Is a free thinker allowed to believe a Creator exists??

Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Is a free thinker allowed to believe a Creator exists??

Can a person be free to think that God exists and be call themselves a freethinker?

Or are freethinkers 'forbidden' from thinking a creator exists?

Are freethinkers allowed to be skeptical of the theory of evolution or would that violate one of the bylaws?

Perhaps I should start an I'm a freethinker who believes in God challenge hmmm?

 


DeaconBlues
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Clara Listensprechen

Clara Listensprechen wrote:

The theist, on the other hand, thinks he already knows it all.

 

Do I know the universe was not created?

 

No. 

 

Do I tell people that creation myths are false?

 

No.

 

But if I did tell them that creation myths are false...

 

Then does it appear that i know it all?  And is that a problem?

 

 


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Greetings

Greetings all,

 

Krehlic,

 

Quote:
Ok, to make a positive claim such as "God exists" does put the burden of proof on you. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there's no way out of it. If it is the job of the disbeliever to disprove the existence of a god, then you better get to work on the rest of the gods of all the religions of the world, dead and current. Otherwise, by your logic, they must all exist.

 

I don’t disagree, if I claim God exists and enter such a thought into the market place of ideas then I should be prepared to support such a belief with evidence of its merit. By the same token, if I disparage such a thought, thoroughly bash it and hold it in contempt as this site does then I should be prepared to defend that notion and not claim the burden rests solely with the theist, right? Often that’s not what you people do, after having bashed theism from pillar to post you then become weak theists and claim you only lack belief in God, an intellectual dodge.

 

Quote:
I don't know about how strongly other people here feel, but I believe tthe god of the Bible is just as likely to exist as Zeus or Thor. Now, if you think that the odds are in favor of God's existence, I would love to see the evidence to support that claim.

 

Theism Krehlic, is belief in the existence of a transcendent Creator of the universe not Zeus or Yahweh. If atheism were disbelief in specific Gods, then theists would be atheists too. See what I mean? You have uncritically bought into one of the many atheist sound bites and mental constructs without applying some ‘freethinking’ to it.

 

This is why I think you guys calling yourself freethinkers is a joke. If I came in here with a different handle and called myself a freethinker, you would just assume I don’t believe in God, I don’t go believe in any religion and I am an atheist materialist and probably politically to the left.

 

If you want to see the basis of my claim God exists I have a thread in the Atheism vs theism forum titled Debate Challenge. Just a prediction you don’t really want to see the evidence, you want to disagree with it so you can then claim there is no evidence. I know this because even though you call yourselves freethinkers, you often buy into the same sound bites and espouse the exact same rhetoric and atheist sound bites. If you were freethinkers you’d think there would be real diversity of opinion.

 

Quote:
I can certainly speak for myself and can assume that I am speaking for most, if not all, other atheists on these forums when I say that I do not hold theists themselves in any level of contempt or disdain. It is their beliefs and faith in untestable gods that I hate. If I hated theists then I would have to hate most of my friends and family as well. Though, while on this subject, many of the people I would have called good friends (theists) in the past hate me now that I am an atheist.

 

I could be guilty of judging a book by its cover but I don’t get a warm fuzzy that theists or their beliefs are respected in the least on this website. You may not hold your theist friends and family in contempt but I suspect you hold most anonymous theists in contempt.

Is your belief God doesn’t exist testable?

 


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Todangst   Quote: So you

Todangst

 

Quote:
So you say, yet so far, you've done little more than spout every sort of nonsense I've seen before, most of it easily refuted by someone who actually knows something about the topic.

 

All that means in atheismese is that you disagree with what I said, you have a different opinion and in your mind that qualifies as a refutation. I don’t know what your credentials are, why don’t you tell us?

 

If theism were demonstrably false no amount of inculcation would result in over 85% of the population subscribing to theism.

 

Quote:
Nonsense, even you don't buy that argument. You have no problem out all admitting that Judaism is false, Islam is false, Buddhism is false... you recognize that billions of people hold to claims that you can easily see are false.

 

First of all todangst I haven’t identified my specific theistic belief so that you can’t pigeon hole me with your favorite biases and prejudices. As a theist I share a belief with Islamic, Wicca’s, Christians and Jews so I don’t claim there beliefs are false. The atheist sound bite cut and paste machine is working over time today.

 

Quote:
No. Stop. I asked you, in here, in this thread, how free thinking jibes with appeals to the supernatural.

 

And I asked in the OP

 

Can a person be free to think that God exists and be call themselves a freethinker? Or are freethinkers 'forbidden' from thinking a creator exists? Are freethinkers allowed to be skeptical of the theory of evolution or would that violate one of the bylaws? Perhaps I should start an I'm a freethinker who believes in God challenge hmmm?

Did you answer any of my questions?

So tell me does freethinking disallow the possibility of the supernatural existing? How is there any freethinking involved if it is a foregone conclusion such is wrong?

Isn’t it possible that agencies or forces that are transcendent to the laws of nature we are familiar with are responsible for our existence and the universe? Do you have proof such a possibility is incorrect? If you don’t have such proof then on what basis should a freethinker reject such a possibility?


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
MrRage,   Quote: I don't

MrRage,

 

Quote:
I don't see what your point is then. I inferred from you earlier post that you're saying we act like strong atheist, but when we're cornered somehow we have to admit to being mere weak atheist. Could you show me where this is going on?

 

It is going on by the very fact you are a participant in a board that puts on a very strong atheist face knowing full well that doesn’t represent the majority of atheists who are actually ‘weak atheists’. If atheists boards were to acknowledge the fact most atheists are weak atheists who don’t actually deny the possibility that God might exist they wouldn’t be nearly as inflammatory as this board is.


Do you acknowledge this board is actively seeking to evangelize and ‘save’ people from their theistic beliefs?

 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:

MrRage,

 

Quote:
I don't see what your point is then. I inferred from you earlier post that you're saying we act like strong atheist, but when we're cornered somehow we have to admit to being mere weak atheist. Could you show me where this is going on?

 

It is going on by the very fact you are a participant in a board that puts on a very strong atheist face knowing full well that doesn’t represent the majority of atheists who are actually ‘weak atheists’. If atheists boards were to acknowledge the fact most atheists are weak atheists who don’t actually deny the possibility that God might exist they wouldn’t be nearly as inflammatory as this board is.


Do you acknowledge this board is actively seeking to evangelize and ‘save’ people from their theistic beliefs?

 

You know what Drew_theist, you're just trying to make us look like a bunch of cowards and I'm calling bullshit on you.

I think the Bible is merely a compilations of works written by men, and is full of horrendous trash, especially in the Old Testament. People who think that it's the best basis for morals are the ones spreading hatred and bigotry in our society, and are stopping valuable scientific research into stem cells. This devotion to the Bible needs to end.

I think there are many popular religious figures that are that are strait up con men, e.g. Benny Hinn, and they get away with it due to the unquestioning license people give to religious faith in the US. This needs to end.

Many of evangelical Christians, some who are privy to president Bush, believe that Jesus is coming soon. They have no interest in building a sustainable world society because of their views on biblical prophecy. These people are a great danger, and need to drop their nonsense views and start working to make the world a better place now!

The belief that the Koran is the inerrant word of God has fueled too much violence. I don't need to explain this much, because I'm sure you saw the WTC being destroyed along with the rest of us. Faith in the Koran needs to be stopped.

These are some the things I'm against, Drew_theist. I don't care if you think some deity had to have started everything, as you're arguing in another thread. I don't care if you have some sort of metaphysical beliefs. Maybe these things make your life better, so more power to you. If you're in the US, then you've got every right to your beliefs, and I'd even die to protect your, and of course my, rights.

What I do I care about is when theist think the know, based on faith, God's (or Allah's or Deity X's) will and they start doing destructive things. Religious faith might have been a benefit to people in the past, when people lived isolated from differing groups, but in todays society sectarian strife based off religious faith in ancient beliefs and texts is becoming a threat to our survival.

I'm saying all of this as a weak atheist, and none of it violates being a weak atheist. As a matter of fact, it's in perfect alignment with my weak atheism. I'm against faith.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So, in other words,

Quote:
So, in other words, you are open minded to anything that does not contradict your religion.

No, I am open in pursuit of the truth. I came to a rational decision to accept this particular belief, and I believe that it is most certainly true. I further see no reason to doubt it.

Further, in the post of MrRage, I could have replied to any number of things in your post, but I merely refer you to my argument on the immorality of destroying embryotic stem cells regardless of whether we believe them persons or not, which is found in the thread "Abortion is murder."
Lastly, there seems to be no reason to paint all Christians into the same corner with Benny Hinn and crazy Christians who retreat into apocalyptic nonsense. Most do not believe this. I also see atheism and secularism with a great deal more deaths under its belt in the likes of merely Stalin, Hilter, and Mao, and all other crazy communist tinpot dictators who have ruled the world over. Christianity in particular cannot hold a candle to the many other groups that have led to mass killings.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Krehlic
Krehlic's picture
Posts: 240
Joined: 2006-12-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don’t disagree,

Quote:
I don’t disagree, if I claim God exists and enter such a thought into the market place of ideas then I should be prepared to support such a belief with evidence of its merit. By the same token, if I disparage such a thought, thoroughly bash it and hold it in contempt as this site does then I should be prepared to defend that notion and not claim the burden rests solely with the theist, right?

I know you don't agree, but that doesn't take the burden of proof away. You, positively claiming that God exists, will always have the burden of proof on the subject. A lack of evidence that something does not exists is not proof that it does, nor is it evidence. If I said there was a giant sea monster somewhere in the pacific that has twenty heads, fifty tails and yellow fins, would it not be my job to prove the existence of such a thing? It could never be disproved. You could use whatever kind of technology you want to look for it, but your inability to find it would not mean it didn't exist. It just means you can't find it. It could be hiding or invisible to radar or whatever.

Quote:
ften that’s not what you people do, after having bashed theism from pillar to post you then become weak theists and claim you only lack belief in God, an intellectual dodge.

How is this an intellectual dodge? Admittance of an unlikely possibility is a dodge? I don't think so. Before, I asked you if you thought there was a good chance that God did not exist. You replied saying that you felt the odds were in favor of God's existence (to which I obviously disagree), but that you admit a possibility that you are wrong. So, are you dodging?

Quote:
Theism Krehlic, is belief in the existence of a transcendent Creator of the universe not Zeus or Yahweh. If atheism were disbelief in specific Gods, then theists would be atheists too. See what I mean? You have uncritically bought into one of the many atheist sound bites and mental constructs without applying some ‘freethinking’ to it.

Wrong, belief in a transcendent creator alone is deism. When you define the god (Yahweh, Zeus) then you become a theist. As an atheist I do not believe in any personal god or deistic god. I acknowledge the possibility that there may be a god, however unlikely it is, but when it comes to religion and their defined, irrational gods, I must say, it is quite ridiculous.

Quote:
This is why I think you guys calling yourself freethinkers is a joke. If I came in here with a different handle and called myself a freethinker, you would just assume I don’t believe in God, I don’t go believe in any religion and I am an atheist materialist and probably politically to the left.

If you can offer proof that God exists, I will happily become a Christian again. In fact, I held on to my Christian beliefs for a long time before becoming an atheist because I just wanted God to exist.

Quote:
If you want to see the basis of my claim God exists I have a thread in the Atheism vs theism forum titled Debate Challenge. Just a prediction you don’t really want to see the evidence, you want to disagree with it so you can then claim there is no evidence. I know this because even though you call yourselves freethinkers, you often buy into the same sound bites and espouse the exact same rhetoric and atheist sound bites. If you were freethinkers you’d think there would be real diversity of opinion.

I find it amusing how you keep saying we all, atheists, buy into the same sound bites and rhetoric when you, as a theist, are undeniably guilty of it. I read your thread entitled "Debate Challenge." I can't tell you how often I hear those same weak arguments from theists. If anyone is buying into the same old sound bites and rhetoric, its you. But don't worry, when I was a theist I did the same.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Well, if there was nothing, then there wouldn't be anyone around to argue about it. Now, since you believe in God, ask yourself this question: why is there a God instead of no God? Likewise, assuming such a being existed, there is a god, and if there weren't then there would be no one to argue about it. I'm afraid that in the attempt to argue this weak point you have also shot yourself in the foot with it.

As for your second point in the other thread; the development of the universe and life as we know it today is not the result of random happenstance, but of a natural process working inside the laws of physics. If you really do want to understand, I suggest you try to learn and investigate for yourself instead of retorting brief, bias explanations that you've heard from other theists.

Quote:
I could be guilty of judging a book by its cover but I don’t get a warm fuzzy that theists or their beliefs are respected in the least on this website. You may not hold your theist friends and family in contempt but I suspect you hold most anonymous theists in contempt.

Yes, I think you are judging a book by its cover, as most theists do. Better yet, I'd say that they don't even completely read the book's cover, only glance and make unfair assertions.

Quote:
Is your belief God doesn’t exist testable?

No, and neither is your assertion of existence, but the blatant contradictions in your holy book should be testament to the fallibility of your unstable religion. Even aside from contradicting itself, it also contradicts what we know as fact about the universe.

Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Further,

StMichael wrote:

Further, in the post of MrRage, I could have replied to any number of things in your post,

My purpose wasn't so much to debate these issues, but to point out that these are things that a weak atheist can take issue with.

StMichael wrote:
but I merely refer you to my argument on the immorality of destroying embryotic stem cells regardless of whether we believe them persons or not, which is found in the thread "Abortion is murder."

Maybe so. My point is, in the US the main opposition comes from evangelical Christians and their metaphysical beliefs. I think there needs to be a great deal of consideration and dialog on the ethics of such things as stem cell research. But I see no need to consider faith based metaphysical beliefs about souls and such things.

StMichael wrote:
Lastly, there seems to be no reason to paint all Christians into the same corner with Benny Hinn and crazy Christians who retreat into apocalyptic nonsense. Most do not believe this.

I understand. Please, don't think I mean all Christians throughout the Earth are the same. My point is in the US it's a taboo to question people about their religious faith. This creates an environment where frauds like Hinn can thrive unchecked.

I'm curious if you've ever spent much time in the "Bible Belt" in the US.

StMichael wrote:
I also see atheism and secularism with a great deal more deaths under its belt in the likes of merely Stalin, Hilter, and Mao, and all other crazy communist tinpot dictators who have ruled the world over.

This is a red herring. You know the answer to this.

Anyway, secularism doesn't necessarily mean that religion is wiped out. It just means crazies like Falwell shouldn't govern based on religious, faith-based principles. To me the US is a secular country, for now.

StMichael wrote:
Christianity in particular cannot hold a candle to the many other groups that have led to mass killings.

True, but the Church of the middle ages didn't have the technology, and the large population, that Stalin, Hitler, etc. had. This is no way invalidates the dangers of making important decisions based on faith.


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Yep. The

StMichael wrote:
Yep. The One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. The Catholic canon is the only correct one. Ah, the beauty of not having to worry about differing versions Smiling We, of course, do accept many different versions. We just only accept those approved by the Church as reliable. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

 

 

so you accept these versions, because the church tell you to. i see. how . . . freethinking of you.  

Rill


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
Yep. The One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. The Catholic canon is the only correct one. Ah, the beauty of not having to worry about differing versions Smiling We, of course, do accept many different versions. We just only accept those approved by the Church as reliable.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

If you only accept what other people have called "reliable" without checking things out for yourself, can you truly be a free-thinker?

Or are you saying that you've read everything (as opposed to just those things that match your position)?

Edit : I'm too stinking slow!

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Maybe so. My point

Quote:
Maybe so. My point is, in the US the main opposition comes from evangelical Christians and their metaphysical beliefs. I think there needs to be a great deal of consideration and dialog on the ethics of such things as stem cell research. But I see no need to consider faith based metaphysical beliefs about souls and such things.

First, metaphysics is independent of religion.
Second, there is no reason that, if faith is considered by its adherents to describe something true, that it ought not to enter into the debate.
Third, my argument as to why stem cell research is unethical has little to do with any religious consideration.

Quote:

I'm curious if you've ever spent much time in the "Bible Belt" in the US.

A little. And many of my friends are converts to Catholicism from those religions.

Quote:
This is a red herring. You know the answer to this.

Actually, I think it makes as much sense as your argument does.

Quote:

Anyway, secularism doesn't necessarily mean that religion is wiped out. It just means crazies like Falwell shouldn't govern based on religious, faith-based principles. To me the US is a secular country, for now.

I never claimed that a theocracy ought to exist. I do not, however, see that as a reason to limit religion to the "bedroom." Religion, if it is believed as describing something true, is something that ought to clearly have a voice in public policy. It cannot be imposed on others who do not accept its principles, but those who accept its principles cannot likewise be forced to abandon them in public discourse.

Quote:

True, but the Church of the middle ages didn't have the technology, and the large population, that Stalin, Hitler, etc. had. This is no way invalidates the dangers of making important decisions based on faith.

The Catholic Church never denied the existence of moral truth, as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did. So, there will always be a check on Christian excesses. No such check exists for as radical an atheist as those of communism, for example.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Krehlic,   Quote: I know

Krehlic,

 

Quote:
I know you don't agree, but that doesn't take the burden of proof away.

 

I don’t deny I have a burden of evidence (not proof I’m not making a knowledge claim about Gods existence). The point I am making is that the other side of this argument has an equal burden when they claim God doesn’t exist particularly considering how strong their conviction is that God doesn’t exist.

 

Quote:
It could never be disproved. You could use whatever kind of technology you want to look for it, but your inability to find it would not mean it didn't exist. It just means you can't find it. It could be hiding or invisible to radar or whatever.

 

Krehlic you seem like a smart guy but you’re not a freethinker at all, or better yet you’re not a critical thinker.

 

First of all your analogy is predicated on the mistaken belief accepted uncritically by atheists that there is no evidence whatever in favor of theism. To the contrary the mere fact the universe and sentient being like humans exist is evidence in favor of theism because people believe that was more likely the result of a Creator than any competing notion no matter how sincerely you believe in some other cause.

 

The fact is scientists could offer very strong evidence such a creature doesn’t exist. They could point to the fact a biological creature could not support twenty heads. They could point to evidence that even two headed creatures rarely survive for long, they could point out no other sightings and on and on. You probably subscribe to another atheist sound bite to which you applied no freethinking that you can’t prove a negative. I agree you may not be able to prove a negative but you can provide a preponderance of evidence in favor of a negative claim. Scientists have made a powerful case that Nessie (the Lockness monster) doesn’t exist.

 

Quote:
How is this an intellectual dodge?

 

If I ran a website and radio show attempting to persuade people the US didn’t land on the moon and attempted to ‘save’ people from such a belief and encouraged people to tape themselves disavowing the idea the US landed on the moon and mocked and ridiculed anyone as ignorant who subscribed to such a belief wouldn’t you think it was an intellectual dodge that when confronted about this claim, I then confessed I actually just have a ‘lack of belief’ that the US has landed on the moon and the burden of evidence rests with those who claim we did land on the moon? You don’t think that would be the height of chicken scratch? C’mon try to put on your freethinking cap.

 

Then no matter what evidence someone offers in favor of the US landing on the moon I offer nothing but logical counter possibilities. For example

 

All the films are faked.
The government bought off all the employees of NASA.
They did it to bilk the US taxpayers
They send out black helicopters to anyone who would spill the beans.
The ‘moon rocks’ were extracted from a cave in Peru.


Notice how I don’t actually offer any evidence such counter possibilities are true I merely fabricate whatever logical possibility comports with my belief held in advance. I demand incontestable proof from anyone who contradicts me but accept mere possibility of something as evidence in favor of my own belief.

 

Quote:
You replied saying that you felt the odds were in favor of God's existence (to which I obviously disagree), but that you admit a possibility that you are wrong. So, are you dodging?

 

Not at all Krehlic, I am making a case in this thread for what I believe.

 

Quote:
Wrong, belief in a transcendent creator alone is deism.

 

If you believe the Creator is no longer alive or is no longer involved in the affairs of the universe or people. Either way deism is a form of theism, not atheism.

 

Quote:
When you define the god (Yahweh, Zeus) then you become a theist.

 

Don’t you even know what theism is? Theism is not a religious belief and it is not necessary to believe in any specific God to be a theist. Theism is a philosophical belief about the origin of people and the universe just as materialism is.

 

Quote:
I acknowledge the possibility that there may be a god, however unlikely it is, but when it comes to religion and their defined, irrational gods, I must say, it is quite ridiculous.

 

Good, then you should provide evidence of how unlikely the existence of God (creator of the universe) is just as I provide evidence that it is likely we owe our existence to such a cause. About religion that depends, if no God exists then any religious belief about God is ridiculous however, since you concede God might exist then we can’t dismiss the possibility religious beliefs (ridiculous as they might be) could be true.

 

Quote:
I find it amusing how you keep saying we all, atheists, buy into the same sound bites and rhetoric when you, as a theist, are undeniably guilty of it. I read your thread entitled "Debate Challenge." I can't tell you how often I hear those same weak arguments from theists. If anyone is buying into the same old sound bites and rhetoric, its you. But don't worry, when I was a theist I did the same.

 

I have been debating atheist for over 15 years and I am telling you, you all chew the same cud and spew it out nearly verbatim and rarely put on your ‘freethinking’ caps. You come to believe there is no God and then swallow any sound bite that agrees with that line of thinking without applying any critical thinking skills.

 

We will see how weak the arguments are I am presenting. So far no one is willing to challenge me to a formal debate.

 

Quote:
Well, if there was nothing, then there wouldn't be anyone around to argue about it.

 

And is there some reason people, planets or stars should exist?

 

Quote:
why is there a God instead of no God?

 

Good question and I have no idea, but I’m not attempting to answer that question, I am attempting to give an explanation why there is something rather than nothing. For example the reason cars exist is because car companies create cars. You might ask why car companies exist. I never claimed knowledge of why car companies exist, only why cars exist.

 

Quote:
the development of the universe and life as we know it today is not the result of random happenstance, but of a natural process working inside the laws of physics.

 

I agree with you the development of the universe is due to the laws of physics. I will submit later that the existence of the laws of physics favors a theistic model, not a materialistic one.

 

Is your belief God doesn’t exist testable?

 

Quote:
No, and neither is your assertion of existence,

 

The point you were going to make is my belief is irrational because it isn’t testable until you realized your own belief isn’t testable either but you have no problem with thinking it is rational, right?

 

Quote:
but the blatant contradictions in your holy book should be testament to the fallibility of your unstable religion. Even aside from contradicting itself, it also contradicts what we know as fact about the universe.

 

Whose holy book? I never stated I subscribe to a specific theistic belief. Talk about judging a book by its cover…

 


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
David Hume once said, "a

David Hume once said, "a wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence"

Freethinkers should adhere to that!

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Krehlic
Krehlic's picture
Posts: 240
Joined: 2006-12-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Edit: I just changed some wording and fixed some spelling. I was pressed for time before.

 

Quote:
I don’t deny I have a burden of evidence (not proof I’m not making a knowledge claim about Gods existence). The point I am making is that the other side of this argument has an equal burden when they claim God doesn’t exist particularly considering how strong their conviction is that God doesn’t exist.

As long as you are speaking in theistic terms and not deistic, the claim of the existence of God is utterly ridiculous. Just read the Bible, or whatever holy book you subscribe to, without rose colored goggles. This site challenges theism, not deism. Though, deism is certainly up for discussion and certainly not favored by the majority of people here.

Quote:
First of all your analogy is predicated on the mistaken belief accepted uncritically by atheists that there is no evidence whatever in favor of theism. To the contrary the mere fact the universe and sentient being like humans exist is evidence in favor of theism because people believe that was more likely the result of a Creator than any competing notion no matter how sincerely you believe in some other cause.

 

The fact is scientists could offer very strong evidence such a creature doesn’t exist. They could point to the fact a biological creature could not support twenty heads. They could point to evidence that even two headed creatures rarely survive for long, they could point out no other sightings and on and on. You probably subscribe to another atheist sound bite to which you applied no freethinking that you can’t prove a negative. I agree you may not be able to prove a negative but you can provide a preponderance of evidence in favor of a negative claim. Scientists have made a powerful case that Nessie (the Lockness monster) doesn’t exist.


First of all, there is no evidence in support of theism. If you don’t count the gap in scientific knowledge then there is no evidence for deism either, but I’m not questioning the validity of deism as it is philosophical and not faith based dogma.

And as for your points about my sea monster, fair enough, but you still get my point. I could have made up something supernatural, which could not be tested.

Quote:
If I ran a website and radio show attempting to persuade people the US didn’t land on the moon and attempted to ‘save’ people from such a belief and encouraged people to tape themselves disavowing the idea the US landed on the moon and mocked and ridiculed anyone as ignorant who subscribed to such a belief wouldn’t you think it was an intellectual dodge that when confronted about this claim, I then confessed I actually just have a ‘lack of belief’ that the US has landed on the moon and the burden of evidence rests with those who claim we did land on the moon? You don’t think that would be the height of chicken scratch? C’mon try to put on your freethinking cap.

 

Then no matter what evidence someone offers in favor of the US landing on the moon I offer nothing but logical counter possibilities. For example

 

All the films are faked.
The government bought off all the employees of NASA.
They did it to bilk the US taxpayers
They send out black helicopters to anyone who would spill the beans.
The ‘moon rocks’ were extracted from a cave in Peru.

Notice how I don’t actually offer any evidence such counter possibilities are true I merely fabricate whatever logical possibility comports with my belief held in advance. I demand incontestable proof from anyone who contradicts me but accept mere possibility of something as evidence in favor of my own belief.

Tell me the difference between here and people preaching their religion, aside from that most of them won’t admit a possibility of being wrong.

Quote:
Not at all Krehlic, I am making a case in this thread for what I believe.

How is this different?

Quote:
If you believe the Creator is no longer alive or is no longer involved in the affairs of the universe or people. Either way deism is a form of theism, not atheism.

Quote:
Don’t you even know what theism is? Theism is not a religious belief and it is not necessary to believe in any specific God to be a theist. Theism is a philosophical belief about the origin of people and the universe just as materialism is.


No, wrong again. Deism is the belief of a god, or an original intelligence, responsible for the creation of the universe. This being has no defined parameters aside from its ability to create our world. A deistic god does not deal in human affairs.

I never said theism was a religious belief, but it does include nearly all of them. I'm not sure about Buddhism.

