ideas and concepts you are trying to get across.

Then rephrase your statements and questions so that they are no longer malformed.

You seem to think you can get away with asking nonsense questions and then claiming victory when those questions, obviously, cant be answered.

"Its like playing chess with a pidgeon; No matter how good I am at chess, the pidgeon is just going to knock over the pieces, **** on the board, and strut around like it's victorious"

Delirium · 15-03-2015 12:12PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Once you strip out the usual attack the poster instead of the post, there's not much left to reply to.

May I remind posters that attacking the poster is against the charter.

Like anything in the charter, you report posts you believe breach the charter for the mods to review and possibly action.

You do not accuse posters of breaching the charter on thread.

Thanks for your attention.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 12:18PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

As do claims that he didn't

Then why would you choose Catholicism over Mormonism?

Joseph Smith was called a prophet...

He claims he spoke with God and Jesus...

So, how do you know he didn't?

There is evidence supporting the historicity of Joseph Smith and the Mormon religion has 15 million followers.

How were you able to choose between being a Catholic and being a Mormon?

orubiru · 15-03-2015 12:30PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

What is an "atheist state" btw ? You're the first one to mention the term. I asked you to look up state atheism, which is the official promotion of atheism by a government, and the results of its implementation in the countries where it has been implemented to date. State atheism has everything to do with a lack of belief in God, that is its core principle.

You are confusing a personal lack of faith in God with a government policy of suppressing and eliminating religion.

The governments were not "promoting atheism" they were trying to destroy religion for political gain. Completely different things.

This, again, brings us back to a misunderstanding of the terms being used.

State Atheism is about the government taking the powers, wealth, and political influence of the religions out of the picture. I has nothing AT ALL to do with belief or lack of belief.

Stalin, for example, had trained to be a priest. He didnt just decide "I dont believe in God anymore, lets wipe out Christianity" he understood the power held by thw church and tried to claim it for himself. His dictatorship was extremely religious in its nature.

You keep talking like you think Atheism is some kind of religion. It is not.

katydid · 15-03-2015 12:36PM

orubiru wrote: »

Then why would you choose Catholicism over Mormonism?

Joseph Smith was called a prophet...

He claims he spoke with God and Jesus...

So, how do you know he didn't?

There is evidence supporting the historicity of Joseph Smith and the Mormon religion has 15 million followers.

How were you able to choose between being a Catholic and being a Mormon?

In fairness, Joseph Smith was a dodgy character. Arrested for disorderly conduct several times in New York, charged with bank fraud in Ohio, but never arrested because he did a runner. Charged with threatening a judge in Illinois. Charged with inciting a riot. Involvement in a war against other settlers...If people are happy to follow a religion conveniently invented by this guy, more power to them.

Mind you, we don't know what Jesus was getting up for the first thirty years of his life...

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 12:39PM

orubiru wrote: »

Then why would you choose Catholicism over Mormonism?

Joseph Smith was called a prophet...

He claims he spoke with God and Jesus...

So, how do you know he didn't?

There is evidence supporting the historicity of Joseph Smith and the Mormon religion has 15 million followers.

How were you able to choose between being a Catholic and being a Mormon?

There are many religions in the world, and I've looked into them all, but none of them measure up for me in terms of the life and teachings of Christ.

As for Mormons, simple really, Mormons aren't Christians, they don't subscribe to the apostles creed, which is the definition of Christianity on this forum, according to the forum charter.

As for the other denominations I don't believe in their interpretations, as they either contradict scripture, and/or they fail to believe and practice what was practiced from the earliest days of Christianity. There is a thread for Protestant / Catholic debate, and I'm happy to continue that debate there, as the forum charter requires.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 12:43PM

katydid wrote: »

In fairness, Joseph Smith was a dodgy character. Arrested for disorderly conduct several times in New York, charged with bank fraud in Ohio, but never arrested because he did a runner. Charged with threatening a judge in Illinois. Charged with inciting a riot. Involvement in a war against other settlers...If people are happy to follow a religion conveniently invented by this guy, more power to them.

Mind you, we don't know what Jesus was getting up for the first thirty years of his life...

Hey, I agree with you but ad hominem arguments against Joseph Smith should not be allowed to distract us from the question of how one makes a choice between Catholicism or Mormonism.

My "guess" would be that most Catholics had made their choice before they'd even heard of the Mormon Religion and most of those probably never even looked into it.

I agree with you on Jesus, we know very little about him. Though, I see no problem with following the teachings of Jesus if that's what people want to do.

I am more curious about why we have to insist that Jesus was real and his story is historical fact? The teachings are still valid whether Jesus existed or not, right?

orubiru · 15-03-2015 12:46PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

There are many religions in the world, and I've looked into them all, but none of them measure up for me in terms of the life and teachings of Christ.

As for Mormons, simple really, Mormons aren't Christians, they don't subscribe to the apostles creed, which is the definition of Christianity on this forum, according to the forum charter.

As for the other denominations I don't believe in their interpretations, as they either contradict scripture, and/or they fail to believe and practice what was practiced from the earliest days of Christianity. There is a thread for Protestant / Catholic debate, and I'm happy to continue that debate there, as the forum charter requires.

So, in conclusion you picked Catholicism over Mormonism "just because"?

Seriously, Joseph Smith talked to God and Jesus! Come on, you are trying to tell me that he didn't? Can you prove that he didn't?

Or do you perhaps just lack belief?

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 12:52PM

orubiru wrote: »

You are confusing a personal lack of faith in God with a government policy of suppressing and eliminating religion.

Where ? Back up this strawman claim please.
Can you ever keep any discussion about the points in a post instead of about the poster ?

orubiru wrote: »

The governments were not "promoting atheism" they were trying to destroy religion for political gain. Completely different things.

This, again, brings us back to a misunderstanding of the terms being used.

State Atheism is about the government taking the powers, wealth, and political influence of the religions out of the picture. I has nothing AT ALL to do with belief or lack of belief.

Stalin, for example, had trained to be a priest. He didnt just decide "I dont believe in God anymore, lets wipe out Christianity" he understood the power held by thw church and tried to claim it for himself. His dictatorship was extremely religious in its nature.

You keep talking like you think Atheism is some kind of religion. It is not.

This is straw manning again. No one has stated atheism is state atheism.

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, and the results in the countries where this was implemented are well documented.

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 12:58PM

orubiru wrote: »

So, in conclusion you picked Catholicism over Mormonism "just because"?

I didn't choose Catholicism over Mormanism "just because"

This is classic straw manning again.

Poster A : "The sky is blue"

Poster B : "So you're saying the sky is green ? are you stupid ?"

I already explained :

Mormons aren't Christians, they don't subscribe to the apostles creed, which is the definition of Christianity on this forum, according to the forum charter.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 01:03PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

There are many religions in the world, and I've looked into them all, but none of them measure up for me in terms of the life and teachings of Christ.

As for Mormons, simple really, Mormons aren't Christians, they don't subscribe to the apostles creed, which is the definition of Christianity on this forum, according to the forum charter.

As for the other denominations I don't believe in their interpretations, as they either contradict scripture, and/or they fail to believe and practice what was practiced from the earliest days of Christianity. There is a thread for Protestant / Catholic debate, and I'm happy to continue that debate there, as the forum charter requires.

Well, it looks like we finally made it!

You lack belief in every single religion in the world, except one. The quoted post is an admission of this, right?

At the same time you demand an argument for why "atheism is correct".

You don't see that the answer lay within you all this time?

Surely if there are 100 religions and you lack belief in 99 of them then asking me to give an argument for Atheism makes even less sense than before. When the only difference here is that I lack belief in 100 religions.

The argument for Atheism is to take the lack of belief you have in "all religions, minus one" and simply apply it to "all religions".

See, now you've answered all your own questions. At least it seems that way to me.

Welcome to the world of Atheism! (well, you are 99.999% Atheist but thats good enough!)

orubiru · 15-03-2015 01:07PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Where ? Back up this strawman claim please.
Can you ever keep any discussion about the points in a post instead of about the poster ?

This is straw manning again. No one has stated atheism is state atheism.

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, and the results in the countries where this was implemented are well documented.

It not about the poster.

Its about the errors in the post.

Your opinions on state atheism are incorrect.

I have corrected you and you have ignored my corrections.

There is nothing left to discuss.

silverharp · 15-03-2015 01:10PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

There are many religions in the world, and I've looked into them all, but none of them measure up for me in terms of the life and teachings of Christ.

As for Mormons, simple really, Mormons aren't Christians, they don't subscribe to the apostles creed, which is the definition of Christianity on this forum, according to the forum charter.

As for the other denominations I don't believe in their interpretations, as they either contradict scripture, and/or they fail to believe and practice what was practiced from the earliest days of Christianity. There is a thread for Protestant / Catholic debate, and I'm happy to continue that debate there, as the forum charter requires.

Hey Cent any chance of answering my questions from your point of view. You say you have looked into several and christianity seems to be the best so with that in mind

Why did God not reveal himself to the first Humans in Africa over 200,000 years ago?

secondly there was never really a first human , it was a process of evolution and by implication there was never a perfect creation , it was always an imperfect one with nature (including man and pre man) struggling with limited resources with a not so finely tuned planet to exist on.?

Ill take a "i dont know" "its a mystery"

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 01:15PM

orubiru wrote: »

Well, it looks like we finally made it!

You lack belief in every single religion in the world, except one. The quoted post is an admission of this, right?

At the same time you demand an argument for why "atheism is correct".

You don't see that the answer lay within you all this time?

Surely if there are 100 religions and you lack belief in 99 of them then asking me to give an argument for Atheism makes even less sense than before. When the only difference here is that I lack belief in 100 religions.

The argument for Atheism is to take the lack of belief you have in "all religions, minus one" and simply apply it to "all religions".

See, now you've answered all your own questions. At least it seems that way to me.

Welcome to the world of Atheism! (well, you are 99.999% Atheist but thats good enough!)

And back to making it about a poster again, instead of the subject.

There are many differing beliefs about God held by differing religions, they could be all incorrect, that doesn't in any way prove that God does, or does not exist.

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 01:17PM

orubiru wrote: »

It not about the poster.

Its about the errors in the post.

Your opinions on state atheism are incorrect.

I have corrected you and you have ignored my corrections.

There is nothing left to discuss.

The only thing you corrected was a strawman version of the post.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 01:29PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Mormons aren't Christians

Is that a claim or a belief? It can be so difficult to tell sometimes.

Anyway, somebody should tell them that they are not Christians.

http://www.mormon.org/

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the official name of the religion commonly called the Mormon Church. We believe first and foremost that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God."

http://www.mormon.org/faq/topic/about-mormons/question/mormon-Christian

Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1995-2008), said:

“We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior...the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and the head of our Church. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/may-web-only/are-mormons-more-christian-than-we-think.html

indioblack · 15-03-2015 01:30PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

And back to making it about a poster again, instead of the subject.

There are many differing beliefs about God held by differing religions, they could be all incorrect, that doesn't in any way prove that God does, or does not exist.

If that is so it begs the question, once again, why choose one religion instead of another?

orubiru · 15-03-2015 01:32PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

And back to making it about a poster again, instead of the subject.

There are many differing beliefs about God held by differing religions, they could be all incorrect, that doesn't in any way prove that God does, or does not exist.

Told you before, Atheism is a lack of belief in God. It is not an attempt to prove that God does not exist.

You admit yourself that you lack belief in all religions except for one.

So you have answered all of your own questions about Atheism (proud of ya) you simply take your lack of belief in "all religions, except one" and apply it to "all religions".

Really easy.

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 01:38PM

silverharp wrote: »

Hey Cent any chance of answering my questions from your point of view. You say you have looked into several and christianity seems to be the best so with that in mind

secondly there was never really a first human , it was a process of evolution and by implication there was never a perfect creation , it was always an imperfect one with nature (including man and pre man) struggling with limited resources with a not so finely tuned planet to exist on.?

Ill take a "i dont know" "its a mystery"

Hello Silverharp.

silverharp wrote: »

Why did God not reveal himself to the first Humans in Africa over 200,000 years ago?

I don't know if he did or not, of if they were the first humans or not. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), found to date, are the Omo remains found in Ethopia, which date to 195,000 (±5,000). This does not mean that there were no early humans north of this region.

silverharp wrote: »

secondly there was never really a first human , it was a process of evolution and by implication there was never a perfect creation , it was always an imperfect one with nature (including man and pre man) struggling with limited resources with a not so finely tuned planet to exist on.?

I don't know at what point, they evolved from Homo sapiens idaltu, to Homo sapiens sapiens, science's latest estimate is somewhere in and around 200,000 years ago.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 01:49PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

There are many religions in the world, and I've looked into them all, but none of them measure up for me in terms of the life and teachings of Christ.

Just to quickly revisit this. I have also looked into them and none of them measure up for me either. Including the life and teachings of Christ.

So, we are not so different there.

What bends my mind at this point is that you have admitted that you lack belief in all Gods except for a specific one and yet you insist on asking people for an argument that Atheism is correct.

Surely, your lack of belief in 99.999% of all Gods is exactly the same as my lack of belief in your one God?

"There are many religions in the world, and I've looked into them all, but none of them measure up for me in terms of the life and teachings of Christ."

If you've looked into them all and you lack belief in some of them then you fully understand the Atheist point of view. So why ask for supporting arguments at all when you have essentially gone through the same process yourself.

For example, you lack belief in Joseph Smith right?

I just add Jesus Christ to the same list as Joseph Smith using the exact same reasoning as you used.

silverharp · 15-03-2015 02:00PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Hello Silverharp.

I don't know if he did or not, of if they were the first humans or not. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), found to date, are the Omo remains found in Ethopia, which date to 195,000 (±5,000). This does not mean that there were no early humans north of this region.

im not so concerned where they started out as such although it doesnt help the case if the start of mankind was central Africa and not the middle east, moreso that God let humans roam the earth for a hundred and ninety thousand plus years while staying hidden.
Even if taking Genesis as a "spiritual" account there couldnt have been "perfect" humans that messed it all up. Hence the basis of Judaism and Christianity is wrong and doesnt correspond to observed history of man and or pre man.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments