A case for religion, and against AA.

[crashtestdummy]

That is not true at all!
After 1069 posts in this thread with most of them being Atheists making fun of other peoples beliefs the onus is upon you to either accept or reject what is being said!

Just say that you don`t believe or something other than a massive bloviation about fairy tales and unicorns and irresponsibility....etc

It`s really that simple! Considering from the very first post the atheist have posted nothing that proves their is no God! They have not even posted that there is evidence that there is no God!

I don't think any of the atheists on this forum believe they have evidence disproving the existence of God. However, if presented with a description of something for which there is no evidence, the natural response of most people is to remain in a state of unbelief. Earlier in the thread, I laid this out the best I could:

I think it's worthwhile to separate a notion of Truth (with a capital T) from science. It will always be possible to superimpose a supernatural model on whatever you are able to observe. I don't think even the most ardent atheists in this forum would object to that suggestion.

Whether that assertion that God can exist is a useful point of discussion then becomes the primary question. There are an infinite number of things that might be true that I have no way of confirming. God could be wonderful and benevolent. There could be a cabal of Gods that created life just so they would have something to torment. There could be no God at all. To differentiate between these equally viable models, I would need to have a falsifiable experiment that would have different outcomes for each of those possibilities outlined above. Without such an experiment, there is no effective difference between them and the notion of God is not a useful one for me. Furthermore, an inability to measurably distinguish between the existence and nonexistence of something, under any other circumstances, would lead a person to assume non-existence. Again, this would not be a proclamation of absolute Truth, but rather a practical consideration that life is complicated enough without worrying about things that are inherently unverifiable.

We (or at least I) don't claim that there is no God in any kind of objective sense, but rather say that in the absence of any compelling evidence, I will live my life as if there were none.

 

[Retro Rob]

So you expect people to believe your claim that your claims are reasonable to believe, but you don't expect people to believe your claims.

Absolutely, because I am only interested in giving people reasons. You give them reasons, and the rest is up to them.

Almost like leading a horse to water but not making them drink.

That's what I meant by that.

The implication being that if your claims are not believed, it is the fault of the other person, not the fault of your arguments. Ad hominem.

Not really, because I've convinced some people in my day, so I know they work.

I am also aware that no matter how hard you try, or no matter how convincing you are, you won't always get people to accept what you accept...its a fact of life.

So I'd say it can be a comnbination of both.

 

[soulcougher73]

It`s really that simple! Considering from the very first post the atheist have posted nothing that proves their is no God! They have not even posted that there is evidence that there is no God!

So again -- perhaps we are at an impasse...

Athiest are not the ones who first propositioned the idea and made the claim their was a god. You and thiests have done this. So you need to show your proof. We are not just going to take your word for it. It is called owning a positive claim. Own it up.

We also cannot prove a negative. As others have asked without any answer from the thiests. What would the evidence for no god look like? And the reason you dont answer it is the answer itself. It's impossible to show you "no evidence". I mean that sounds like something a mental handicapped person might say.

 

[soulcougher73]

Such a black-and-white world you live in, my friend.

I don't expect people to believe my claims...I expect people to determine whether or not my claims are reasonble enough to believe.

In either case, it's up to the individual I am speaking with, not me.

Well if you want to keep it that black-and-white. Then your claims are unreasonable. So you can either continue to try and convince me they are reasonable or just ignore the topic/thread.

 

[dphantom]

Athiest are not the ones who first propositioned the idea and made the claim their was a god. You and thiests have done this. So you need to show your proof. We are not just going to take your word for it. It is called owning a positive claim. Own it up.

There are a number of proofs for the existence of God. Now if you want evidence, then the evidence I accept as showing God exists is not what some or perhaps all atheists would accept as evidence of God's existence.

hence we come down to Faith. Do you have Faith in God.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well if you want to keep it that black-and-white. Then your claims are unreasonable. So you can either continue to try and convince me they are reasonable or just ignore the topic/thread.

What makes you think its about you?

 

[soulcougher73]

There are a number of proofs for the existence of God. Now if you want evidence, then the evidence I accept as showing God exists is not what some or perhaps all atheists would accept as evidence of God's existence.

hence we come down to Faith. Do you have Faith in God.

I do not have faith in a god. Especially the so called Christian god. I do not deny their could be a god that created the universe. But without evidence showing a god even exists i will be in a state of "unbelief" as crashtestdummy more elegantly put it.

See i also see the same universe you observe and its vast and huge and tons is unknown about it. BUT, i dont just believe in magic as a reason for its existance. I have no idea how the universe got here. Its a mystery. It gives humans a great challenge to try and unravel. We come up with hypothesis and put them to the test. If they past muster than cool we have something to work with. But as more and more things become known these hypothesis can change to adept this new information or be totally dismissed as wrong because something more substational is now present. But even then we cannot claim with 100% certainty that its accurate. It would just be the most logical presented theory known to date.

And the bible is anything but logical so that is pretty easy to dismiss and nothing is testable with regards to faith or god.

 

[soulcougher73]

What makes you think its about you?

I'm pretty sure you knew i wasnt talking about me exactly when i said "convince me". You just had nothing to say regarding what i said so you try and divert with a new question that is very lacking.

When i said "convince me" i meant anyone in this thread that is reading that is a non-thiest. I mean that is why you are here to pitch your side of the discussion right? Or are you just trolling to fan the flames?

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm pretty sure you knew i wasnt talking about me exactly when i said "convince me". You just had nothing to say regarding what i said so you try and divert with a new question that is very lacking.

When i said "convince me" i meant anyone in this thread that is reading that is a non-thiest. I mean that is why you are here to pitch your side of the discussion right? Or are you just trolling to fan the flames?

False dichotomy.

I love engaging in the discussion much more than trying to convert internet atheists who, for all I know, could be die-hard Muslims.

No, I don't have to be trying to "convince" anyone for the right to post on this sort of thread.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So you expect people to believe your claim that your claims are reasonable to believe, but you don't expect people to believe your claims.

Got it.

you like to twist words and place meaning where there is no meaning implied. Got it!

 

[dphantom]

I do not have faith in a god. Especially the so called Christian god. I do not deny their could be a god that created the universe. But without evidence showing a god even exists i will be in a state of "unbelief" as crashtestdummy more elegantly put it.

I am not sure this makes logical sense. You don't deny a god could exist but you especially do not believe in the Christian God. But some god could exist, but you don't think so. So it appears you are singling out one god which to me would indicate you do have a belief in a god, but just do not want to accept God.

I could be wrong.

See i also see the same universe you observe and its vast and huge and tons is unknown about it. BUT, i dont just believe in magic as a reason for its existance. I have no idea how the universe got here. Its a mystery.

I don't believe in magic either so we have something in common. I do believe I know how the universe came to be. How God did it remains an unknown to me and all other humans.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't expect people to believe my claims...I expect people to determine whether or not my claims are reasonble enough to believe.

So you expect people to believe your claim that your claims are reasonable to believe, but you don't expect people to believe your claims.

Absolutely,

:::facepalm:::

because I am only interested in giving people reasons. You give them reasons, and the rest is up to them.

Do you expect me to believe those claims?

That's what I meant by that.

Do you expect me to believe that claim?

Not really, because I've convinced some people in my day, so I know they work.

I am also aware that no matter how hard you try, or no matter how convincing you are, you won't always get people to accept what you accept...its a fact of life.

So I'd say it can be a comnbination of both.

Do you expect me to believe those claims?

 

[JEDIYoda]

We also cannot prove a negative.

so you cannot prove there is no God? Got it!

 

[DrPizza]

First of all, apologies - I noticed I did not sign the mod post above. A post in all caps by a moderator (or admin) that isn't part of the discussion, is generally in bold (and signed). Also, instead of shouting, "stop trolling," perhaps I could have clarified and said, "I know passions are high on this topic from many on both sides. Please do not let that get you to post in a manner that's inconsistent with the stated goals of Discussion Club. -Admin DrPizza


(Now, to post as a regular member,)

There are a number of proofs for the existence of God. Now if you want evidence, then the evidence I accept as showing God exists is not what some or perhaps all atheists would accept as evidence of God's existence.

hence we come down to Faith. Do you have Faith in God.

I agree that it comes down, 100%, to faith. You tossed in two other words that I think the two sides in this discussion disagree on. The first is "proof." The second is "evidence." From the non-religious side, proofs are generally irrefutable. That is, if there is a proof that God exists, and that proof is free of logical fallacies, then, God exists. I'd think that if such a proof existed - one which actually meets the mathematical or scientific standards of proof, then it would be a monumental achievement that all mankind would have read about by now, with possible exceptions such as citizens of North Korea. Any such "proof" therefore amounts to "well, the rocks were too big for technology that we know the Egyptians had, therefore, that proves that aliens..." I.e., the proofs are far from complete and rigorous.

Now, I'll posit that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe. By your standard for evidence, everything that you see as evidence for the Christian God is now evidence for the FSM. Likewise, your evidence is evidence in Rangi and Papa of Maori legend, who created all this stuff. Your "evidence" is evidence common to ANY creation myth. And, that's the thing - there are many creation myths, many predating Christianity, that explain how the Universe came to be. I.e., your "evidence" is common to virtually every creation myth. Thus, how can you claim that it lends ANY strength to your side of the argument.

In other words, you have faith. Not evidence.

 

[Retro Rob]

:::facepalm:::

Y'know, be man enough to not parse (again) my posts in an attempt to misrepresent what I am saying.

You are making a career out of this.

Do you expect me to believe those claims?

Are you open to considering them?

Do you expect me to believe that claim?

Are you open to considering them?

Do you expect me to believe those claims?

Are you open to considering them?

Part of being convinced of anything is to open your mind to the possiblity. If you're not willing to that, I cannot help you.

 

[soulcougher73]

so you cannot prove there is no God? Got it!

I suppose we could try if you would tell me what evidence would look like to prove such a claim.

Do i just show you exhibit A which is a box full of nothing and go "See..no god"?

 

[soulcougher73]

Y'know, be man enough to not parse (again) my posts in an attempt to misrepresent what I am saying.

You are making a career out of this.



Are you open to considering them?




Are you open to considering them?




Are you open to considering them?

Part of being convinced of anything is to open your mind to the possiblity. If you're not willing to that, I cannot help you.

I am open to considering anything you could possible think of. Just show me anything that resembles your claim.

If you claimed there was a zebra that instead of white and black strips had purple and pink strips that light up like neon id be open to consider such a thing. But id need more than your word you saw one. Maybe you could take me to the place you saw one and we could attempt to track and hunt it down. And if we do find it we's have to study it and make sure you didnt just paint him with pretty colors.

But your word you saw one is never going to fly without something tangile behind it. Hell it could be 100 people claiming they saw it. But without evidence to support the claim we cant verify what you say is real.

 

[Retro Rob]

I am open to considering anything you could possible think of. Just show me anything that resembles your claim.

If you claimed there was a zebra that instead of white and black strips had purple and pink strips that light up like neon id be open to consider such a thing. But id need more than your word you saw one. Maybe you could take me to the place you saw one and we could attempt to track and hunt it down. And if we do find it we's have to study it and make sure you didnt just paint him with pretty colors.

But your word you saw one is never going to fly without something tangile behind it.

The problem here is, you're being too facetious to be taken seriously because we take our beliefs seriously.

Mocking and scarcsm is more of an indictment on you than it is on myself.

 

[soulcougher73]

The problem here is, you're being too facetious to be taken seriously because we take our beliefs seriously.

Mocking and scarcsm is more of an indictment on you than it is on myself.

I was trying to prove to you that even something as silly or facetious as a neon pink and purple zebra were to exist. I would concider it. But your going to have to bring more to the table than your word. That would be a miraculious discovery if we were to find it and video tape it in the wild doing its thing. Although most likely man would cage it up and study the crap out of it.

I am open to their being a god. Just show us the evidence of your claim he exists besides your word and an old book.

And as usual you deflect the discussion when you have no real reply to what is being discussed.

 

[soulcougher73]

Y'know, be man enough to not parse (again) my posts in an attempt to misrepresent what I am saying.

You are making a career out of this.



Are you open to considering them?




Are you open to considering them?




Are you open to considering them?

Part of being convinced of anything is to open your mind to the possiblity. If you're not willing to that, I cannot help you.

Let me try again.

YES were open to considering them. GO!

 

[Retro Rob]

I was trying to prove to you that even something as silly or facetious as a neon pink and purple zebra were to exist. I would concider it.

Who do you think you're talking to? No, you wouldn't...

I am open to their being a god. Just show us the evidence of your claim he exists besides your word and an old book.

Fair. But are you willing to consider that God inspired the "old book"? To be open to why I believe in a God, you'd have to be willing to consider all of my evidence.

You can't be open to my evidence, then tell me what I cannot use. That "old book" is a large part of my evidence.

So, what do you say?

 

[soulcougher73]

Who do you think you're talking to? No, you wouldn't...




Fair. But are you willing to consider that God inspired the "old book"? To be open to why I believe in a God, you'd have to be willing to consider all of my evidence.

You can't be open to my evidence, then tell me what I cannot use. That "old book" is a large part of my evidence.

So, what do you say?

I would say no to that because its circular logic. I want you to prove he exists and not just because a book told you he does. I mean if all it takes is reading a book you should be believing in all kinds of stuff. Middle-Earth is real right? Or maybe i could be a little more realistic and we can try the Quran and see what is has to say about god, earth, and the universe and believe it as well.

As usual im sure the topic will divuldge into meanless back and forth attacks. I think its just the way its meant to be regarding this topic.

 

[Retro Rob]

I would say no to that because its circular logic.

You're missing my point. It isn't circular logic. Many Biblical events/peoples/rulers are real and have been discovered via archaeology (which is science), as with any book that provides a look into history, and while everything isn't verified, that's OK becasue history has been slowly uncovered for the past 100 years or so and will continue to be.

"Circular logic" is a catch-phrase you're obviously repeating, which means you probably don't know much about what's in the Bible or you wouldn't say that.

As usual im sure the topic will divuldge into meanless back and forth attacks. I think its just the way its meant to be regarding this topic.

If you're serious, no it won't...and to be sure, we can take this to PM to ensure it won't.

 

[crashtestdummy]

You can't be open to my evidence, then tell me what I cannot use. That "old book" is a large part of my evidence.

The problem is with using the bible as your primary evidence is that all of said evidence is self-referential. The argument goes something like this:

God exists.
How do you know God exists?
It says so in the Bible.
Why do you believe in the Bible?
Because it is the word of God.
​

This argument quickly becomes circular if the only source of evidence for the existence of God only has its authority because it is supposedly created by God.

Furthermmore, there are many texts claiming divine inspiration. The Mahabarata, the Buddhacarita, the Book of the Dead, the Illiad and Odyssey, and so on. They even have some sense of historical accuracy to parts of their accounts. These texts, while in some ways presenting similar narratives, are inherently conflicting in nature. Most modern Christians reject the authority of these sources, though. Why would you choose one text as fundamentally more authoritative than another, if there is no outside evidence for any of them?

 

[Retro Rob]

The problem is with using the bible as your primary evidence is that all of said evidence is self-referential. The argument goes something like this:

God exists.
How do you know God exists?
It says so in the Bible.
Why do you believe in the Bible?
Because it is the word of God.
​

This argument quickly becomes circular if the only source of evidence for the existence of God only has its authority because it is supposedly created by God.

Furthermmore, there are many texts claiming divine inspiration. The Mahabarata, the Buddhacarita, the Book of the Dead, the Illiad and Odyssey, and so on. They even have some sense of historical accuracy to parts of their accounts. These texts, while in some ways presenting similar narratives, are inherently conflicting in nature. Most modern Christians reject the authority of these sources, though. Why would you choose one text as fundamentally more authoritative than another, if there is no outside evidence for any of them?

Please, read my reply to him about "circuar logic".

It cannot be circular if we can point to evidence outside of the book.