Religion

[Spacecreepkitan]

I like that last bit there Avith, nicely put

[DuLake]

Well, this seems like an interesting little hotbed of discussion. Let's see. . .

I was raised Christian, and have played with several denominations (sadly, never Catholicism) from Baptist to Pentecostal, where I even partook in spiritual exercises such as speaking in tongues. I've seen Christianity in many forms and evens considered a career in the pastorate for a while. I unnerve ministry majors at my Christian university because I often know the Bible better than they do despite having very different views. As for those different views, on campus I call myself Christian with "Liberal Theology" for political reasons (I could be expelled), but I'm an atheist.

I became an atheist after a life time of questioning. Primarily I'm an atheist because I'm naturally very inquisitive, so the blind or semi-blind faith of religion never really suited me. Philosophically, I relent that technically all belief is a gamble, but I don't feel (in both an emotional and intellectual sense) a necessity for God to exist, so I opt for atheism over theism.

While I can't exclude theism from the real of possibilities, I would exclude most religious views of theism as they tend to bear certain contradictions (that of course could exist, but rarely benevolently).

I also tend to believe against theism based on alternative explanation. What I mean by this is kind of how religion will explain something as a miracle and science will explain it in a different way. Theists tend to necessitate an expected god's existence (for example, Descartes' perfect being or Kant's ethical argument). They will paint a picture that a god exists because they are evidenced in humanity (for a vastly abbreviated example, Descartes claimed that because we can conceive perfection, it must exist). What I mean by "expected" is that humans have a concept of god, and then explain his existence. An alternative explanation for this "expectation" might be that there is no god, but our expectation is, as Feuerbach explains, an outward projection of man's attributes (man loves, god loves infinitely) or Marx's view that god is a wish for a better life so that one can cope with this life. I find these alternate explanations are often more satisfactory to me (of course, mileage may very).

[s0teric]

I became an atheist after a life time of questioning. Primarily I'm an atheist because I'm naturally very inquisitive, so the blind or semi-blind faith of religion never really suited me.

You and I obviously aren't thinking of the same Christianity

Philosophically, I relent that technically all belief is a gamble, but I don't feel (in both an emotional and intellectual sense) a necessity for God to exist, so I opt for atheism over theism.

God's existence does not hinge on your choosing if he exists. Well if you look at it from an atheistic perspective, Pascal's wager defeats the atheistic line of thinking. That is to say, if your "gamble" involves you choosing between the atheistic worldview, by which you have nothing to gain by and everything to lose upon death, or the christian worldview, by which you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Most atheists would agree since humans are too bound by the theory of survival of the fittest, one is left to look out for his own best interests. In this case, the obviously best choice is the one with least pain. So even if you look at the gamble from an atheistic perspective you are left to choose Christianity. However, I say this repeatedly, this is not a motivational means to choosing Christianity. This is simply to show that the atheistic line of thinking breaks down in regard to its own worldview. Now I don't know if you've heard of Dawkins' anti pascal wager, but I'll quote myself from a separate thread.

Finally, Dawkins introduces his superior Anti-Pascal Wager which claims that one can live a better life assuming God doesn’t exist than if one assumes He does. A refutation of that argument would go something like, if one seeks a better life, he should avoid suffering of any kind. If ultimate suffering is waiting for him after his life, it is to his benefit to believe, as if one truly chooses the most beneficial action, then it is impossible to wind up with the worst form of suffering. Therefore, the most beneficial action is to believe in God, contrary to what Dawkins states. This is, by the way, a simple restatement of Pascal’s Wager.

While I can't exclude theism from the real of possibilities, I would exclude most religious views of theism as they tend to bear certain contradictions (that of course could exist, but rarely benevolently).

examples?

I also tend to believe against theism based on alternative explanation. What I mean by this is kind of how religion will explain something as a miracle and science will explain it in a different way.

I don't believe this either.. You don't believe Jesus's miracles were scientifically explicable?

Theists tend to necessitate an expected god's existence (for example, Descartes' perfect being or Kant's ethical argument). They will paint a picture that a god exists because they are evidenced in humanity (for a vastly abbreviated example, Descartes claimed that because we can conceive perfection, it must exist). What I mean by "expected" is that humans have a concept of god, and then explain his existence. An alternative explanation for this "expectation" might be that there is no god, but our expectation is, as Feuerbach explains, an outward projection of man's attributes (man loves, god loves infinitely) or Marx's view that god is a wish for a better life so that one can cope with this life. I find these alternate explanations are often more satisfactory to me (of course, mileage may very).

How do you know it is merely a concept of God, and not an existence of God reflected in man? Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the source by which that god reveals himself (ie the Bible) would be inconsistent if it were simply human arguments. However, ive yet to find one inexplicable inconsistency. And all archeological and textual evidence supports its accuracy and it's consistency and arguments support its validity.

Tell me, how do you explain your own existence if there is no god. Can you convince me you exist? What reason do you have for making this blind leap of faith?

[Tommy071095]

I personally am an Atheist and do not follow any form of religion.I am also a nihilist.

[DuLake]

You and I obviously aren't thinking of the same Christianity

Probably so, subjectivity and whatnot. Yet I still hold that there is an element of blind faith at the core of religion. As I'm sure you'll agree (as you seem to be well-educated), apologetics can't actually prove a deity exists (albeit, one can't prove he does not either), so all religion (and belief, really) comes down to a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith." That may not appear, at a basic level, to be any different between my atheism and your theism, except when you add additional information and conditions. Once a leap is made to Christianity (for example. As being a theist alone is rarely considered adequate, rather, one must further specialize.), a leap is made to a certain train of thought that must then be justified. Christianity holds certain standards, a list of characteristics so to speak, and if one does not meet those criteria, it is sinful or wrong or contradictory to the point of collapse. By nature, categorizing yourself as a Christian demands that you cannot question certain things, or you become something else entirely. Atheism, on the other hand, holds no such criteria, except that you do not believe in a deity, hence you are free to question in much broader terms. The same could be achieved as a simple theist, but, as I said before, that is hardly ever considered satisfactory.

God's existence does not hinge on your choosing if he exists.

Which is why we look for evidence, and considering his secrecy, that evidence would be philosophical in nature. Apart from Berkley, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation. Assuming Berkley, there are still certain inconsistencies that I do not prefer.

Well if you look at it from an atheistic perspective, Pascal's wager defeats the atheistic line of thinking. That is to say, if your "gamble" involves you choosing between the atheistic worldview, by which you have nothing to gain by and everything to lose upon death, or the christian worldview, by which you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Most atheists would agree since humans are too bound by the theory of survival of the fittest, one is left to look out for his own best interests. In this case, the obviously best choice is the one with least pain. So even if you look at the gamble from an atheistic perspective you are left to choose Christianity. However, I say this repeatedly, this is not a motivational means to choosing Christianity. This is simply to show that the atheistic line of thinking breaks down in regard to its own worldview. Now I don't know if you've heard of Dawkins' anti pascal wager, but I'll quote myself from a separate thread.

First, I'd like to note that my use of the term "gamble" was merely an allusion to the point at which all logic breaks down and that we can only be so certain of anything. So as to say, I accept that my atheism could be wrong, but that I more readily accept the conditions of atheism over theism.

As for Pascal's wager, I wouldn't touch Dawkins on the subject, but I would bring up the wrong hell problem (assuming theism is safest, which theism? Christianity, Muslim, Fertility Cults, which one is safest?). Pascal seems to usher in a bigger problem in that placing faith in the wager is still a possible losing position. Atheism, however, could seem reckless in this case, as I'm denying even a small chance. For this, I'd simply have to cite my relative certitude that theism in all cases is false, and the wager doesn't matter (the side of the atheist). Also, I think it is noteworthy (and I think you alluded to it) that following religion without true belief is seldom considered appropriate. To take Pascal up on his wager, for only that reason, would probably be considered a sham by most organized religion.

examples?

I assume you're probably asking for Christian examples, as you probably could provide a few for other religions (if not, I'll find some for you). Contradictions, for me, might be more scientific, such as creation vs, well, science (I know I'm probably going to take flak for this), or it might be specific to the Bible (speaking of which, the order of creation in seperate accounts contradicts itself, as do the gospels, which notable place events at different times or with different people). Then, of course, philosophically, problems of pain, decay, sin, etc. seem to stack up and throw God's sovereignty into question. Just a few, and I'm sure there is some form of refutation for all of them, but I don't find many of them satisfactory.

I don't believe this either.. You don't believe Jesus's miracles were scientifically explicable?

I don't believe in miracles, no. Miracles (or, at least, my definition thereof) are magical acts performed by a divine that defy science, and, as far as I'm aware, none have happened. What are considered miracles often either have scientific or coincidental explanations, or are completely undocumented. As for Jesus' miracles, they aren't very well documented or explained, and most were written about for years after their alleged performance. Three uneducated men who were loyal to the point of death are not what I'd consider credible. I say three, as, of course, Luke was educated, though still with shaky credibility. Further, one report is hardly enough for me to endorse.

How do you know it is merely a concept of God, and not an existence of God reflected in man?

I never said I knew that, only that I found that to be the more believable conclusion.

Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the source by which that god reveals himself (ie the Bible) would be inconsistent if it were simply human arguments.

The way that Gilgamesh revealed himself was a book too, why should I take one book over another? Claims of existence don't equal existence. Perhaps a purely logical book would be inconsistent in some way, but I've yet to find a book so credible as to allow it to defy logic.

To answer your question though, yes, it probably would be simpler, but so is believe in fertility gods. Baal only asked that I screw prostitutes silly every winter and I never had to read anything. Simpler is better, right?

However, ive yet to find one inexplicable inconsistency. And all archeological and textual evidence supports its accuracy and it's consistency and arguments support its validity.

I've provided some of what I consider inconsistent, but I doubt you'd find them "inexplicable." I, too, could explain things away to ease my concerns, but it's far more credible to consider what the text (whatever form it may take) says rather than what I reason it to say.

Tell me, how do you explain your own existence if there is no god. Can you convince me you exist? What reason do you have for making this blind leap of faith?

See, in my experience, when somebody asks this, it's generally a trap. Not to say you're being sneaky or anything, but demands like "proof you exist" are generally designed to to avoid answering certain questions. Further, I find it kind of unsporting since I never asked you to do such a thing.

However, I make it a point to never run from a question. My answer: I don't have to answer. I'm an atheist, and an empiricist. I believe that reality is what it is. I don't necessarily know what that is, but I assume it is because I can assume (cogito ergo sum in a way). I can't perfectly prove to you that I exist, but I don't have to, because, just like I'm assuming you exist (as proven by my writing this long note), you assume I exist (hence your note). Simply put, I don't need to prove something we both agree on (and to deny that you agree would be a very cowardly and desperate tactic). We could argue solipsism, but, again, neither of us truly believe that (besides, this whole exercise would have been in vain, and then it really wouldn't matter). Truthfully, my worldview doesn't require that I understand everything, only that I seek answers.

Now, since I answered your questions, please answer mine. How do you explain your deity's existence? Can you prove he exists? What reason do you have for making this blind leap of faith? Notice, unlike my existence, God's existence (especially a specific God's existence) is not an agreed upon term and therefore subject to question.

P.S. Thank you very much for the good discussion. It's been months since I've really had to sit down for one of these.

[Avith]

I don't know whether god exsists or not. I acknowledge that I don't know. I will not make an assumption. I will live by what I DO know. Both ideas of god and godlessness are logical, but not truly proven and require some faith/assumption/unknowing belief, therefore I acknowledge it as a paradox that is not entirely possible to comprehend. I move on with what I do in fact know.

I'm currently on a spiritual journey to better understand myself and the universe. So far, I am finding that faith makes ones strong, but doubt, always questioning and seeking higher truth, is what gets one an education.

[† Ferocia Coutura]

DuLake, I would abso-friggen-lutely love to have a debate with you!!!! You prove your point without sarcasm, rude comments, and all of your reasoning is at least logical. Simply well written response!

[DuLake]

DuLake, I would abso-friggen-lutely love to have a debate with you!!!! You prove your point without sarcasm, rude comments, and all of your reasoning is at least logical. Simply well written response!

Thanks! Anytime. While I apologize that this is terribly off-topic, I think this is a great time to thank this site for having a great discussion board. For the most part, everyone seems polite and there seems to be many divergent and interesting thoughts here. I've been looking around for a nice discussion locale for a while.

[GigaTurtle]

well it looks like there was a party in this tread and i missed it

anyway, my family might be Christan, but i believe in what we can prove. im not sure if theirs a religion for that or not, but until then i guess im an atheist.

[Monad-Gnostis]

When I believe I lose logic, but when I believe I gain Imagination whats more important

A god that might not even exist or what we have right now, Life, when we live we breathe, when we live we move, but where do we move?, do we move to heaven or hell

we dont know if theses places exist or not, but what we do know is we will die,

and we will take the course of life whether we like or not, and keep in mind you are a person not a soul.

[s0teric]

Probably so, subjectivity and whatnot. Yet I still hold that there is an element of blind faith at the core of religion. As I'm sure you'll agree (as you seem to be well-educated), apologetics can't actually prove a deity exists (albeit, one can't prove he does not either), so all religion (and belief, really) comes down to a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith."

Let's not forget evidence. Not a blind faith.

That may not appear, at a basic level, to be any different between my atheism and your theism, except when you add additional information and conditions. Once a leap is made to Christianity (for example. As being a theist alone is rarely considered adequate, rather, one must further specialize.), a leap is made to a certain train of thought that must then be justified. Christianity holds certain standards, a list of characteristics so to speak, and if one does not meet those criteria, it is sinful or wrong or contradictory to the point of collapse. By nature, categorizing yourself as a Christian demands that you cannot question certain things, or you become something else entirely. Atheism, on the other hand, holds no such criteria, except that you do not believe in a deity, hence you are free to question in much broader terms. The same could be achieved as a simple theist, but, as I said before, that is hardly ever considered satisfactory.

Yes so you believe atheism is more convenient. However, some misconceptions: 1) you can question anything, my thought is not limited by my religion. I question everything and I do just fine. 2) You are never beyond grace there is not a point when sin causes a collapse. It is simply conceived that if you have truly believed it will be reflected in your actions.

I simply see inconsistencies in atheism that I have yet to hear addressed. it seems you feel the same way about Christianity.

Which is why we look for evidence, and considering his secrecy, that evidence would be philosophical in nature. Apart from Berkley, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation. Assuming Berkley, there are still certain inconsistencies that I do not prefer.

I'd like to hear the inconsistencies, that way I can address them. As far as evidence goes, take a look at any given object and ask your self where did that come from until you're at the first protein. Then ask yourself where that came from. God is the only means by which you can rationalize your own existence, philosophically, and physically. He rationalizes his own existence by his character in each respect.

First, I'd like to note that my use of the term "gamble" was merely an allusion to the point at which all logic breaks down and that we can only be so certain of anything. So as to say, I accept that my atheism could be wrong, but that I more readily accept the conditions of atheism over theism.

This is Dawkins' anti pascal wager lived out. Yes, you do touch Dawkins on the subject, sorry to say. That's exactly what his hypothesis is.

As for Pascal's wager, I wouldn't touch Dawkins on the subject, but I would bring up the wrong hell problem (assuming theism is safest, which theism? Christianity, Muslim, Fertility Cults, which one is safest?). Pascal seems to usher in a bigger problem in that placing faith in the wager is still a possible losing position. Atheism, however, could seem reckless in this case, as I'm denying even a small chance. For this, I'd simply have to cite my relative certitude that theism in all cases is false, and the wager doesn't matter (the side of the atheist). Also, I think it is noteworthy (and I think you alluded to it) that following religion without true belief is seldom considered appropriate. To take Pascal up on his wager, for only that reason, would probably be considered a sham by most organized religion.

Dawkins has touched all of this. Sorry, he beat you to the punch, lol. Wrong hell theory is laziness and falls under the category of what Dawkins' anti pascal wager is. The fundamental reason this theory was created was so that one could justify living however one wants with an idk. If someone came up to you at the store and threatened to kidnap your daughter, saying he knows where you live, what you do, and can track you, you wouldn't just give up and say idk that guy could be anyone. No you'd look for that guy, and you'd do so based on evidence. The true god is distinguished by evidence. When gambling with one's own eternity an idk is a pretty bad move. And I agree with your last point, one can only feign belief when living in the fear of hell. Which is why I stated this is merely a tool to show the inconsistency in atheistic thought. Which is that if one lives by the principal of survival of the fittest, one is left choosing Christianity.

I assume you're probably asking for Christian examples, as you probably could provide a few for other religions (if not, I'll find some for you). Contradictions, for me, might be more scientific, such as creation vs, well, science (I know I'm probably going to take flak for this), or it might be specific to the Bible (speaking of which, the order of creation in seperate accounts contradicts itself, as do the gospels, which notable place events at different times or with different people).

Don't believe science contradicts Christianity. I want specific examples. The order of creation? In genesis and where else?

Then, of course, philosophically, problems of pain, decay, sin, etc. seem to stack up and throw God's sovereignty into question. Just a few, and I'm sure there is some form of refutation for all of them, but I don't find many of them satisfactory.

All of these things are simply that which is outside of God's character. However, in order that God might be most glorified, which is the end for which he created, he was to display all of his attributes. Perfect healing cannot be displayed without pain, for example. However, he is also perfectly just, which is displayed in the existence of hell.

I don't believe in miracles, no. Miracles (or, at least, my definition thereof) are magical acts performed by a divine that defy science, and, as far as I'm aware, none have happened. What are considered miracles often either have scientific or coincidental explanations, or are completely undocumented. As for Jesus' miracles, they aren't very well documented or explained, and most were written about for years after their alleged performance. Three uneducated men who were loyal to the point of death are not what I'd consider credible. I say three, as, of course, Luke was educated, though still with shaky credibility. Further, one report is hardly enough for me to endorse.

Well, I define miracles is that which is inconceivable to humans. Doesn't mean they're inexplicable. As for the credibility, if these men were ever dishonest, eye witnesses could have stood up and revealed them as fakes. However, this never happened. What about Paul? he endorsed everything in the gospel accounts, and authored the most advanced Greek and Logic of the time period, and I believe in history. Surely this eyewitness who was obviously educated would have corrected any error on their part.

I never said I knew that, only that I found that to be the more believable conclusion.

Well let's re-examine the evidence together

The way that Gilgamesh revealed himself was a book too, why should I take one book over another? Claims of existence don't equal existence. Perhaps a purely logical book would be inconsistent in some way, but I've yet to find a book so credible as to allow it to defy logic.

To answer your question though, yes, it probably would be simpler, but so is believe in fertility gods. Baal only asked that I screw prostitutes silly every winter and I never had to read anything. Simpler is better, right?

I was saying that in your efforts to verify that God does not exist, point out inconsistencies in scripture and we'll address them. Idk what you're talking about here. Yes I agree claims of existence don't equal existence, let's look at some evidence. I don't understand the last line of the 1st paragraph there, please enlighten.

I've provided some of what I consider inconsistent, but I doubt you'd find them "inexplicable." I, too, could explain things away to ease my concerns, but it's far more credible to consider what the text (whatever form it may take) says rather than what I reason it to say.

Okay... let's look at some text. Whenever you're ready, quote some.

See, in my experience, when somebody asks this, it's generally a trap. Not to say you're being sneaky or anything, but demands like "proof you exist" are generally designed to to avoid answering certain questions. Further, I find it kind of unsporting since I never asked you to do such a thing.

However, I make it a point to never run from a question. My answer: I don't have to answer. I'm an atheist, and an empiricist. I believe that reality is what it is. I don't necessarily know what that is, but I assume it is because I can assume (cogito ergo sum in a way). I can't perfectly prove to you that I exist, but I don't have to, because, just like I'm assuming you exist (as proven by my writing this long note), you assume I exist (hence your note). Simply put, I don't need to prove something we both agree on (and to deny that you agree would be a very cowardly and desperate tactic). We could argue solipsism, but, again, neither of us truly believe that (besides, this whole exercise would have been in vain, and then it really wouldn't matter). Truthfully, my worldview doesn't require that I understand everything, only that I seek answers.

adressed this in the other thread. But stop assuming you exist. You can not have a scientific method based on assumptions, it defeats the purpose of a scientific method. So your existence comes into question too, like it or not.

Now, since I answered your questions, please answer mine. How do you explain your deity's existence? Can you prove he exists? What reason do you have for making this blind leap of faith? Notice, unlike my existence, God's existence (especially a specific God's existence) is not an agreed upon term and therefore subject to question.

As to the existence of God it is based on evidence. Christianity is the only system by which you can rationalize your own existence, not to mention the overwhelming physical evidence. I've not heard one atheist describe how matter came to be to me in a way that they could remain consistent with their beliefs.

Because of the characteristics of the Biblical God, he rationalizes his own existence. That is to say, an infinite, unchanging, eternal god, will always be and has always been that. Therefore, what I'm saying could probably be summarized in this quote by CS Louis. "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

P.S. Thank you very much for the good discussion. It's been months since I've really had to sit down for one of these.

Thank you very much, that means I am accomplishing my only goal, which is to get people to think. You have been a very polite and concise debater as well

P.S. Longest post ever. I deserve some brownie points. You deserve brownie points if you read the whole thing.

[DuLake]

Let's not forget evidence. Not a blind faith.

Show me proof that ANY deity exists and I will agree that you do not have blind or semi-blind faith. Until then, I will assume it is blind.

Yes so you believe atheism is more convenient. However, some misconceptions: 1) you can question anything, my thought is not limited by my religion. I question everything and I do just fine.

I apologize if this sounds flip, but let's consider a man. If he does not drive an ice-cream truck at work, he is not an ice-cream man. In the same way, there are certain characteristics of a Christian that cannot be altered. You must believe in the God of the Bible, for one. If you are unsure of that, your Christianity is equally in question. With numerous such characteristics, Christianity IS much more limiting in that an agnostic atheist (one who admits the possibly of a deity, but puts no faith in the idea), who has a much larger amount of choices to make since he does not allow a religion to answer for him.

2) You are never beyond grace there is not a point when sin causes a collapse. It is simply conceived that if you have truly believed it will be reflected in your actions.

Again, a Christian, by definition, cannot believe there is no God. That would cause the definition of Christian to be paradoxical, and therefore it cannot logically exist, in that this person would no longer be defined as a Christian.

I simply see inconsistencies in atheism that I have yet to hear addressed. it seems you feel the same way about Christianity.

That, indeed, seems to be the case.

I'd like to hear the inconsistencies, that way I can address them. As far as evidence goes, take a look at any given object and ask your self where did that come from until you're at the first protein. Then ask yourself where that came from. God is the only means by which you can rationalize your own existence, philosophically, and physically. He rationalizes his own existence by his character in each respect.

That is not evidence, that is argument ad ignorantium. Just because you do not understand it, does not make a premise correct. Further, he cannot rationalize his own existence, as that implies that his own existence (a circular argument). Both of your evidences are common logical fallacy. Do you have any real evidence?

This is Dawkins' anti pascal wager lived out. Yes, you do touch Dawkins on the subject, sorry to say. That's exactly what his hypothesis is.

Dawkins has touched all of this. Sorry, he beat you to the punch, lol.

I meant to say that I don't particularly read Dawkins. Mostly because he's so controversial, but also because I've found some of his teaching to be fallacious or presumptuous. If this is Dawkins view, then I suppose I agree with it, if only by coincidence, but I have personally not studied him enough to say with confidence if I agree with him or not.

Wrong hell theory is laziness and falls under the category of what Dawkins' anti pascal wager is.

How is it lazy to consider the full list of options? Christianity vs Atheism is a false dilemma. I contend that it is lazy to accept a false dilemma instead of weighing out all the options.

The fundamental reason this theory was created was so that one could justify living however one wants with an idk.

That is a pure assumption. Again, I contend that it is a much more forward thinking to consider the vast number of choices.

If someone came up to you at the store and threatened to kidnap your daughter, saying he knows where you live, what you do, and can track you, you wouldn't just give up and say idk that guy could be anyone. No you'd look for that guy, and you'd do so based on evidence.

A completely extraneous anecdote that completely misrepresents the wrong hell paradox as well as standing as a classic straw man. It is not an "idk." It is an examination of all the options. More accurately, the story suggests that the ignorant man (he who does not consider options) would choose one house at random and wait there, while the man who considers many possibilities analyzes the facts and looks for the right house to wait at.

The true god is distinguished by evidence.

Of which I have yet to see.

When gambling with one's own eternity an idk is a pretty bad move.

Fear mongering and a straw man. Until I see evidence of my eternity it is a blind threat.

And I agree with your last point, one can only feign belief when living in the fear of hell. Which is why I stated this is merely a tool to show the inconsistency in atheistic thought. Which is that if one lives by the principal of survival of the fittest, one is left choosing Christianity.

You are assuming that all atheists are Social Darwinists. We are not. I, for one, am not a Social Darwinist, and find it a gross theory that promotes the worst kind of behavior, and yet I do not fear hell or a deity. Remember, unlike the religious, as an atheist I can find my own view of morality (I could even live by Christian morality if I wanted, it would just be un-imposed.).

Don't believe science contradicts Christianity.

Christianity, by definition, readily disregards causality, the heart of science. You can't have both.

All of these things are simply that which is outside of God's character. However, in order that God might be most glorified, which is the end for which he created, he was to display all of his attributes. Perfect healing cannot be displayed without pain, for example. However, he is also perfectly just, which is displayed in the existence of hell.

So you're saying that God needs us to validate him? He needs to show off his perfection so much that he created people only to suffer? I guess you could say that God needs to be perceived to actually be God (sort of like Berkley), but then he is just as much dependent on us as vice versa. Or perhaps, God needs validation just like us humans, which makes him human, or an expression thereof (just like Feuerbach said).

Well, I define miracles is that which is inconceivable to humans. Doesn't mean they're inexplicable.

That is a complete contradiction. If it were truly inconceivable then humans couldn't understand it enough to explain it (inexplicable). Note, that "I cannot understand it, therefore it is a miracle," is argument ad ignorantium.

As for the credibility, if these men were ever dishonest, eye witnesses could have stood up and revealed them as fakes. However, this never happened. What about Paul? he endorsed everything in the gospel accounts, and authored the most advanced Greek and Logic of the time period, and I believe in history. Surely this eyewitness who was obviously educated would have corrected any error on their part.

Again, argument ad ignorantium. Just because we don't have evidence to the contrary doesn't mean it's true.

Also, Christianity was considered a mystery cult just like a number of other religions of the time. Basically put, nobody took it that seriously. That is, of course, except for the Jewish leaders of the time, who brought forth numerous people who questioned the core beliefs of the church. Paul himself, as well as others, also came under fire from the Gnostics (who, coincidentally, also touted the concept of esoteric knowledge). Aside from these commentators, Christianity went unopposed until Nero, who, ironically, forced it underground until those who opposed the gospels had died out. From then on, numerous commentators have criticized theology, but none were old enough to testify against the epistles.

As for Paul. . . While Paul was a prolific speaker and writer, he did not favor the accounts until after the time of Christ, and then only after a questionable religious experience. He was not close enough to the events to be a fair witness, there is also something of a conflict of interest considering his position.

Well let's re-examine the evidence together

Please. Let's. I'm still waiting for it.

I was saying that in your efforts to verify that God does not exist, point out inconsistencies in scripture and we'll address them. Idk what you're talking about here. Yes I agree claims of existence don't equal existence, let's look at some evidence. I don't understand the last line of the 1st paragraph there, please enlighten.

I'm saying that the Bible is not a valid source unless proven to be. Since it has not been proven to be true, it is not an accurate evidence of God or his attributes.

adressed this in the other thread. But stop assuming you exist. You can not have a scientific method based on assumptions, it defeats the purpose of a scientific method. So your existence comes into question too, like it or not.

If I should stop assuming I exist, you should stop assuming I exist as well. The truth is, with or without a deity, we both assume our existence on some level, and to deny that is either a blatant lie or blatant denial.

As to the existence of God it is based on evidence. Christianity is the only system by which you can rationalize your own existence, not to mention the overwhelming physical evidence. I've not heard one atheist describe how matter came to be to me in a way that they could remain consistent with their beliefs.

First, God's existence is yet to be evidenced.

Second, this shows either how little you know or how biased you are about other religions. I'm thinking you're basing this off either inconsistencies that a fellow Christian has taught you that have not been verified or countered by a member of that other religion, or you just haven't taken enough time to understand other religions.

Third, no atheist has to describe how matter came into existence. First, atheists are not all the same. Contrary to what you've probably been taught, we come in all flavors of belief. So the best an atheist can do is explain his or her own opinion. Second, as an empiricist, I especially don't have to. I'm only responsible for my experiences and what I can learn, not every little detail in the universe. Empiricism is, at it's core, the belief that we can only hope to know what we experience, and even that might be shaky. To say anything more would be speculation, and a lie. I, personally, respect you more than to lie like that. Third, the big bang, my personal belief, is actually entirely consistent with my own beliefs. You probably will refute it, based on causality or some other minor pick, but, not only would that not be your problem with my belief (hence not inconsistent with my beliefs, as it's your problem, therefore only inconsistent with your beliefs), but my belief includes that I could be wrong about it (which, again, consistency).

Because of the characteristics of the Biblical God, he rationalizes his own existence.

Circular!

That is to say, an infinite, unchanging, eternal god, will always be and has always been that.

If he existed, yes, but his existence is in question. I could say that vampires are mean, and therefore they exist, but just because I've defined them with arbitrary qualities doesn't mean they exist. Descartes actually used this same argument in his book (Third chapter I believe). It didn't work then either.

Therefore, what I'm saying could probably be summarized in this quote by CS Louis. "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

While I would agree that CS Lewis had a way with words, the quote in question is still conjecture. It's a nice metaphor, but it's not inherently true either.

Thank you very much, that means I am accomplishing my only goal, which is to get people to think. You have been a very polite and concise debater as well

I commend your goal. It's noble and a personal one as well. I also appreciate your kindness.

P.S. Longest post ever. I deserve some brownie points. You deserve brownie points if you read the whole thing.

Yay! Brownies all around.

[† Ferocia Coutura]

Christianity, by definition, readily disregards causality, the heart of science. You can't have both.[/qoute]

Though I do agree with most of your statements DuLake, this one seems to bother me. Christianity (or should I say its leaders), at least in the recent 100 or so years, so not devoid science at all. Rather, they embrace science.

One very good example of this is the controversy that is... evolution. Evolution is a fact. This is true, no ifs, ands, or butts about it. Ignorent Christians (well over 80% of them) will tell you that evolution is a false theory. These Christians are ignorent and don't even know their own religion.

Evolution is not a theory. Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory. Christians don't believe Darwins theory, but they do still accept science and state that God simply started evolution, not natural selection. The church has actually publically accepted evolution as a fact four times in the past 80 years.

So you see, The Church does not automatically devoid science and everything about it. More like, they fuse sceince & faith together.

(BTW Science & Faith is a very good CD by The Script. Listen to it when you have the chance!)

[DuLake]

In some ways I agree with you, Prince, but the point I'm trying to make is not about the church as much as the core philosophy of Christianity. The standard Christian doctrine of God alone is a complete rejection to the laws of causality, making it disharmonious with the scientific process (which supposes causal consistency) to begin with.

The church has actually publically accepted evolution as a fact four times in the past 80 years.

The problem is the church is too big and varying to really make such a statement. Indeed, you could compare two denominations and almost believe them to be different religions, and, in cases of Catholicism, LDS, and Jehovah's Witnesss, they are often considered different religions, despite beginning as splinter groups. While many pastors do support evolution, and many Christian scientists will include such ideas in their cosmology, I dare say that the majority of practicing Christians hold to the old views. The unfortunate truth is, that Christianity is a democracy, and while an educated leader may hold a more valid opinion, the church (or, should I say, the congregation) at large determines consensus and therefore doctrine. Remember, pastors are paid for directly, and many go out of business when they aren't making people happy. This is why pastors like Joel Osteen, with his highly questionable theology, can exist. It's the free market in action.

(BTW Science & Faith is a very good CD by The Script. Listen to it when you have the chance!)

I'd be interested in knowing who it's by. I actually have great respect for a number of Intelligent Design scientists, such as Gerald Schroeder. I have also reviewed Creationist literature and documentaries. Still, I think the core philosophies of Science and Religion (seeking facts vs holding onto them) are at odds, and if you try to reconcile them, you may as well go the whole hog, because you're bending both. That could just be me though, and I'm perfectly content if nobody agrees with me.

[Alucard101]

i am a christian, but not a strong believer!!

[RikuoAmero]

I was one of those that was force fed it from birth. As I got older my curiosity grew and I questioned the existence of a higher being the customs that seemed dated and impractical in today's society and it led me to the conclusion that all religion is fundamentally flawed and not based in reality. I respect those who have faith and it's not my business what other people choose to believe in, just leave me be is all I ask in return. But I do entertain this thought at times when religious bigots become all holier-than-thou-could-ever be when they find out I'm an atheist.

"People call schizophrenics deluded and seriously disturbed because they see and hear things that aren't there to everyone else. But who's really deluded when you fight for or believe so strongly in something you can't see, hear, touch, smell or taste? They choose to believe in a established delusion that they can't experience, at least the shizos see and hear even if it's fake. Oh the irony, it's almost poetic."

Yeah that's sort of what I think of religion. I regard myself as a non-theist, as in, I don't believe in organized religion. Religions tell us that they are inspired by a perfect divine being of one name or another, yet are run by, founded by, and ultimately are, human, and thus imperfect by definition. I don't believe in the trappings and rituals - a perfect god wouldn't care if you prayed to Allah five times a day or not, or went to church every Sunday, because they are rituals and nothing more.

I do believe that there is something bigger than us that created the universe. Science has already proven it: the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. If matter can't be created, then how or why do we exist?

I do believe in an inherent morality system and code of ethics, I just don't believe we need a book written thousands of years ago in a completely different world than the one we live in to tell us what to do. After all, these books, the foundations of religion, tell us to sacrifice our children if told to (if I had been Abraham, I would have refused to sacrifice my son for absolutely no reason). It's then that, even if Abraham's God was real, I would have refused to worship him out of principle: just the fact that you're God doesn't excuse you from demanding a blood sacrifice simply to prove my faith...and such a demand immediately proves you're not God, because an omniscient God wouldn't need proof for anything, he would automatically know that Abraham believes in him.

[Lokisson]

You have choices:

1/ You don't care either way

2/ You need proof (aka science, not faith as faith is belief without need of proof)

3/ You have faith (and like 2/ no one is too likely to change your mind)

Me? I'm heathen. Asatru to be precise (Norse gods in case my name doesn't give it away lol). Worse, I'm a Godhi, an actual "minister" for my faith! *shock* I don't force my beliefs on others, can't stand those who do ... I can happily keep up on almost any religious conversation, having studied many and having an avid interest in theology. My parents hated it at first, they are all 110% agnostic to put it mildly.

Do I think a Big Bang created the universe? A being spoke a word (out of nothing)? Or that the universe as we know it was created when fire & ice collided to shape it? All have as much possibility of being accurate (I wasn't there to witness it, neither where you), but if it comes to the crunch I'm enamored with the fire & ice theory lol.

Not all religions are created equal, nor are all sciences ... otherwise there wouldn't be so many arguments over who is right, why everything is referred to as a "theory" and why both religious leaders and scientists constantly try to prove the other faiths/scientists wrong

Personally, I like the idea of a higher power watching me, lending a helping hand (or kick in the rear) every so often, and the idea of an afterlife. I also have no issues of being proven wrong in the finale and just being worm food roflmao ... be the greatest joke either way if you ask me

[DuLake]

I've replied in a few of these before so I'll be brief. I'm an atheist. I generally feel that religion is a means of society, as in it creates a basis to bring people together through (semi-)voluntary subjugation (Essentially, a social contract). That doesn't make it inherently bad, though it often can be. I personally do not participate in the contract, but I recognize that it is good for society in some ways. I believe Plato called it the noble lie, that we are all children of God and should love each other as such. Of course, Plato didn't believe it, but he recognized that many people need to feel that they are being watched, or they will misbehave. The problem is, of course, all the harm that religion does (mostly through polarizing other religions). That's kind of how I feel anyway. Of course, I'm also a Humean empiricist, and therefore inherently accept that I could be wrong.

Me? I'm heathen. Asatru to be precise (Norse gods in case my name doesn't give it away lol). Worse, I'm a Godhi, an actual "minister" for my faith!

I just had to comment on this, and pardon me if this is rude, but I find that insanely interesting. I don't mean to come of as demeaning, but that's just a very obscure choice and I'm kind of intrigued as how you came upon it (especially if you were in such an irreligious family). I expect to hear from Christians and such, but I don't hear from a lot of Asatru practitioners (and I apologize if I wrote that incorrectly).

[TheAlterUser]

Erm . . . honestly, I could careless about religion. I'm not an Atheist. But I'm not a Christian. I don't consider myself any religion. But maybe there is a powerful being ((or beings)) somewhere. And honestly, you can't have one without the other. So if there is in fact a God, there must be a Goddess. Rather sexist if you tell me.

For instance, if there is a God but no Goddess . . . then why do they have this phrase? "Mother Nature, Father Sky"

Like I said earlier, if there is such a being out there. There must be two because you can't have one without the other. And I honestly do believe there is such a being out there. Just not sure if it's God per say.

[Lokisson]

I just had to comment on this, and pardon me if this is rude, but I find that insanely interesting. I don't mean to come of as demeaning, but that's just a very obscure choice and I'm kind of intrigued as how you came upon it (especially if you were in such an irreligious family). I expect to hear from Christians and such, but I don't hear from a lot of Asatru practitioners (and I apologize if I wrote that incorrectly).

I'd be a fairly lame priest if I was offended by something so small now wouldn't I? After some of the discussions I've had in the past, your question is phrased most politely lol. Btw, yes you wrote it all correctly How did I come to my choices? Hmmm, Consider:

1/ Always been interested in theology, I've studied many (inc 3 forms of christianity btw)

2/ I've been a martial arts student for 30+ years, medieval (steel) re-enactment for nearly 20 years, and Norse specific for about 15 years now

3/ At some stage I became interested in my family tree and discovered I was descended from Norwegian nobility

4/ I've always been fascinated with mythology. I was a Vitki well before I became a Godhi (Vitki is Old Norse for "wise man", a kind of lore keeper and story teller), thus I was very familiar with all the lore and stories of my faith

5/ I developed a bond with one deity, then another, after a while people started coming to me for advice on our shared faith (I know quite a few Asa/Vanatru), I wanted to help others, so started to seek greater understanding, wisdom and some help my self

Now I give council on the God/dess's, hold ceremony's, rituals, blessings, try to teach/educate about our faith to those who are interested, and help me and mine as best I can in any way I can. It's not always easy, sometimes it's down right bloody hard, but it's always rewarding. Spiritually if nothing else lol.

There's more of course, there always is *grin*, but that covers the basics for me at least.

How's that work for you?