***Sorry about the dark font, I don't know why its doing that***

The definition, from Webster’s New World Dictionary, of deism is…





Fr
dé




isme < L deus, god





belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; esp., the 17th- and 18th-cent. doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning

Obviously, if no one has known of this god from revelation then it cannot be defined.

A person can be a deist and be a freethinker. My understanding of this is evident from my first post on this thread as deists do not have any kind of sacred book from which to dictate their morals and beliefs.

______________________________

Now, theism goes beyond philosophical speculation and asserts the existence of a defined god. Again, the definition from Webster is…





THE(O)- + -ISM





belief in one God viewed as creator and ruler of the universe and known by revelation: distinguished from DEISM

A god known by revelation is defined, somewhat. As I have stated before, belief in such a god according to a holy book or teaching which dictates right from wrong, etc, is neither rational nor freethinking.

I assure you, I understand very well the difference between theism and deism. I am afraid it is you who does not.

Quote:
Good, then you should provide evidence of how unlikely the existence of God (creator of the universe) is just as I provide evidence that it is likely we owe our existence to such a cause. About religion that depends, if no God exists then any religious belief about God is ridiculous however, since you concede God might exist then we can’t dismiss the possibility religious beliefs (ridiculous as they might be) could be true.

This ‘evidence’ that you have presented does not support any particular theistic god. It would support the existence of a god, which I acknowledge to be a possibility.

Quote:
I have been debating atheist for over 15 years and I am telling you, you all chew the same cud and spew it out nearly verbatim and rarely put on your ‘freethinking’ caps. You come to believe there is no God and then swallow any sound bite that agrees with that line of thinking without applying any critical thinking skills.

So, the longer I debate the more right I become? Good to know.

By the way, if what you say is true, then the following is most definitely true (and I only had to change two words Smiling ) :

I am telling you, you all (theists) chew the same cud and spew it out nearly verbatim and rarely put on your ‘freethinking’ caps. You come to believe there is a God and then swallow any sound bite that agrees with that line of thinking without applying any critical thinking skills.

I fail to see how I can’t be a freethinker for using, as you say, common arguments by atheists, and how you can, even though you use, I’d say, the most common theist argument of them all.

 

To illustrate my freethinking I have written up a brief summery of my rise as an atheist and my rejection of my lifelong religion. I could write a book about it, but I’ll make it as short as possible.

Keep in mind that I grew up in the heart of the Bible belt in a devout Christian family and went to a private Christian School from start to graduation.

I have two huge notebooks packed full of articles, printouts from books, comprehensive notes, lists of sources, etc, that supposedly prove the existence of God. I constantly spat out arguments for the existence of God and had sources, many of which from atheists, to back it up. I must admit, your argument for why there is something rather than nothing was one of my favorites. My main focus was on the Mathematical argument, using mainly scientific notation and referring to the abiogenesis, the Cosmological argument, dealing mainly with the first cause and first mover and your argument already mentioned, and the Teleological argument, dealing with the supposed uniqueness of Earth and various examples of irreducible complexity (which have all been disproved). There is much more in those notebooks, but those were my specialty. I wrote several research and argumentative essays in some college English classes using the three main topics. I realized along the way that I was taking many of the points out of context. An example of this is the supposed impossibility of matter randomly arranging itself into life. I knew no scientists, aside from other theists, thought matter arranged itself by shear chance all at once. I knew that the individual steps of the process would bring the chances of life forming down into the realm of the possible, but I still argued the points in hopes that everyone would buy into it and not question. The same goes for the other arguments.
Somewhere along the way I realized that none of these arguments offered any real evidence at all. They merely pointed out things that science doesn’t yet know. I realized what I was doing; believing in something based on evidence that I knew was false or irrelevant. My God was the God of the Gaps. Furthermore, I also realized that even if my evidence was valid, it did not prove or suggest the existence of my God, only the existence of a god. But still, it really didn't.
I lost my faith by rationally reading the Bible and considering obvious contradictions. I became a deist (for a little while at least), but not long after that, continuing to research, I became an atheist. I went through this change without ever speaking with another athiest. I refer back to those notebooks I have, regularly, to second guess myself. Though, if anything, it strengthens my stance as an atheist.

Quote:
And is there some reason people, planets or stars should exist?

You seem to think so, but I don’t. My question of why there is a god rather than no god deals with the same principle and has the same consequence.

I ask why there is a god instead of none. Your answer:

Quote:
Good question and I have no idea, but I’m not attempting to answer that question, I am attempting to give an explanation why there is something rather than nothing. For example the reason cars exist is because car companies create cars. You might ask why car companies exist. I never claimed knowledge of why car companies exist, only why cars exist.

You attempt to explain existence with something far more complex. If matter cannot just exists, then how can a supernatural intelligence capable of creating it exist?
I’m sure you have heard this response a hundred times, but commonality does not negate validity. If it did, then the original question would also be invalid.

Quote:
I agree with you the development of the universe is due to the laws of physics. I will submit later that the existence of the laws of physics favors a theistic model, not a materialistic one.


See my answer above this one.
But just to recap… your argument does not support a theistic model. It, if anything, supports a deistic one, which only does not contradict yours. Again, I don’t agree it even supports deism.

Quote:
Whose holy book? I never stated I subscribe to a specific theistic belief. Talk about judging a book by its cover…

Do you not have a holy book? You admit you haven’t said what your religion is. I only assumed you were some kind of Christian. For that, I apologize. But if you adhere to any religion I know of, you have a holy book or teaching. That is, unless you just made it up.

It is apparent that our understanding of some terminology is conflicting. If by theist you meant you were deist, then please clarify. If it is so, then this thread needs to shift gears.

Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist, what's with the

Drew_theist, what's with the your swastika icon? You trying to get banned?


Krehlic
Krehlic's picture
Posts: 240
Joined: 2006-12-29
User is offlineOffline
I was about to ask the same

I was about to ask the same thing...


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I knew something was

I knew something was seriously wrong with that guy but I was going to guess either inoperable brain tumor or internalized homophobia turns out it was nazisms whodathunkit.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Drew_theist
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Greetings all, I don't know

Greetings all,

I don't know anything about a swatiska if one is attached to my post it wasn't my idea. 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, the image source is

Well, the image source is here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/files/badges/nazi.jpg

Is this a badge RSS is using? If find it distasteful.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I agree. If this is a new

I agree. If this is a new badge they invented, they are far worse than I thought. You need to call this BS on Sapient to make him remove this crap. It's worse than insulting.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I agree.

StMichael wrote:
I agree. If this is a new badge they invented, they are far worse than I thought. You need to call this BS on Sapient to make him remove this crap. It's worse than insulting.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

I started thread about it.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drew_theist

Drew_theist wrote:

Greetings all,

I don't know anything about a swatiska if one is attached to my post it wasn't my idea.

Oh how quickly you forget.

"But sure tell me where I can get my badge with a star on it and I’ll wear it. Seig Heil!"

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:   First,

StMichael wrote:
  First, metaphysics is independent of religion. Second, there is no reason that, if faith is considered by its adherents to describe something true, that it ought not to enter into the debate.

Actually, there's a good reason why faith ought not to enter any debate: because theistic faith is unjustified belief. Just because you're not able to recognize this doesn't mean that faith is now justified.

Fortunately, most theists recognize this and act accordingly, by keeping their faith to themselves while in the public forum. 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Faith is not unjustified at

Faith is not unjustified at all. We have already talked about this. You just keep claiming that it is without any reason to do so.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:Faith is

StMichael wrote:
Faith is not unjustified at all.

What a surprise. YOu wrote me demanding a debate.

I am giving you one here, on this very topic:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640

And yet, here you are, merely asserting your claim, and refusing to acknowledge my refutations of your claim. 

I've demonstrated how even your own explication of theist faith leads to faith begging the question:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640

 

 

Quote:

You just keep claiming that it is without any reason to do so.

I'm sick of your lies. I've demonstrated how your own words demonstrate that theistic faith is begging the question.  Here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640

 You steadfastly refuse to respond, even after writing me 3 times today to 'debate'. You have time for the emails, but no time to respond?

Anyone who goes to that thread will see how I demonstrate my points, how I give reasons why theistic faith begs the question. 

This proves your claim that I have not argued these points, a lie. 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I am not lying. I am not

I am not lying. I am not ignoring your claims either. I cannot sit in front of my computer all day, like some people can. I wrote you three times because I saw your e-mails. Only just recently did I see your post and respond. Stop the name calling and address my arguments.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I am not

StMichael wrote:
I am not lying. I am not ignoring your claims either. I cannot sit in front of my computer all day, like some people can. I wrote you three times because I saw your e-mails. Only just recently did I see your post and respond. Stop the name calling and address my arguments. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

 

Ah, the classic "I have a life - I don't just sit in front of my computer all day like SOME people" dodge.

 If you hadn't responded to others (myself included) in the time you claim you didn't have to respond to todangst, I might believe you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin