Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 11:09AM

silverharp wrote: »

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch anime for a few hours.

Have you seen the one about the Ghost that went shopping to Brown Thomas

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 11:11AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You keep telling yourself that, hon.

I has assumed you knew the difference.
e.g. I believe alien life exists, is not the same the claim that it does exist.

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 11:11AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Have you seen the one about the Ghost that went shopping to Brown Thomas

Don't know where you're getting that from. I don't shop at Brown Thomas, don't think I've ever once been in their stores.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 11:12AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Don't know where you're getting that from. I don't shop at Brown Thomas, don't think I've ever once been in their stores.

Perhaps it was your Ghost then.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 11:15AM

silverharp wrote: »

The New Testiment says that if you have enough faith you can move a mountain. So if I saw someone claiming to be christian dong that I would consider converting on the spot :pac:

silverharp wrote: »

I'd settle for some amputees being healed

In both cases, why would this prove God exists, and why would God be the only possible explanation ?

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 11:16AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

In both cases, why would this prove God exists, and why would God be the only possible explanation ?

I'm surprised. I usually hear questions like that from atheists. I never expected a christian to ask that.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 11:17AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm surprised. I usually hear questions like that from atheists. I never expected a christian to ask that.

That's the problem with stereotyping people.
So what's your answer then ? Silverlight deems it as sufficient proof. Would you and why ?
Why would that prove God exists, and why could there be no other possible explanation ?

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 11:28AM

What is the first sentence in the standard Christian Bible?

Sounds like a claim to me. It is pretty much all claims from that point on as well.

silverharp · 22-03-2015 11:35AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

In both cases, why would this prove God exists, and why would God be the only possible explanation ?

where did I say only? it would fall into the bag of something supernatural and not possible for humans to contrive or imagine happening.

indioblack · 22-03-2015 11:52AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

In both cases, why would this prove God exists, and why would God be the only possible explanation ?

It might give one an inkling that something out of the ordinary was happening.

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 11:52AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

That's the problem with stereotyping people.
So what's your answer then ? Silverlight deems it as sufficient proof. Would you and why ?
Why would that prove God exists, and why could there be no other possible explanation ?

No, the reason I said that isn't because I "stereotyped", the reason I said it is because a Christian asking that only reveals the fundamental flaws in his beliefs. It undermines them. Even in the hypothetical scenario where we have proof that Jesus did magic up enough loaves and fish to feed a crowd, that doesn't automatically serve as evidence that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the One True God incarnate, or that his teachings on morality and ethics are the ones that ought to be followed.
It just proves he's apparently can do some very fantastical feats. That's it. What does being able to conjure up bread have to do with whether or not that same guy's teachings on divorce, for one, ought to be followed?

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 12:00PM

RikuoAmero wrote:

No, the reason I said that isn't because I "stereotyped", the reason I said it is because a Christian asking that only reveals the fundamental flaws in his beliefs. It undermines them. Even in the hypothetical scenario where we have proof that Jesus did magic up enough loaves and fish to feed a crowd, that doesn't automatically serve as evidence that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the One True God incarnate, or that his teachings on morality and ethics are the ones that ought to be followed. It just proves he's apparently can do some very fantastical feats. That's it. What does being able to conjure up bread have to do with whether or not that same guy's teachings on divorce, for one, ought to be followed?

Going to go out on a limb and say that point is going to be side stepped :-)

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 12:35PM

indioblack wrote: »

It might give one an inkling that something out of the ordinary was happening.

He asks this question to everyone. He never responds properly to any of the answers, so I wouldn't waste my breath.

I'm assuming he thinks that through the answer of the question we will arrive as some profound realisation (can't prove God doesn't exist therefore....he exits?), but if that is the case it certainly ain't working and he seems very reluctant to expand on what point, if any, he is trying to make.

Maybe he is just wasting time to try and move the thread away from the posts that are challenging for Christians.

Either way, the endless repeated questions with no follow up or response just ends producing

Does anyone want to seriously debate the existence of God? Or have all the believers run off to watch William Lane Craig and take anti-cognitive dissonance medication?

indioblack · 22-03-2015 12:44PM

TheLurker wrote: »

He asks this question to everyone. He never responds properly to any of the answers, so I wouldn't waste my breath.

I'm assuming he thinks that through the answer of the question we will arrive as some profound realisation (can't prove God doesn't exist therefore....he exits?), but if that is the case it certainly ain't working and he seems very reluctant to expand on what point, if any, he is trying to make.

Maybe he is just wasting time to try and move the thread away from the posts that are challenging for Christians.

Either way, the endless repeated questions with no follow up or response just ends producing

Does anyone want to seriously debate the existence of God? Or have all the believers run off to watch William Lane Craig and take anti-cognitive dissonance medication?

For myself it comes down to this: If there is an agency that underpins existence I am unable to imagine that it could be the Christian God.

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 12:57PM

indioblack wrote: »

For myself it comes down to this: If there is an agency that underpins existence I am unable to imagine that it could be the Christian God.

For me it is even simpler, if you at all care about the outcome do not accept as accurate claims about reality that cannot be shown to be accurate. If you don't care about the outcome, go nuts. This is the underpinning of all modern post-Enlightenment thought, including science.

Despite all Cen taurus' claims otherwise, Christians do consider the supernatural claims of the religion to be accurate, they do care about the outcome, they cannot support the belief that they are accurate, this is irrational and anti-scientific and there is a conflict between Christianity and science.

Christians are of course free to do this. But it is irrational and silly. And expecting others to go along with it, or to remain silent on how silly it all is, is asking too much.

silverharp · 22-03-2015 01:14PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Christians are of course free to do this. But it is irrational and silly. And expecting others to go along with it, or to remain silent on how silly it all is, is asking too much.

the other thing though out these debates that amuses me is the importance of faith without any supporting evidence? why would a deity that built the universe make faith the highest ideal?

marienbad · 22-03-2015 01:18PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Have you seen the one about the Ghost that went shopping to Brown Thomas

Have you seen the one about the poster that ignores posts , won't answer posts and edits posts after they have been replied to ? :rolleyes:

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 01:21PM

silverharp wrote: »

the other thing though out these debates that amuses me is the importance of faith without any supporting evidence? why would a deity that built the universe make faith the highest ideal?

That is a good example of two competting theories.

One possibility is that the creator of the universe did for some bizarre reason decided he need to remain hidden other than for special events that only a select few would witness, in other so that the rest of us what have to have faith that these events happenend. Not faith in him mind, as is it is so often claimed by believers, but in the people making the original claims. Faith in God is not required to believe Moses. Faith in Moses is required to believe Moses. Or more accurately faith in the people who wrote down Moses' story. So the creator of the universe wanted us to have faith in a group of abritrary priests in the 3rd century BC.

Or

The people who come up with these religious stories in order to bolster certain claims to the local thrones and titles in the area, presented faith in themselves and the stories they told the population as a virtue in order to surpress descent and questioning of these claims. Faith in these stories become certain in the moral teachings of the story, it was not only bad to not put faith in the accuracy of what you were being told, it was immoral.

Now, based on how we already know humans work which do you think has more support as a theory :pac:

silverharp · 22-03-2015 01:28PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Now, based on how we already know humans work which do you think has more support as a theory :pac:

i'll take answer B there Bob....

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 01:39PM

silverharp wrote: »

i'll take answer B there Bob....

The interesting question is why doesn't everyone take B. I think the claims of religion are ridiculous, but why humans are religious in the first place is an interesting puzzle.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/13/religion.scienceandnature

indioblack · 22-03-2015 01:41PM

TheLurker wrote: »

For me it is even simpler, if you at all care about the outcome do not accept as accurate claims about reality that cannot be shown to be accurate. If you don't care about the outcome, go nuts. This is the underpinning of all modern post-Enlightenment thought, including science.

Despite all Cen taurus' claims otherwise, Christians do consider the supernatural claims of the religion to be accurate, they do care about the outcome, they cannot support the belief that they are accurate, this is irrational and anti-scientific and there is a conflict between Christianity and science.

Christians are of course free to do this. But it is irrational and silly. And expecting others to go along with it, or to remain silent on how silly it all is, is asking too much.

A good response - and I shall try not to go bonkers!
I've found this thread very interesting. It's obliged me to think about this debate even when I'm away from the computer.
What I term the material, mechanical world - our existence - is my stumbling block.
The notion that our world now is the result of ancestral sin doesn't seem right. It would mean that some or all of our existence, our reality, exists because of the "Fall".
I've not been interested in combative posts because I think they get in the way of this vital issue - well, I think it's vital anyway. There is nothing bigger than trying to figure out what your supposed to be doing on this rock.
We know what we have to do, what life obliges us to do - the daily grind.
And then there's the rest - the old question of "What is it for?"
"Before enlightenment, the laundry. After enlightenment.......the laundry."

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 01:52PM

indioblack wrote: »

A good response - and I shall try not to go bonkers!
I've found this thread very interesting. It's obliged me to think about this debate even when I'm away from the computer.
What I term the material, mechanical world - our existence - is my stumbling block.
The notion that our world now is the result of ancestral sin doesn't seem right. It would mean that some or all of our existence, our reality, exists because of the "Fall".
I've not been interested in combative posts because I think they get in the way of this vital issue - well, I think it's vital anyway. There is nothing bigger than trying to figure out what your supposed to be doing on this rock.
We know what we have to do, what life obliges us to do - the daily grind.
And then there's the rest - the old question of "What is it for?"
"Before enlightenment, the laundry. After enlightenment.......the laundry."

Some take comfort by imagining that we exist for a purpose. I don't find this idea comforting though. If you think about it, what 'existing for a purpose' really means is existing for someone else's purpose. It is odd how simply clarifying that turns the romanticism of the language completely around.

I know more would enjoying existing for a divine creators purpose than I would enjoying existing because the divine leader told my parents to have children to serve in his army, or existing because my parents were having marriage trouble and thought a baby would give my mum something to do (which, thankfully, isn't what happend with me)

Having an assigned purpose in life seems only comforting to those who have trouble finding their own way in life. But equally it can be stifling to those who already have a path they want to follow. History is littered with people (mostly women or minorities) being told that they cannot do what they wish to do because it was decided by someone or something else that this was not their purpose.

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 01:58PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Some take comfort by imagining that we exist for a purpose. I don't find this idea comforting though. If you think about it, what 'existing for a purpose' really means is existing for someone else's purpose. It is odd how simply clarifying that turns the romanticism of the language completely around.

I know more would enjoying existing for a divine creators purpose than I would enjoying existing because the divine leader told my parents to have children to serve in his army, or existing because my parents were having marriage trouble and thought a baby would give my mum something to do (which, thankfully, isn't what happend with me)

Having an assigned purpose in life seems only comforting to those who have trouble finding their own way in life. But equally it can be stifling to those who already have a path they want to follow. History is littered with people (mostly women or minorities) being told that they cannot do what they wish to do because it was decided by someone or something else that this was not their purpose.

I've never, not once, been told by a Christian just what that purpose is. They speak about how great it is, they love the fact God put them here for a reason...but no details about that reason are forthcoming.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 02:49PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I've never, not once, been told by a Christian just what that purpose is. They speak about how great it is, they love the fact God put them here for a reason...but no details about that reason are forthcoming.

Really ? Well I believe I'm here to learn, and I love learning every day, and this life is kindergarten for the next one, which is eternity.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 02:59PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Going to go out on a limb and say that point is going to be side stepped :-)

Health and safety note : Don't saw the straw you're sitting on

RikuoAmero wrote: »

No, the reason I said that isn't because I "stereotyped", the reason I said it is because a Christian asking that only reveals the fundamental flaws in his beliefs. It undermines them. Even in the hypothetical scenario where we have proof that Jesus did magic up enough loaves and fish to feed a crowd, that doesn't automatically serve as evidence that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the One True God incarnate, or that his teachings on morality and ethics are the ones that ought to be followed.
It just proves he's apparently can do some very fantastical feats. That's it. What does being able to conjure up bread have to do with whether or not that same guy's teachings on divorce, for one, ought to be followed?

The loaves and fishes, and all the other miracles, and even meeting the resurrected Christ and putting your hands into his wounds, don't prove God.

You keep skipping the key word Christ keeps mentioning throughout scripture, which is belief.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life"

Nothing there about he who claims or proves . . . . .

marienbad · 22-03-2015 03:02PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Health and safety note : Don't saw the branch you're sitting on

The loaves and fishes, and all the other miracles, and even meeting the resurrected Christ and putting your hands into his wounds, don't prove God.

You keep skipping the key word Christ keeps mentioning throughout scripture, which is belief.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life"

Nothing there about he who claims or proves . . . . .

So is the existence of Jesus the Son of God factually correct ?

silverharp · 22-03-2015 03:07PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Health and safety note : Don't saw the straw you're sitting on

The loaves and fishes, and all the other miracles, and even meeting the resurrected Christ and putting your hands into his wounds, don't prove God.

You keep skipping the key word Christ keeps mentioning throughout scripture, which is belief.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life"

Nothing there about he who claims or proves . . . . .

what is so great about belief? it other parts of life its people like magicians , and conmen who require faith, belief or suspension of disbelief. Why would a deity think that faith is important?

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 03:32PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Health and safety note : Don't saw the straw you're sitting on

The loaves and fishes, and all the other miracles, and even meeting the resurrected Christ and putting your hands into his wounds, don't prove God.

Funny, the vast, vast, vast, majority of Christians I've talked to say that they believe Jesus is God precisely because of the miracles he purportedly performed. They point at them, say something along the lines of "Only God could've done that" and from there, imbue the morals and ethics of Jesus with infallibility/perfection. What about the story of Doubting Thomas, who put his hands on Jesus's wounds, and from there, believed Jesus to be God? Are you now going against Holy Scripture, against what the Holy Bible teaches?

You keep skipping the key word Christ keeps mentioning throughout scripture, which is belief.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life"

And I say that that is <snip>. What you're arguing for there is not rational, not justified, but rather gullibility. You're arguing for people to believe all sorts of fantastical claims about this one specific (apparently) historical figure, disbelieve any similar claims other people have made either about themselves or others (e.g. the fantastical claims made about North Korea's Kim family) (you don't need to say it out loud, but this is very heavily implied by your posts), all based on not one iota of evidence...and somehow, this gullibility gets you eternal life.
Yes, this is con artist language. This is fraudster work. How dare you say to me that belief nets you eternal life, when you have NOTHING to show for it? You yourself haven't died and come back. You don't know anyone who has. I don't know anyone who has.
What's so special about the gullibility you promote? What does it teach if NOT a rejection of rationality and healthy minded skepticism? What makes the claim "Belief in Jesus = eternal life" superior to the claim "Belief in Muhammed/<insert-anyone-else-here> = eternal life"?
I will give you that answer. It is not. It is vacuous and empty. You have admitted you don't have evidence. You have admitted you don't want to provide evidence.
You have admitted to being a snake oil salesman when all you say is "It's about belief!"

Let me tell you this. Let's say, for sake of argument, Jesus IS God. Let's say I one day discover it and die and find myself in front of God and he says "Because you didn't believe, you don't get eternal life". I wouldn't want eternal life with that sort of a scumbag. I wouldn't want a god who is that idiotic, and that self-centred.

Another reason I hold your religion in contempt is that as per what you've said, it teaches you not to value this life. This life is precious because, as far as we can determine, it is the only life we have. The very fact that our time is finite pushes us, or ought to push us I should say, to eking out every possible joy out of our lives. If I were to take your view, I would be wasting my life in pointless ritual and ceremony (wasting my Sundays in mass for example, listening to the same old sermons), wasting what is precious and finite for an empty promise of something infinite that I have no rational reason to suppose is true.
So instead of worrying over it, over whether I've picked the "right" religion (what if it's belief in Muhammed that merits eternal life? If you're a christian, then you're <snip>), I live my life as how I see fit.

Here's a hard question for you Cen Taurus. In ANY other context, any other religion or claim, would you accept "It's all about belief" as a valid argument in that religion's or claim's favour? Would you, upon hearing that from say, a Hindu, say "Hmm, you know what, you're on to something there, you might just be right"?
If you say yes, then you're saying that your religion and that person's religion are equally valid, which is nonsense.
If you say no, then you're doing special pleading.

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 03:39PM

silverharp wrote: »

what is so great about belief? it other parts of life its people like magicians , and conmen who require faith, belief or suspension of disbelief. Why would a deity think that faith is important?

If there is a god who created humans with our capacity to question and think, then he can only make sense if he rewards that skepticism. Otherwise, we get the Judaeo-Christian god who, according to Cen Taurus, is all about evidence-free belief, a.k.a. being gullible and selective enough to believe the claims made about one messiah, over that of claims made about another messiah.
What about this scenario: I die, find myself in front of Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit...but they say "Because you didn't believe in Muhammed, you don't get eternal life" In that scenario, I would be f'd. Since Cen Taurus says it's all about belief alone, then evidence supporting those beliefs don't matter. So God could be a trickster god, and could want people to believe something false.
It all comes back to Pascal's Wager. The number of scenarios regarding belief where I could be wrong far outweigh the one scenario where my belief (whatever that belief might be) is correct. I'm infinitely more likely to have wrong belief, than to get the one right belief, and Cen Taurus isn't helping those odds by disregarding evidence.

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 05:39PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

You keep skipping the key word Christ keeps mentioning throughout scripture, which is belief.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life"

Nothing there about he who claims or proves . . . . .

Jesus is literally making a claim about reality in that sentence :rolleyes:

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments