Atheism (2)

[createdtoworship]

To do this we'd need to go through every single argument for God ever made, and refute each one. Hardly expedient.

Alternatively, you could give your best shot to the case that God DOES exist and let us examine it. If your best doesn't work, hardly worth bothering with the others, is it?

All you need is a singular counterexample - so easy. Go for it.

but I dont' want to, because it's an athiest forum. And we should talk about athiesm. So prove He doesn't exist. It's your day, so shine! Shine!

 

[Gadarene]

Yes interpretation... if you ever looked at general theology

I tend to not bother with boards where I can't post, typically.

I might read something wrong, and then I couldn't post pointing out in withering detail how wrong they are.

And that would be a shame.

I was being made fun of earlier because I was claiming many people who believe in Jesus believe blindly. They think we have to believe in "who" instead of "what" and brought up many examples scripturally and was told my questions were idiotic. So interpretation is a large problem for both believers and unbelievers.

Of the Bible, yes - but I'd argue that that's a reflection of the inherent ambiguity of the Bible.

I understand your view of men authoring the bible, but through my faith I would (have) to disagree. I see your point of view though if that were not the case. (i am sensing what I said might work against me )

I get your claim too. I just don't buy the "the HS inspired them" claim. It's not something that results in consistency or accuracy, in my experience.

 

[Zack454]

You can't prove a negative. Anything, I have said that like six times already.

Which disproves your point, and further proves my notion that God is an idea.

 

[createdtoworship]

Which hardly holds up to scrutiny, as the Bible is very definitely fallible. Plus you have the usual problem of interpretation.

The advantage of looking at nature is that while you may still have the interpretation problem to some degree, man definitely did not author the earth. He did with the Bible, so there is an extra layer of fallibility.

what makes you think man authored the Bible? Couldn't it have been a miracle?

science cannot explain miracles (generally speaking) or they would not be miraculous.

 

[Gadarene]

but I dont' want to, because it's an athiest forum. And we should talk about athiesm. So prove He doesn't exist. It's your day, so shine! Shine!

Ok.

The quickest way is for the claim to be proven is to provide your best shot, and we'll look at it.

I'm not rehashing all the thousands of daft claims for God I've seen over several years for your benefit when you haven't even been reading the thread from the start of this exchange and aren't even interested in serious debate.

Assuming you are even serious about debating this, which you evidently aren't, you would then have to respond to all the counterarguments I raised with counters in turn.

So we both end up doing a stupid amount of work each to prove a negative as best we can.

Alternatively, you could stop trolling the thread and post your best evidence for God, which would be far quicker for everyone.

 

[Non sequitur]

the first post I commented on was a definition of atheism. It said that no evidence was available that God exists. So I say, prove it. Prove that there is no evidence in the entire universe that God exists.

You don't prove non-evidence. Non-evidence proves itself by not being evident.

Otherwise, all is permitted, until all evidence it shown otherwise.

The burden is on you to provide evidence, not the other way around.

 

[Gadarene]

what makes you think man authored the Bible? Couldn't it have been a miracle?

science cannot explain miracles.

Wow, an actual response that wasn't evasion! Some improvement.

As I said, the Bible is not infallible. It is quite fallible. It is much likelier that man authored it. It could have been a miracle, but I'd expect a far superior book if a god authored it, frankly.

Science may not be able to find God acting in a miraculous event (assuming the event itself can even be verified - miracle claims aren't typically well-evidenced), but we should see them occurring following prayer. When looked at systematically, there is virtually no change in likelihood of outcome following prayer.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok.

The quickest way is for the claim to be proven is to provide your best shot, and we'll look at it.

I'm not rehashing all the thousands of daft claims for God I've seen over several years for your benefit when you haven't even been reading the thread from the start of this exchange and aren't even interested in serious debate.

Assuming you are even serious about debating this, which you evidently aren't, you would then have to respond to all the counterarguments I raised with counters in turn.

So we both end up doing a stupid amount of work each to prove a negative as best we can.

Alternatively, you could stop trolling the thread and post your best evidence for God, which would be far quicker for everyone.

so your saying the entire premise of this thread is unprovable?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Possible yes. Probable, no. There are a plethora of different views on moral issues that are universal, let alone subjective.

How can you justify that it's not probable? The evolutionary/biological evidence points to this explanation (subjective), where there is no evidence at all for your view (objective).

Based on the available evidence, a subjective basis for morality is far more likely to exist.

I never said that Mr. Ellis. I have said there are basic beliefs about morality that are binding upon all and are accepted regardless of culture, location, time etc.

How do you know those basic moral beliefs are binding?

This knowledge comes from the logical deduction which states: either there is a God (some supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, moral being) or there isn't. One is true. Both cannot be true and both cannot be false. We know this because scientist have come to the conclusion that the universe had a definite beginning at some point in the distant past. In other words, the universe was created ex nihilo. Now, if the universe came to be at some point in the distant past, then logically it stands that there was a cause for it coming into being. This cause must meet the above qualifications. This outside source as you call it is more plausibly God.

How can you possibly name God as the most plausible source? There's no evidence to show the existence of God is even plausible, much less him being the source of all morality.

A proposal without evidence can not be the most plausible under any circumstance. There's nothing there to make it the least bit plausible.

You are correct atheism is not a system of morality. It is a system of amorality.

No, Atheism is not a system of anything. It's a position taken on the existence or non-existence of God.

This is incorrect. Theism states that all that exists, whether immaterial or material, has it's source in God. This includes morality.

No, Theism does not state that. A theist simply believes a God or Deity exists, that's all. Any attributes you give to that God are separate from your position on whether that God exists or not.

This is to confuse terms. A person can be moral and not believe in God. All this means is that they are living in a contradictory manner to their belief.

No, not in the least. This is simply an incorrect statement. My belief is that morals come from within us.... that's not contradictory with not believing in a God. God is irrelevant.

You are saying it is never permissable to rape someone. I agree. This is a statement on morality once again. As an atheist, you have no ground to make such an assertion.

I thought you were interested in carrying on a civil conversation. Statements like that are inflammatory. Frankly, stating that Atheists have no sense or justification for holding moral values is ignorant and bigoted.

I have every right to make the assertion that Rape is wrong. Just because I don't believe in your mythology, that does not change my moral structure.

Another statement with regards to morality.

Yes it is, and Secular Morality is indeed superior to Christian Morality.

The scientific method and science assumes certain things that cannot be scientifically and empirically verified. I can give you a list if you would like.

Anything that is not observable can not be investigated by science, as we can't experiment or test it. However, in regards to anything that is not observable, we also have no justification to assert it exists as we can not prove it.

Things like Philosophy also fall mostly outside the realm of science, as they deal with totally different subjects.

Have I missed anything off your list?

 

[Gadarene]

so your saying the entire premise of this thread is unprovable?

Not at all! It's entirely provable if you present the best arguments and they fail to stand up to scrutiny!

I don't think there IS a good argument for God, so I'm not really the person to present such a thing, am I?

So over to you.

And unless the obvious needs pointing out to you - not making an argument is also a pretty poor reason to justify belief in the existence of God.

 

[Going Merry]

Do atheists like nachos? Joking joking, of course they dont
Ok I will stop posting random posts -fades-

 

[Zack454]

Do atheists like nachos? Joking joking, of course they dont
Ok I will stop posting random posts -fades-

I love nachos. And I'm as atheist as they come.

 

[madaz]

the first post I commented on was a definition of atheism. It said that no evidence was available that God exists. So I say, prove it. Prove that there is no evidence in the entire universe that God exists.

Are you seriously that stupid?

An Atheist is one who rejects the belief in deities

Say that to yourself a thousand times until you understand it, you insist on ignoring it.

Why do insist on ignoring your errors when they pointed out to you?

Why do you insist on answering valid questions with sarcastic comments?

Why do you insist on using your own definition of Atheism when it has been made clear to you numerously?

Please answer my question with valid answers?

 

[Going Merry]

I love nachos. And I'm as atheist as they come.

 

[Eudaimonist]

how can one believe that no dieties exist unless they have ultimate knowledge of every nic and crany of the universe.

Claim: "I have ultimate knowledge of the universe."

Do you lack belief in the truth of this claim? Or do you have ultimate knowledge of every nook and cranny of the universe that proves absolutely that I don't have a secret computer hiding under a rock on a distant planet that gives me the powers of omniscience?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

I never said it was proven, I said it was known by intuition. The inner calling of every man and woman. Not external evidence, thats not even the subject of this matter. Prove to me you are seeing red monkeys in your thoughts? You can't. In the same way you can't prove a moral law. I was wrong to call it objective, I meant to say subjective, because it's TO the person that is fealing these laws. But they are all the same. And the person making the laws is God so the object of the law is holding the same status as the law and not contradicting it, so it is objective technically speaking. But we can't know that much yet.

Intuition is no basis for making a truth claim, and you know it. Furthermore, Please show evidence that supports your claim that the person making moral laws is God.

on the contrary, it does.

No, it doesn't... Just because a lot of people happen to share common beliefs does not mean that value was dictated by a God.

why? are there similiar moral viewpoints, have not each culture evolved separately for many generations and how would they still have empathy all and each in the same way? Without a moral code, thats universal?

No, every culture has not evolved separately... Cultures have interacted with each other right from the dawn of civilization.

who are you to say you are stronger than say , dogs which do cut in line (and have no empathy for each other at all)

Who are you to say we aren't?

 

[Going Merry]

An Atheist is one who rejects the belief in deities

It's so much cooler on our side though

 

[Dave Ellis]

Mr. Ellis, according to your view, humans are nothing more than a conglomeration of randomly constructed atoms, molecules, blood, bone, flesh, and hair. One of your very own, Mr. Richard Dawkins, a notable and respected atheistic scientist has this to say about us: “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

Now why on earth Mr. Ellis would you have any feeling for anyone who was compelled to go into a gas chamber?

The same reason why I think you're an ignorant, bigoted piece of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] for even asking such a question.

Just because I don't believe we're some grand design of your God, does not mean I don't feel empathy for the pain, alongside of the families of the millions of Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Atheists, Disabled and others, that were systematically murdered by the Nazis.

Get your head out of your ass. Despite your bigotry, Atheists are indeed human as well. The fact I am insulted, offended and angry at your post is another demonstration of that.

The fact you view us as sub-human and unfeeling just goes to prove you lack a total understanding, or respect of our position.

Emotions, Morals and Feelings exist independently of your God. We feel them just strongly, if not stronger than you do. We just believe they come from within, not from your magic man in the sky

 

[Dave Ellis]

Respectfully and humbly replying in response to your post, please note that I said two things: that atheism is a system of amorality, and that atheists can be moral beings. Only when they do, they are living in contradiction to their worldview.

No, it's not. It's not a moral, amoral or immoral system. In fact, it's not a system of anything at all. It's the position taken by someone who does not accept any God claims. It has absolutely nothing more to do with anything than that.

Your argument makes no more sense than saying people who's favourite colour is red can be moral, but people who's favourite colour is blue can not be moral... or if they are moral it's in contradiction of their blue-loving worldview.

It really is that silly of an argument.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Then I am afraid that you are not familiar with what your own worldview claims.

That's impressive.... you apparently understand our worldview better than we do, and are trying to lecture us on it.

Perhaps if you'd open your ears to what we're telling you, perhaps you'd understand that what William Lane Craig and people of his ilk tell you about what Atheists are, and what they believe aren't actually correct.

How do I know that? Because I am an Atheist, and the tripe they speak of in regards to us is a heaping load of crap.

You would be wise to actually talk to Atheists in an effort to understand what our worldview is, instead of soaking up what a particularly ignorant Christian has said about Atheists, and then trying to argue from a similarly ignorant position.

Your writings are not respectful, they are arrogant. Until you listen to what we have to say, and stop trying to push your misguided opinion of what our worldview is on us, that will not change.

I have amicably and humbly responded to every post and reply here with the utmost respect, time and attention. I however, am not compelled to engage in debate with someone who is unwilling to agree to disagree. I shall conclude my responses to you Mr. Gadarene by leaving you with this:

"To try to explain truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation." - George MacDonald

I pray you find your way. Good day.

The problem is, your idea of trying to explain truth has fallen into two categories:

1) Claims which you have repeatedly refused to back with evidence, even when asked for it

2) Pushing your interpretation of an Atheist worldview on to Atheists, who clearly fully disagree with your interpretation.

The fact you are trying to dictate to us what we believe, and we clearly do not agree with anything you have said on the matter should open your eyes to the idea that maybe you don't understand the Atheist position at all. Instead you arrogantly assert we have no reason to feel any emotion or empathy for anything.

If you understood us, you would realise how hopelessly wrong you are.

Perhaps you should pray that you find your own way, because you're the one that needs it. Or better yet.... stop wasting your time with prayer, open your ears and hear what we're actually trying to tell you. That should solve the problem right there.