Neither "Side" Can Possibly Prove Their Position

markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Neither "Side" Can Possibly Prove Their Position

As a person of faith, I occasionally stumble across websites directly / indirectly associated with religion / faith with forums devoted to the healthy exchange of ideas and opinions.

Let me make this one comment - I can no more "prove" my belief that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He was and that there is a God no more than you can disprove it. It comes down to faith and faith is not something that you can "measure" or "weigh" or touch / see / smell / taste or hear. As a Catholic, the cathechism specifically refers to the "mystery" of faith - mystery being the operative word.

Neither side has come even close to proving their "argument" and they NEVER will.

The BEST that any of us can do is to throw out opinions - and when it comes to this specific issue - is there a GOD - the opinion of the most learned atheist is NO more valid than the opinion of the least learned person of faith.

And vice versa.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote:I can NOT

Ripple wrote:
I can NOT agree with you more Vastet.

Well, at least the feeling is mutual. 

Ripple wrote:
 My Theist AND Atheist nature tells me that hey, maybe there is no God, and that single point(Albert Einstein) which throughly connects Science to God(if it even connects) is going to be a discovery that maybe we can't ever achieve as humans. Is there a point which connects Science to God.

Maybe there is a point that connects science to a god or technologically superior being. But if there is, I can pretty well guarantee that everyone's ideas about the whole thing are completely wrong. Either way, there's nothing to prove your case. My case doesn't need proof, but it has stacks of it anyway.

Ripple wrote:
Better yet, may I ask, is there a point in life which connects Science to Science. Cough, Quantum Physics and Theory of Relativity.

Huh?

Ripple wrote:

sooooo...

Why do we need to believe in him? Why do you need us to? Why does he need us to? If he needs us to, why doesn't he let us?


--Because people are stupid. And people don't believe fully in Science. So what do they believe in? Themselves? Other good people? Maybe God doesn't need any one of to believe in it. But does that really change anything in this world? Does that make God think any different then it already does?

Peoples beliefs are not my concern. Their attempts at forcing that belief onto others that discard it is my concern. And you didn't really answer my questions.

Ripple wrote:
I believe in God because God to me connects the supernatural and the Natural. It's just too fucking bad, all I know is the Natural. And if you tell me that Nature has been proven to come full circle and answer every question in this universe, then please, enlighten. But if God could explain how the Big Bang started, what is beyond this universe, and the rest of the universes, and why human nature is how it is. Then why not give God a chance? Have you proved anything in this world that has furthured the Human Advancement?

So let me get this straight. You're admitting there may not be a god, and that you need something to have caused everything, hence your belief? As for giving god a chance, I did that. In a way I still am. Anytime he wants to say hi I'll be here.

Ripple wrote:
You know who has furthured the Human Advancment? The Christian God.

Oxymoron. Not only has it NOT furthered human advancement, it's crippled it. 

Ripple wrote:
And if you can't agree on that, then you mind as well through the history books STRAIGHT out the window.

I'm going to assume that you meant might, not mind. In which case, why? History proves my point.

Ripple wrote:
 Does that mean the Christian God is THE God? No. Noone said a god damn word about anything crazy like that.

Maybe not, but I don't believe in any god whatsoever. Not a pantheon, not a single, nothing.

Ripple wrote:
So basically, take those beliefs, then strip the idea of "my god" away from and what am I left with? I bet you I'm left with a whole lot more knowledge of the world then any Christian or Muslim as ever had. But probably not Buddha....

Again I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Ripple wrote:
Didn't that Christian God that you hate so very much... Didn't "he" give you Free Will?

Nope. In fact, his mere existance would strip me of it. And I don't hate any god. They'd have to exist for me to have any feelings for them at all. 

Ripple wrote:
 I mean if you are attacking "my view of God" then go ahead and assums that "my Christian view of God" gave YOU the Free Will to believe in WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT.

I'm attacking every view of god. At least until everyone shuts up about their delusions and keeps them to themselves.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jonmalave
jonmalave's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Neither "Side" Can Possibly

Neither "Side" Can Possibly Prove Their Position!! 

I AGREE!  

I consider myself an Atheist because i find no reason to believe in a God simply because we lack evidence of a God. . .I can't see, hear, or touch a God so why believe one exists? Also i never agreed with alot of things i found in the Christian Bible. . . but i can't say that my years as a Christian hasn't influenced my morals, Religion has had its share of positive influences in my life, but for the most i found it to be negative.     

 But even with this belief of mine. . . i feel the same as you markgtrplyr

I'll say that whats going on in the world between atheists and theists is simply said best in this quote of mine  "man will do what he can to justify his own rightousness for he is forever fearful of uncertainty" 

 One of the main reasons why we as human beings attack each other and even kill each other because we simply do not agree with each other. Once we feel that we have found something that we believe is true, we make it our priority to justify this belief by finding those who will agree with us, then those who do not agree with our view we feel threatened by them, so we do what we can to eliminate each other simply because we know that who ever is the majority will always have power over the minority. We are no different than animals because we are simply trying to survive. . . Atheists are trying to survive as Theists are trying to survive. So what i have come to call "the war of beliefs" will continue for as long as humans exist. 

religion or no religion, God or no God. . . People will continue to suffer simply because we are born with something that is out of our control. . . Desire. . .

Our desires grow with awarness, and as desires grow our suffering and fustration with life, people, and the universe grow because once we realize that their is limited resources and opputinity to hopefully satisfy those desires we join together with those who are seeking the same to eliminate any threats we feel we are going to face on our mission to fulfill our desires.


 

 


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the kind welcome

Thanks for the kind welcome to the board and analysis of my post todangst 

I'm honored to add the Rational Responders Icon and link to my "Less Than Human" blog site 

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: "You've

markgtrplyr wrote:

"You've conceded that your claim makes no sense at all. You just believe regardless. "

 

This isn't even close to what I've said in my previous posts.

 

Clearly, you're seeing the words on your screen, but you're not understanding them.

Our point is YOU dont realize what nonsense you are spewing thats what we mean that you have conceded that your claims make no sense. It is up to you to realize your fallicies, we cant rearragne your neurons for you.

 We cant help you see your error unless you want help seeing your error.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jonmalave wrote: Neither

jonmalave wrote:

Neither "Side" Can Possibly Prove Their Position!!

I AGREE!

I consider myself an Atheist because i find no reason to believe in a God simply because we lack evidence of a God. . .I can't see, hear, or touch a God so why believe one exists? Also i never agreed with alot of things i found in the Christian Bible. . . but i can't say that my years as a Christian hasn't influenced my morals, Religion has had its share of positive influences in my life, but for the most i found it to be negative.

But even with this belief of mine. . . i feel the same as you markgtrplyr

I'll say that whats going on in the world between atheists and theists is simply said best in this quote of mine "man will do what he can to justify his own rightousness for he is forever fearful of uncertainty"

One of the main reasons why we as human beings attack each other and even kill each other because we simply do not agree with each other. Once we feel that we have found something that we believe is true, we make it our priority to justify this belief by finding those who will agree with us, then those who do not agree with our view we feel threatened by them, so we do what we can to eliminate each other simply because we know that who ever is the majority will always have power over the minority. We are no different than animals because we are simply trying to survive. . . Atheists are trying to survive as Theists are trying to survive. So what i have come to call "the war of beliefs" will continue for as long as humans exist.

religion or no religion, God or no God. . . People will continue to suffer simply because we are born with something that is out of our control. . . Desire. . .

Our desires grow with awarness, and as desires grow our suffering and fustration with life, people, and the universe grow because once we realize that their is limited resources and opputinity to hopefully satisfy those desires we join together with those who are seeking the same to eliminate any threats we feel we are going to face on our mission to fulfill our desires.

That is a poor attitude that maintains the status quo of ignorance and indoctrination. SCIENCE has been debunking myth consistantly for well over 100 years. There are right answers and wrong answers to how things work and religion is nothing more than filling in the blanks with myth.

Considering the state this planet is in now more than ever it is up to religious people of all labels to question themselves and question their religious leaders.

No one is suggesting forcing anyone to do anything. But it is because of lack of introspection and self examination and it is because of blind following that the answers that are there are not seen.

I think life is far too important to leave it up to myth. I think humanity can do better than sky daddy wars. I think humans have a natural "disire" to want to do good and do right. Where it gets screwed up is lack of questioning combinded with ignorance and lack of education along with indoctrination.

If all religion was was a favorite golfer, or favorite tennis player or sports team, and no one died over it, I wouldnt care. But since we can prove that the earth was not made in six days and you wont get 72 virgins it is the duty of rational people to dispell myths. 

"No one can prove" should mean, "You wont convince everyone".

We do have reality on our side and I wont mince words about that. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: You need to

Ripple wrote:
You need to give up your crybaby attitude that we are out to take your bibles away from you or out to shut down you churches by force.



---How about I take away all your books? How knowledgeable are you after that, and what will you believe in? With only the spoken word of what the "real" world is. Make an imformed decision on what, and who you really are. Then start calling the rest of the world crybabies. Because in reality, you haven't even been born yet, if you can't even see a concept so simple as that.

Steamy piles never cease to give me a chuckle.

Now Mr. Crybaby, why dont you present your case insted of these continual dodges. We see people like you all the time and after a while they start blurring together like one big skidmark infested argument.

So, cut to the chase. Knock of the crap and say something like the following:

"The god I believe in is X"

"Here are it's atributes"

"Here is my evidence"

Try that insted of being a baby. If you dont convince us you dont convince us. We wont kill you or have you arrested. But nothing you have said so far has even come remotely close to "evidence". Try again but this time stay on topic and make your case. I do hope you are an adult and can handle that. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: Has my idea

Ripple wrote:
Has my idea of a "God" really violated the basic ontology, the axioms of existence and identity?!

Hmm.. Really. Could you explain that to me. Who in this world has DEBUNKED God. You? You're a great man then.. maybe even God itself?!?!

How confused am I really? Am I really confused with the world, even if my only belief in God was that God IS love? How confusing is that? Can you or any other scientist prove that God ISN'T love by way of rational thinking and the scientific method? You seem to be so "unclouded" by faith. Well please, take the veil away from eyes.

Whether your idea of God violates anything is largely irrelevant and there's no reason to prove God isn't anything you decide to define it by? Why not just believe that love is love, and it's a human emotion that has certain effects on our lives? Calling it God just unnecessarily complicates things. Your God seems to basically be a generic, touchy-feely happy deistic god. When you muddle the definition of God to the point that all it does is replace the name for something else, what's the point anymore?

I think I'll start calling my penis, God. You can't prove it's not God, and I can prove it exists. It's helped bring love and happiness to many people. Girls even call it by name when they're in its presence, "Oh God! Oh God! YES! YES!!" Sound logical? Prove me wrong.

For the record, love and other emotions and the physical effects most certainly can be shown and tested by science and medicine through measuring the release of chemicals by the body and the electrical activity in the brain. But that's just not a very romantic way of looking at it.

 

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: "When a

markgtrplyr wrote:

"When a belief contradicts logic, the reasonable course of action is not to declare logic inapplicable but to discard the belief"

Yes - when you're talking about 2 + 2 = 4 or a court of law, for example, you're absolutely right. 

But we're talking about something here that defies the "natural laws" of the universe - something that defies "logic" - transcends logic - supercedes logic.

The rules don't apply when it comes to an event like the resurrection of Christ, for example.

I don't understand how a group of people 65 years ago could just decide to exterminate 6,000,000 people - how they could be so evil - it just doesn't make sense to me - it's not logical..!!

I guess the Holocaust didn't happen then..??

You don't understand it, and to follow the Nazis wasn't logical, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. A charismatic leader, the people's anger at the raw deal Germany got in the Treaty of Versailles, the heavy anti-semitism throughout Europe and the propoganda that Jews were subhumans and killing them was akin to swatting a fly, heavy doses of nationalistic propoganda, a leadership that's not above killing some people to gain power and and using a secret police to quell dissent, and some discretion by hiding the really awful truth from the average citizen; throw all that in a pot, stir it up, and there you have it. Besides, there's millions of witnesses and tons of physical evidence that it happened. I've been to several camps in Germany myself and seen the evidence.

Why did almost a 100 Branch Davidians follow Koresh to the grave, why do Islamic terrorists strap bombs to themselves, why do people listen to rap music and Celine Dion and why does when a rapper wear white t-shirts everybody goes out and wears white t-shirts, why have so many brutal dictators risen to power throughout history, why did Bush get elected twice? Because the average person is a stupid, intellectually lazy follower that needs someone to tell them what to do and give them a simple explanation to things that scare them. And what's simpler than, "God did it" or "You'll go to heaven when you die" or "Zeus throws down lightning bolts" or "Thor makes thunder with his hammer" or "The spirits of our ancestors inhabit nature, watch over us, and when we take peyote they talk to us." It takes real courage to ask questions and seek real answers.

 

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
The God I believe in is

The God I believe in is everything. Absolutely everything. You, me, electricity, time, up and down,{edit:insert word:science:here} (human emotions I wouldn't be too sure, for human emotions are just that, human. This is another topic of debate, but for all intents and purposes, human emotions and nature[other then the primal, animalistic nature] is not God because God didn't have a factor in the development of such emotions. Thus, human religion, being a human emotion, and idea, is not God)



It's attributes is that it is everything.


I have no evidence.


But hey there is no real evidence that black holes exist, or quark matter, or magnetic monopoles, yet 8 billion dollars will be and has been put forth towards a device, the Hadron Particle Collidor, which ultimately might create a black hole, killing us all. But hey, who really gives a shit? In the name of science!!



So lets see...thank you for the history lesson on why Brenda's having a baby at 13 years old, IN THIS DAY AND AGE. Yes, capslock.



Bearded man in a sky... yup, what a concept, a God that is just like me and you! Asshat...

And as for being a J.C. fan, I mean, I really appreciate you pretty much putting me in the lucky 2 million, when in all actuality by that Christian view of the world, I am definately going to be..hmm probably the 6th level of Dante's Inferno. Maybe 5?


---------------Hold on now J.C. fan. How do you know your got your diety right? 4 billion people believe that Allah and not Jesus got it right?--------------

How did you know what my diety was anyways , before you straight fowardly asked what exactly it was? Oh wait, thats right, you made an ASSUMPTION about my beliefs. J.C. fan...haha, I like that term.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't worry too much

I wouldn't worry too much about a black hole being created. Even in the extremely unlikely event one was, it would be so small(nearly weightless) it wouldn't do much of anything for a very long time. And would quite possibly evaporate instantly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Aye, if memory serves

Aye, if memory serves correct, an unstable black hole was accidently formed with a similar, yet much smaller, particle collidor. The Hadron however might create a stable black hole. And the fact is, no matter how much mathematics one might use, a black hole is still a black hole...in which case, we really don't have much of a clue on what could happen.

Though, if a stable black hole was to form, as unlikely as that is, I can only anticipate that we will gain a much more complete knowledge of the world, in which case...I don't know, I guess I'm left fairly speechless on such an amazing event.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Neither "Side" Can Possibly Prove Their Position

Actually, it's a fairly simple matter to prove that God does not exist.  The problem is that theists do not accept such proofs -- or any proofs, for that matter.  Proofs, by definition, involve logic and reason, and theists steadfastly hold that logic and reason are not involved, what is required is faith.  IOW, it is the theists themselves that insist that they are irrational; we atheists merely agree with them on that point.  The arguments are only whether or not being irrational is a good thing or a bad thing.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
--------Actually, it's a

--------Actually, it's a fairly simple matter to prove that God does not exist.



    Prove it then. I am readily available to give up a belief in a higher being if you can give logic, reason, and PHYSICAL evidence that God does not exist. It's so easy, then do that. Because those three criterium is precisely what you all are asking me to put forth to prove the existense of God.

My God is founded in logic and reason, yet it is my own logic and reason, and no other man can share that, for my God is precisely that, my idea of God. I have no evidence to show that MY God exists. Therefor, yes, by your standards, I do lack logic, reason, evidence, and my entire structure of what might be is entirely based upon faith.

Prove it. Give me your logic and reason on why God does not exist. And please, don't just repeat what has been said so many times on these boards about how I can't prove it. Thats not logic and reasoning, thats just putting the burden of proof upon me. So, you seem to have this simple matter of reasoning, logic, and proof... Give me something fresh on the matter. Then, be so bold, and point out, hell, even possible evidence on why God does not exist.

---------The problem is that theists do not accept such proofs -- or any proofs, for that matter.

Oh really? I accept plenty of proofs, because they are just that, PROOF of actual existence of laws of nature. Simple matter, eh? Then do it. Give me this so called proof, and as a theist in the now, I will give up my faith for you have given such proof to fully dislodge my ideas based in illogic and unreasoning. Oh, and my lack of evidence.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In order to even try to

In order to even try to prove that something which doesn't exist doesn't exist, the non-existant must be defined. So I will try your challenge, but first you must define your god. Limitations, if any. Capabilities, if any. Physical or mystical. Real or percieved. Order or chaos. Time or no time. Space or no space. Etc.

To save time and a post or two....

Once you've defined god, I'll point out that you can't define god, since you aren't god(after I've debased the definition, if possible). At which point I'll ask you to define it again. At which point you should be unable to rationally respond(I'll be most impressed with you if you can prove me wrong on this). At which point I cannot prove god wrong, because you aren't defining god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: Prove it

Ripple wrote:
Prove it then. I am readily available to give up a belief in a higher being if you can give logic, reason, and PHYSICAL evidence that God does not exist.

Physical evidence is irrelevent because of how the 'proof' works.
The argument starts with a definition of God, which will be slightly different to each theist. There are two forms of argument that I'm aware of:

Strong Atheist Argument
The strong atheist tries to show that your definition of God (or any other supernatural being) is incoherent and/or meaningless.
Incoherence is when a definition is self contradictory and/or inconsistent with itself. For instance, a 'circle with corners' is an incoherent concept as a circle should not have corners by definition. This means that 'circle with corners' doesn't refer to a shape like 'square with corners' or 'triangle with corners' does and is meaningless in this context.
However, a concept could be meaningless without being incoherent. If I was to talk of a 'Juit' and you were to ask me what it was, if all I could tell you was that it was like nothing you've ever heard of then what would be left? The God concept can be like this. They can tell you that God isn't of this world and is beyond your comprehension but what does that leave left for God to 'be'. At the least our language is not capable of description so all attempts to talk about God will be false and meaningless.  


Agnostic Atheist Argument
The Agnostic atheist starts with the definition of supernatural, (i.e. transcendent, outside space-time etc) and then points out that all of our concepts are spacio-temporal. Even 'existence' is a spacio-temporal concept. This means that anything we say about such a being will be false so we should remain silent on the matter.

Most of us are Agnostic Atheists to the general idea of a supernatural being and Strong Atheists to the Christian God that we see as incoherent. We might be wrong and the arguments are always debatable but I think they'll stand the test of time. Give them a go - see if you can find a flaw in them.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Proof

Quote:
Quote:
-Actually, it's a fairly simple matter to prove that God does not exist.

Prove it then.

Okay. Fashion a test, an experiment if you will. The simpler the better, actually. The test should be configured in such a way that, if God does not exist, the result would be easily predicted. It should also be configured in such a way that, if God does exist, some other outcome would be expected. Run the experiment, see which outcome results.

I can suggest one plausible experiment that would fit the bill: Throw Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson out of an airplane sans parachutes. If God does not exist, simple physics predicts that they will impact terra firma with considerable force. Seeing as how they are such favored sons of the Lord, though (they have assured us of that fact on innumerable occasions!) and will no doubt be praying all the way down, it's a virtual certainty that God will intervene -- possibly just providing a soft landing, but perhaps even showing off and changing them into birds or suspending the law of gravity for a while.

-- Kirbert


patrickimo
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
Brian37,  "You need to

Brian37, 

"You need to give up your crybaby attitude that we are out to take your bibles away from you or out to shut down you churches by force."

 Most interesting.  The churches thing, no problem, but...the assertion about Bibles could be debated.  After all, aren't these guys (the RRS) gearing up for a Bible "recycling" project?  In my e-mail conversations with Sapient I have not yet been satisfied as to the full details of this venture.  It is most unfortunate that the conversation was stopped by Mr. Sapient before I could get enough information. 

 


patrickimo
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
Evidence???

Hambydammit,

 First off, I LOVE your pic of the screaming cat with the AK-47 - where did you get this??? 

"If you want me to believe, you have to offer proof.  If you don't offer proof, then I won't believe."

 Proof, proof, proof!  Evidence, evidence, evidence!  Does anyone here want to consider the ramifications of God actually providing this evidence?   Consider this:  theists tell us that God put us all here with the ability to choose between acceptance of Him or rejection of Him.  This concept is labeled free will.  If God shows Himself, and we know it's Him, free will has just been sent down the toilet.  Flush!!!

So, free will is potentially a good defense for God doing the cloud-dodging, atheist-avoiding thing.  But, now it gets tricky:  do we really, really have free will in this?  Now that, friends, might be a good topic for debate... 


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
God is one really f**ked up guy

Quote:
...do we really, really have free will in this? Now that, friends, might be a good topic for debate...

God created man, gave him free will to make decisions for himself, and then punishes him to eternal damnation for making the wrong decisions.   I know he supposedly works in mysterious ways, but this is beyond mysterious, it's plainly spiteful and mean.

 --  Kirbert


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Ultimately I do feel that

Ultimately I do feel that the burden of proof, if any such burden is needed, must rest firmly on those that argue for the affirmative.  The implications of not accepting this logically leads us to having to accept as true the endless list of things that cannot currently been disproven.

I actually agree with the original poster when he says that neither "side" can prove their point, but I disagree on the use of the word "never".

No, I don't know what methods could possibly be used, but new ideas are being developed every day.  It just seems to me that, currently, both "sides" can argue until they are blue in the face and eventually both will probably come to some statement that can be boiled down to "I don't know".

In my perception of the "sides" the theist's version of that statement will usually fill a gap in knowledge (like "what happened before the big bang?" and "what provided that first 'spark' that changed inorganic material into life?&quotEye-wink with "god did it!" and "have faith!". 

On the other hand, the atheist/scientific "side's" version would be "I don't know, but I am trying to find out, and if the information isn't available, I am working on ways to find out and make it verifiable and demonstrable." 

 This sounds so much healthier to me.

Apologies if this is incoherant in any way, it's really late here!


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Kemono wrote:Hello,

Kemono wrote:

Hello, markgtrplyr, and welcome to the forum!

It seems to me that there is a slight problem with your argument: the Catholic god is only one of an infinite number of hypothetical beings whose existence or nonexistence cannot be proved. Santa Claus, for example, can be neither proved nor disproved but it would be lunacy to believe in him. The reasons why a rational person should not believe in a god are quite similar to the reasons why he should not believe in Santa Claus. I will describe those reasons in detail if you wish.

kemono,

Santa Claus does exist.  A Christian man who helped out the poor did exist.  He has been refered too as St. Nick.  Maybe you should use another example.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A Christian man who

Quote:
A Christian man who helped out the poor did exist.

I have no reason to doubt that Jesus, Mohammad, Jim Jones and David Koresh actually existed. They all apparently shared the capacity to convince the ignorant to follow them and accept the most absurd notions on the strength of their word alone.

-- Kirbert

 


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I disagree

Vastet wrote:

I disagree completely. Not only has the bible been proven false, but the laws of physics disprove god as well. The only argument against it is supra-physics, which have no evidence of existing. So maybe there was a jesus who got nailed to a cross. I'd imagine there was a few dozen jesus' who got nailed to cross'. It was a common name after all. It's possible that one of them even thought he was some kind of god/god-relative. But if such is the case, he was as delusional as someone hearing voices in a psychiatric ward.

Most people would tend to agree that neither side can be proven(mostly to avoid seeming as closed minded as the opposition[even though they wouldn't be]), but 22 odd years of thought and experience about the subject has me solidly against the idea. If god does exist, and he wants people to believe in him, he'd damn well better show up and say/do something. Otherwise, the continued seeming incapability of him/her/it to do so merely adds more fuel to the fire of truth that is burning at the fringes of all religions.

 

 I couldn't help, but smirk at this comment.

 

You beg the question by assuming the "Bible" has been proven 'false' (on what grounds and by what do you mean false?). There are several factors and views attached to the documents that form the "Bible". So I really don't understand where you're coming from here.

 And what made me smirk was the comment that the "laws of physics have disproved God as well...", as though Natural limitations apply to a transcendant Being outside of the Universe.

 Funny. Thank you for the enlightening lecture.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
M wrote: I couldn't help,

M wrote:

I couldn't help, but smirk at this comment.

 

You beg the question by assuming the "Bible" has been proven 'false' (on what grounds and by what do you mean false?).

I couldn't help but smirk at this comment.

You beg the question that he's begging the question that the "Bible" has been proven false.

Your next question even belays this - i.e. you ask for his grounds, which demonstrates that it's quite possible that he does have a grounds for his claim. In other words, your question implies that he's not simply assuming that the bible is false, and then using this assumption as both premise and conclusion.

Quote:

And what made me smirk was the comment that the "laws of physics have disproved God as well...",

The bible makes quite a series of claims that have no external validity. The moon doesn't emit light, for example. The earth isn't stationary, etc.

These clearly false claims demonstrate that the bible cannot possibly have a divine origin.

And that is what is meant by 'disproving god' here. 

 

Quote:

as though Natural limitations apply to a transcendant Being outside of the Universe.

If this is the case then you must concede that there are NO falsifiable statements you can make about your 'creator' at all.

Which means that you've special pleaded yourself into incoherence.

So, let me end my words by saying:

"Funny. Thank you for the enlightening lecture."

 

PS If you're gonna go for sarcasm in a section of our board entitled "kill em with kindness", try to at least avoid refuting yourself on every point you make. Makes you look like an ass.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: I couldn't

todangst wrote:

I couldn't help but smirk at this comment.

You beg the question that he's begging the question that the "Bible" has been proven false.

 

No. I merely stated that he was begging the question and I asked him by what he meant by it being proven 'false' and making "the Bible" out to be one single falsifiable document.

todangst wrote:
Your next question even belays this - i.e. you ask for his grounds, which demonstrates that it's quite possible that he does have a grounds for his claim.

Certainly. I never said he didn't. You should avoid jumping the gun.


todangst wrote:
The bible makes quite a series of claims that have no external validity.

Under your interpretations, perhaps. Elsewhere I would beg to differ.


todangst wrote:
If this is the case, and I may agree with you, then you must concede that there are NO falsifiable statements you can make about your 'creator' at all.

By what means? Philisophically or by empirical evidence alone?

todangst wrote:
Which means that you've special pleaded yourself into incoherence.

Oh really? How confident we are...especially since one is not so keen in reading what I wrote properly.

todangst wrote:

PS If you're gonna go for sarcasm in a section of our board titled "kill em with kindness", try to at least avoid refuting yourself on every point you make. Makes you look like an ass.

 

Temper temper Eye-wink

 

 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
M wrote:todangst

M wrote:
todangst wrote:

I couldn't help but smirk at this comment.

You beg the question that he's begging the question that the "Bible" has been proven false.

 

No. I merely stated that he was begging the question

And by doing so, you assumed your own conclusion, by asserting that he begged the question:

You wrote:
You beg the question by assuming the "Bible" has been proven 'false'

 

 

 

todangst wrote:
Your next question even belays this - i.e. you ask for his grounds, which demonstrates that it's quite possible that he does have a grounds for his claim.

Quote:

Certainly. I never said he didn't. You should avoid jumping the gun.

Incorrect. I am not jumping the gun. You said this:

You wrote:
You beg the question by assuming the "Bible" has been proven 'false'

You declared he was begging the question, hence you contradict yourself here where you ask if he does have grounds for his claim.

 


todangst wrote:
The bible makes quite a series of claims that have no external validity.

Quote:

Under your interpretations,

Under any sane interpretation, the moon does not emit light, and the earth is not stationary.


todangst wrote:
If this is the case, and I may agree with you, then you must concede that there are NO falsifiable statements you can make about your 'creator' at all.

Quote:

By what means?

Pure deduction.

You said this:

Quote:


as though Natural limitations apply to a transcendant Being outside of the Universe.

You hold that your god is beyond 'natural limits' (What other kidn are there? Please say 'supernatural limits' and give us a giggle.)

This means you've special pleaded your 'god' into incoherence. We cannot make claims about anything 'beyond the laws of nature' as we would have no grounds to discuss such a 'thing'


 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: M

todangst wrote:
M wrote:
todangst wrote:

I couldn't help but smirk at this comment.

You beg the question that he's begging the question that the "Bible" has been proven false.

 

No. I merely stated that he was begging the question

And by doing so, you assumed your own conclusion, by asserting that he begged the question:

You wrote:
You beg the question by assuming the "Bible" has been proven 'false'

 

 

 

todangst wrote:
Your next question even belays this - i.e. you ask for his grounds, which demonstrates that it's quite possible that he does have a grounds for his claim.

Quote:

Certainly. I never said he didn't. You should avoid jumping the gun.

Incorrect. I am not jumping the gun. You said this:

You wrote:
You beg the question by assuming the "Bible" has been proven 'false'

You declared he was begging the question, hence you contradict yourself here where you ask if he does have grounds for his claim.

 


todangst wrote:
The bible makes quite a series of claims that have no external validity.

Quote:

Under your interpretations,

Under any sane interpretation, the moon does not emit light, and the earth is not stationary.


todangst wrote:
If this is the case, and I may agree with you, then you must concede that there are NO falsifiable statements you can make about your 'creator' at all.

Quote:

By what means?

Pure deduction.

You said this:

Quote:


as though Natural limitations apply to a transcendant Being outside of the Universe.

You hold that your god is beyond 'natural limits' (What other kidn are there? Please say 'supernatural limits' and give us a giggle.)

This means you've special pleaded your 'god' into incoherence. We cannot make claims about anything 'beyond the laws of nature' as we would have no grounds to discuss such a 'thing'


 

 

 

He stated that the Bible was false with no grounds whatsoever. To do so alone is to beg the question. I then gave him the benefit of the doubt by asking by which grounds he finds the Bible to be false. He merely said "The Bible is false" without giving any reasons to justify said claim.

 So while you can try and catch me in a contradiction you should develope some better and more discerning reading comphrehension skills.

 And when you say under any "sane interpretation" you are poisoning the well; not only this, but completely simplifying the issue by that mere example. For instance, the moon certainly does "emit light" in the sense that it gives off light to the natural observer. Scientifically this is false, but in no way does it refute the author's observations or the way he described (or was described to) for the audience. One of the general problems among the 'literal' readers of the Bible and their objectors (you coming into example) is their inability to comprehend author's thought processes behind a given texts or their intentions; usually succumbing to reading the literature as either a manual or a scientific textbook. The entire interpretation regarding the "four corners of the earth" comes to mind.

Though I could be wrong...but I'd like to see a better reply other than "Only sane interpretations..."

 And please, enlighten us with your 'pure deduction'.

 

And as far as I know I cannot tell if there are limitations beyond the natural realm since I am unable to observe or comprehend them; however, it would be an appeal to ignorance to suggests they do not exists or do exists on that basis alone. Furthermore, I have not pleaded my God into "incoherance", as while I may have objected to the laws of physics going against God I did not say that God is not entirely incoherant or appealed to God being limited to the Supernatural realm alone and unable to communicate within the Natural realm.  Simply because a being is not limited to such laws, does not mean that a Being cannot function within or outside those laws. There is no logical justification for your claim that we have no grounds to discuss such a thing.

 It would be like I stating that we have no grounds to discuss the existance of historical figures that we have not yet unearthed their remains. If I cannot see God, have yet to be spoken to by Him, etc. etc. this does not mean that He has not left footnotes within the Natural realm and nor does it disqualify His existence because we only have these footnotes; just as we do not disqualify the existence of histortical figures on the basis of only having them recorded.

 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
M wrote: Vastet wrote: I

M wrote:
Vastet wrote:
I disagree completely. Not only has the bible been proven false, but the laws of physics disprove god as well. The only argument against it is supra-physics, which have no evidence of existing. So maybe there was a jesus who got nailed to a cross. I'd imagine there was a few dozen jesus' who got nailed to cross'. It was a common name after all. It's possible that one of them even thought he was some kind of god/god-relative. But if such is the case, he was as delusional as someone hearing voices in a psychiatric ward. Most people would tend to agree that neither side can be proven(mostly to avoid seeming as closed minded as the opposition[even though they wouldn't be]), but 22 odd years of thought and experience about the subject has me solidly against the idea. If god does exist, and he wants people to believe in him, he'd damn well better show up and say/do something. Otherwise, the continued seeming incapability of him/her/it to do so merely adds more fuel to the fire of truth that is burning at the fringes of all religions.
I couldn't help, but smirk at this comment.

Much as I can't help but smirk at your response.

M wrote:
You beg the question by assuming the "Bible" has been proven 'false'

Two lies in one sentence. I don't assume the bible is proven false, I know it. Based on it's own contradictions and on it's theft of stories from earlier cultures and re-wrapped as a christian idea. And since I KNOW the bible is false, I can't beg the question. There isn't a question to beg.

M wrote:
(on what grounds and by what do you mean false?).

Take a wander over to the part of the site that shows biblical errancies for a good start.

M wrote:
There are several factors and views attached to the documents that form the "Bible".

Care to be more specific?

M wrote:
And what made me smirk was the comment that the "laws of physics have disproved God as well...", as though Natural limitations apply to a transcendant Being outside of the Universe. Funny. Thank you for the enlightening lecture.

And there's the crux of it. There's never in all of history been a single authentic example of anything supernatural in any form. It is therefore logical to assume the supernatural is non-existant, and a man made idea. Therefore your entire assertion of "transcendant being outside the universe" is merely bullshit conjecture formed from primitive thinking and ignorance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
M wrote: He stated that the

M wrote:
He stated that the Bible was false with no grounds whatsoever.

Again, you beg the question. You're assuming I have not done so(I have, thousands of times), simply because it's not in this topic. I don't repeat every post I've ever made every time I make a new one. Your assumptions are irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: M wrote: He

Vastet wrote:
M wrote:
He stated that the Bible was false with no grounds whatsoever.
Again, you beg the question. You're assuming I have not done so(I have, thousands of times), simply because it's not in this topic. 

 

Precisely. He committed the very fallacy he acussed you of....  now that's pretty funny.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


TheAtheistPaladin
TheAtheistPaladin's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
patrickimo

patrickimo wrote:

Hambydammit,

First off, I LOVE your pic of the screaming cat with the AK-47 - where did you get this???

"If you want me to believe, you have to offer proof. If you don't offer proof, then I won't believe."

Proof, proof, proof! Evidence, evidence, evidence! Does anyone here want to consider the ramifications of God actually providing this evidence? Consider this: theists tell us that God put us all here with the ability to choose between acceptance of Him or rejection of Him. This concept is labeled free will. If God shows Himself, and we know it's Him, free will has just been sent down the toilet. Flush!!!

So, free will is potentially a good defense for God doing the cloud-dodging, atheist-avoiding thing. But, now it gets tricky: do we really, really have free will in this? Now that, friends, might be a good topic for debate...

 

Let me ask you this. Do you believe in the devil? Do you believe the devil has free wil? Hasn't the devil been in the presence of god? If the devil can manage to have free will after have absoulte knowledge of his existance then your argument just went down the toilet. FLUSH!

 

James 2:19 You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that -and shudder.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins