opposite post
Posted on: February 25, 2010 - 7:54pm
Offline
opposite post
Ok, I'm prolly not gonna be around on the forum much longer, /cough. But I thought it would be fun to make a thread like this.
If you are an atheist, make one statement trying to defend the theist stance.
Of course if you are a theist, make one statement in an attempt to defend the atheist stance.
I mean actually try too =)
I will start:
The bible if proof, a lot of it's content can be traced back historically as to being well over three thousand years old.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
God is nature, and since nature exists, so does god. I win.
Ah, but in two thousand tears a historical fiction book will obviously have some leads to actual history, but will include fictional events that didn't actually happen. The bible could easily be a similar type of book.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Meh, I think you should stay, but what do I know.
I tried. I tried hard. Can't think of a single thing. Do they have cookies ?
Aww c'mon, if you are truly confident in your faith or non faith, you can post something. Might be interesting to see what people come up with.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
As an atheist I'm going with 2 arguments for god. Argument 1: First cause. Yes, I know, first cause could be anything. And god needs a cause, too. But at the same time, first cause is theism's strongest play for my money.
My second argument is a personal one and one most theists would never use. I think it's an honest one. Argument 2: I believe in god because it makes me feel safe.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I've spent years pondering an argument for God worth putting on paper, I don't expect to come up with one tonight... however I will ponder some more. As best I see it, all arguments for theism are either ignorant or dishonest or both.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Since my parants never had sex, not even once! Me and my six siblings are heaven sent. Mommy dearest certainly told us to go back to hell often enough.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
If you don't share my religion/beliefs, then God will send you to burn in the fire of hell for all eternity.
Of course God exists. I had a conversation with Jesus just last night.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
1. Out of all of the possible laws of physics our universe could of had, we just happen to have ones that gives rise to atoms that will spontaneously assemble themselves into molecules which will then spontaneously assemble themselves into larger more complex molecules, which will then spontaneously assemble themselves into complex membranes and cells, which will then spontaneously assemble themselves into incredibly complex interacting systems that we know as life and you mean to tell me all of these coincidences were just an accident without any sort of higher intelligence directing it? yeaaaa rrrrightttt. It is possible that it was an accident but probability dictates that something wanted life and us to exist.
That was me in my theistic days.
2. I also think the prime mover argument is the only true argument that theists still have (besides the obvious flaw of what created God). I think this will be disproven when quantum theory shows us that not everything needs a cause (or at least I think that is where it is headed, based on my limited knowledge of quantum theory).
3. If you look at evolutionary history, no other one species has dominated every other species so totally as humans have, and there is only one species of human? There has to be something special about current humans. A God must have put us in this position.
This is a really arrogant argument, but judeochristian religions are incredibly arrogant. The old testament especially, the Jews believe that they alone are the chosen ones and worthy of God's blessing (at least according to the ot).
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
As others have said, there is no honest argument for theism that can be made from any remotely informed position, so it would be kind of insulting to be asked for an honest one.
A dis-honest one, though; pick any.
Of the stupidest: "It's impossible that so many people could be wrong!"
Edit:
You should see my "God's advocate" debate in the One on One forum section: I kind of do that there, but I've prefaced it with about a dozen disclaimers.
Then I propose the following argument, which is both ignorant and dishonest, and advocates both ignorance and dishonesty:
Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is more important than honesty, therefore god exists.
You'd be surprised how many people basically follow this line of reasoning.
(Well, maybe not 'you' specifically, but that's how the saying goes.)
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Sex being hereditary, if your parents never had it, then you won't either.
=
THAT was awesome. I think you just won the thread.
I thought of another one.
I propose that science, and the search for higher knowledge is a sin. God never metioned this, to keep us unbiased towards it. He left us "free will" to determine wether we set out on this course or would simply glory in his love.
Therefore science, molecules, atoms etc etc etc are all a farce conceived by satan to lure the unsuspecting suspiciously minded one's on a path to hell.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Haha, well put. Sadly, it's fairly common attitude adopted by theists when confronted with evidence contrary to their beliefs.
I think arrogance needs to be included alongside ignorance and dishonesty to complete the "trinity" (pun intended) of characteristics underlying most arguments for god.
By way of example:
We have had no contact with other civilizations/intelligent life despite the supposed probability for such life to exist. Therefore we are alone and the universe must have been crafted to specially suite us --> god is the craftsman.
As far as a legitimate argument/thought process... I don't know that I can think of a sound argument given our current understanding of the natural world, and evidence for models/mechanisms which describe it all quite elegantly. This is as close as I can come to an "argument":
I'm an amateur astronomer, and I'll admit that there are times when the sheer size and majesty of the night sky can put one in a pseudo-theistic mindset. I'll be the first to admit that my interests predispose me to having such thoughts (however fleeting they may be), since it's just so difficult to comprehend the enormity of the cosmos. It is fascinating when you begin to consider the scope of it all, and what might lie just beyond the farthest point we can observe. It's that "what might be there?" question which makes me pause, as it is (IMO) the ONLY plausible place for such an entity to exist, since we haven't observed it yet.
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins
OK, here is an idea:
The whole idea of a god of the gaps is just so utterly idiotic that it can only come from people who just cannot imagine that what made sense to some bronze age nomads is not the real picture that we need to consider.
Realistically, it is a given that god made everything. So he must have made everything that science has already found. All the galaxies and quasars? God did it. Atoms, protons, quarks and antimatter? God did it. The Higgs Boson? Well, we are still not sure about that but if it is real then God did it..
Why did god do all those things? Well not because we are the center of the universe or anything. The Copernican principal really does hold on the largest of scales. We are not all that special so just get over it already. That kind of nonsense is as bad as saying that the earth is flat just because the bible says that it is.
Even so, God has his eternal eye on your pee-pee and he cares more than you do what you do with it. If you put it in the wrong place then he is going to send you to hell where you will be forever cut off from him. Not that you aren't already cut off from him in this world mind you.
What really happens when you get to hell is not the whole lake of fire thing. Really, you will be given certain knowledge that he really does exist and that he is so damned 1337 that he could do all of the stuff that he did. And you will spend eternity knowing that you could have been his homey if you have just been a bit more careful with your doodly bopper. That and you had to believe in the kid.
=
Well it's been over 24 hours and not 1 theist has posted. Very telling imo. Or perhaps they are on vacation.
My point is, that in my experience, real theist's can't even for a moment pretend they are a non believer, not even pretend. It is likely a fear of potentially having to really question their beliefs. In some cases because they are already in doubt =)
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
OKay, I'll join in.
One statement to defend the atheist stance = atheism does not require any defending - it's not an assertion it is a general banner covering all cases where the existence of a deity is not asserted.
It's not new, but it's true.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I will defend Sam Harris' brand of "atheism" or what Richard Dawkins calls "sexed-up atheism."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The atheist lack of belief is the most reasonable because one should not base their beliefs on unprovable things without evidence. No one can prove a god exists, and there is no known evidence for any god.
ciarin.com
So we look forward to your attacks on the Bible, Religion, Faith, and all forms of irrational belief...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I made this post to prove a point, and if you doubt it, again, make a similair post on another forum. However it may fail if they have read this one I suppose.
Really consider that they can't even make a post on such a thing without someone pointing out the fact. 11 minutes after I called them out on it, a post appeared =)
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I didn't see this post till last night. Next time email me to make sure I read every single post where you ask a theist to post something. This board isn't as interesting anymore so I don't check everyday.
You got 3 posts from theists, so chill.
ciarin.com
The others were pretty insubstantial, but Ciarin kind of did, and might have anyway (without being called on it); I think that was coincidence that she replied after the others. Paisley and Eloise I agree on, though.
Cairin might be an exception, however, as by my estimation she's the least crazy of the bunch above by far (we're talking astronomical differences); she also makes the fewest assertions, and knows the limits of her personal experiences. That is, as far as I've seen.
I should debate with her some time; I'd do a better job of it than others have, because I wouldn't assume she believes things she's never asserted.
EDIT: I was typing while she posted the above- I was post ninja'd. However, I believe her.
Yea, after I called them out on it, of course they will have to post.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
As if you're calling out had anything to do with my post. I read the first post, then replied, then read the rest of the posts.
btw, I didn't see any arguments for the existence of gods from any atheists, and it's been more than 24 hours. Point proven, and if any atheist posts an argument for polytheism after this post, it doesn't count, because I just called them out on it.
See how stupid that sounds?
You need to provide evidence that theists were lurking in this thread without posting till you did your little "call out". Till then you're "point" is mere supposition.
ciarin.com
yarrrrrrrrrr I'm a pirate tooo! (you seem defensive)
You apparently don't want to accept the fact that this post was made, several athesists commented and a 24 hour period passed with no theist comments. I pointed this out, and a theist made a comment 11 minutes later. Now the bag is up and no real point in posting further, why is this becoming an arguement.
If you don't want to take it is as proof of anything I'll say you are correct, it proves nothing, it's just a silly post.
/arguement off
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
because there are loads of theists here and they post all the time, right? And all us theists read your post as soon as you made it cause we're constantly on this forum hitting refresh.
You're not doing yourself any favours here, man. Your point needs to be proven with evidence not guessing and assuming. It's more probable that we just didn't read your thread the day you posted it. I've posted on several threads that were posted many days beforehand, and no one needed to "call me out" to post in it. Plus you didn't give anyone a time limit to post in your thread. Your arbitrary 24 time limit means nothing and isn't evidence of anything.
ciarin.com
I said you are correct, what more can I do? Should I completely rescind my former statements, mail you a cookie?
Btw, if I had mentioned a time period in which a theist had to post to prove me wrong it would have invalidated the whole point. If I had come straight out and said "if a theist does not post within 24 hours that means theists in general are too stuck up in their religion to consider an atheistic response." I'm sure many theists would have posted. Or well, probably not because none of them saw the post. Yes you are correct, it is a completely and invalid, silly little observation. Im sure theists ponder atheistic beliefs all the time rather than scrambling around trying to prove their own views.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Actually? Yes. I have to side with magic flying girl on this one.
Even if provocation elicited response, the only people who seem likely to have been affected by it are Eloise and Paisley (who were posting constantly, and probably ignored your post until provoked). And that said, they didn't really make any arguments- and Paisley implied her views were supported by atheists instead.
Proof that those two can't make arguments for atheism only needs to involve the content of their posts; not the timing.
Ciarin is the only one who seemed to make a valid stab at it (although I suggest that she could have done one more by arguing for positive atheism by refuting certain common god-conceptions on logical grounds if she had wanted to).
Well I'm sure you get my point either way. I hope this at least helps make them think a bit. I have pondered the existence of a god. I never really had faith in the first place though. I do know many who do however and they will not even consider stopping, taking a time out and considering "hmm, what if there IS no god". Well that in it's self would be a breach of faith, something that would be very difficult for them really do considering they would have to completely drop faith for a moment. If that makes any sense =)
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Actually I had no problem coming up with an argument for atheism.
Eh, I thought you didn't really want to hear from me, I already argue for atheism all over this forum. But when you got no replies at all I felt bad for you I thought you wanted this thread to evolve into something more than 'proof of a point'.
Well as long as you're happy, now.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Thanks!
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Personally, I find the philosophical/scientific/historical ones tend to be filled with fallacies and inaccuracies.
The most honest arguments for God are the personal ones.
e.g. "Ever since I gave myself to Jesus I've felt God working in my life through my everyday experience.
While I acknowledge that there might possibly be other explanations for how I feel, this one makes the most sense to me."
or "Before I found God, life didn't seem to have any meaning.
The atmosphere seemed to be very selfish, people just out for what they can get.
Since I've become a Christian and immersed myself in a Christian community, it's like a whole new world has opened up to me.
I really feel like I discovered a new truth here, even if I haven't fully comprehended all of it yet..."
or perhaps most honest of all:
"My Christian friends/priest/pastor/spiritual leader is a very inspiring and charismatic person.
They appear to understand a lot about most things in my life, so although some of the things they say about a God can be a bit hard to believe, and don't always make sense to me, I feel inclined to trust them as their knowledge and understanding appears to be superior to mine."
I wouldn't call any of these lines of reasoning "irrational".
Maybe a tad naive but not irrational.
I believe that Sam Harris made many valid points concerning religious fundamentalism. I also believe he made some valid points concerning scientific materialism. And if we define religious "faith" to mean striclty the conflation of the symbolic or metaphorical with the literal, then I am opposed to religious faith. That being said, this is not my definition of religious faith. Nor do I define religious faith as the blind acceptance of dogmatic assertions formulated by religious politicians.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead