Atheism destroyed with a question

[Davian]

I've made the exact same points. It's irrelevant to the atheists.

Yes, it is.

Everyone has a conscience, everyone knows good from evil,

Does being a believer prevent on from committing evil acts? No?

and everyone knows in his heart that there is a God.

You are telling me what I think?

Atheists deny this, and in doing so they lie to themselves constantly.

Go on, tell me more about what I am thinking.

Atheism itself is one big lie.

Atheism is not a truth statement.

When confronted with the facts, they say that the laws of physics aren't really laws; that they could be violated under certain circumstances... like when it suits them. They hide behind science, but real science is NOT on the side of the atheist.

Science appears to be on the side of Francis Collins, evangelical Christian, and American physician-geneticist:

"Collins uncritically accepts and summarizes the standard big bang story (pp. 71–78),7 then discusses the Anthropic Principle"

Harmony and discord: A review of Francis Collins' book The Language of God

Science holds that everything must have a cause; a point of origination; and that the origination of matter / energy is impossible. They simply pretend otherwise and accuse you of being ignorant because you don't understand science. It doesn't matter if you understand it better than they do.

You have not demonstrated an understanding of the science involved.

Atheism has nothing to do with truth.

Correct. It is not a truth statement

It's an excuse to reject the truth.

No, it is a position that rejects religion.

This thread will probably get deleted because even though this is supposed to be a Christian website we are expected to cheerfully accept atheism as a happy alternative to Christianity

Happy or not, would you rather all dissenting views be censored? Even if that included yours, for your anti-scientific approach to religion?

and do nothing while the atheists proceed down the road to Hell. Warning them that they will be eternally damned for their rejection of grace is considered hostile and flaming.

As it should be, just as yelling "FIRE! FIRE!" in crowded theatre should be considered inappropriate in the absence of any evidence of a threat of fire or smoke.

 

[Davian]

I didn't say that Christian apologetics is the crème de la crème of cognitive considerations. I only mean to imply that Empiricism (or even scientific investigation) doesn't win by default.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

 

[Davian]

Well, this depends on a person's prior assumptions as to the efficacy of scientific investigation. Some scientists are in the "methodological naturalism" camp, while other scientists placed themselves in the "philosophical naturalism" camp. So, whether there is room for God in one's thinking when it is dominated by scientific assumptions depends on which camp a person decides to reside in.

In other words, the epistemic starting point is relative, not absolute (even if reality is absolute and 'other' and real, etc.).

Peace

Do you leave room in your thinking for leprechauns, fairies, Easter bunnies, and reptilian humanoids?

 

[Davian]

No, I'm not one to spin my philosophical wheels for nothing. I'm going with Eugenie C. Scott's conclusions (a science educator and atheist, by the way, if you're not already familiar with who she is.)

Out of curiosity, what does she say?

My point is that there is room for theology if one stakes out in the "methodological naturalism" camp of science rather that the "philosophical naturalism" camp (e.g. Richard Dawkins is in the latter camp). As far as giving you proof of God, that is difficult to do because everyone seems to have their own definition as to what constitutes evidence and/or proof. Ultimately, despite Empiricism and so on, the argument boils down to people's discomfort with the argument from Evil and Suffering; most arguments against God are just some form of 'griping' about an imperfect world.

I would say it is the theist's inability to define what they mean by "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not being able to explain something doesn't make it false.

 

[Davian]

Ana,

"Well refuted."

Who would get the great honor to decide if the argument had been successfully "well refuted" or not? If there was a debate between an atheist and a Christian in front of an audience made up of 500 atheists, then we know how the "majority vote" would go. The Christian would be declared "well refuted." .. lol ..

There are lengthy debates between a Christian and some atheists at William Lane Craig's web site Reasonable Faith. I don't think William Lane Craig would be easy to "well refute" if you [or anyone else] actually had to do it in front of an audience of (say) 500 truly unbiased non-prejudiced people, who later voted on how well you [or anyone else] did.

A "successful" debate based on a voting scheme does establish that one's position as correct, does it?

Google "William Lane Craig Reasonable Faith" and see what you think. (I'd give you a link to a good debate between Craig and Law, but I need to get my post count up to 50 before I do that. (I plan to do that soon, this is a nice site.)

Cheers.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

WLC's arguments have been dragged through this forum not too long ago, and it did not go well. YMMV.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is a forum favoring faith.

 

[variant]

Please excuse what appears to be my "appeal to authority." Since I've seen people gripe on these forums if I do the 'academic act' of actually citing my sources, I often try instead to be concise. Next time, I'll not assume that with you...I'll do the quote, cite my source, and specifically elaborate my point to remove ambiguity as to my intent.

I don't mind you basing your argument on sources, just that I like to actually have the argument rather than X disagrees with you which I find hollow and uninteresting.

And Heavens to Betsy, I wouldn't dream of insisting that anyone would actually be obligated to believe based on typical apologetic arguments.

Peace

What I generally am hoping for in the theist position is some resistance to my position.

It has been a disappointing couple of decades gutting these arguments out with no one having the most basic idea what to do with me once I challenge their ability to speak about and for Gods.

Which is, of course, is why I came to the conclusion that rational arguments aren't really a way to understand God.

 

[variant]

Not being able to explain something doesn't make it false.

It's also very hard to assert things you don't understand because you don't understand what you are asserting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Out of curiosity, what does she say?

I would say it is the theist's inability to define what they mean by "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner.

See the thread I've created titled 'Science? Methodological Naturalism vs. Philosophical Naturalism' for a bit of what she has to say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't mind you basing your argument on sources, just that I like to actually have the argument rather than X disagrees with you which I find hollow and uninteresting.



What I generally am hoping for in the theist position is some resistance to my position.

It has been a disappointing couple of decades gutting these arguments out with no one having the sliest idea what to do with me once I challenge their ability to speak about and for Gods.

Which is, of course, is why I came to the conclusion that rational arguments aren't really a way to understand God.

I understand the frustration fully--believe me, I've had my existential crisis. Furthermore, you'd be correct about Christianity not being based squarely on rational arguments. Whatever evidence is there is constituted of things scientists don't have much use for, like: prophecies, revelations, parables (purposely given to evoke/deter further inquiry), partially historical testimonies, theologically biased and culturally contingent histories, polemical narratives, etc.

With these kinds of things given as 'evidences of faith,' it is no wonder we all can get frustrated when using a modern, scientific praxis.

Peace

 

[Lovely Jar]

I lost interest because the video is not reader friendly at all.

However, it is true that atheists argue something from nothing as source for all that exists.

Basically, they hold faith in the, "anything as long as it isn't called God" principle of creation.

Railing against God as something that is based strictly on faith, but doesn't exist, claiming it's never been proven to exist, and therefore isn't reasonable as source for all that does.

And all the while those same atheists will argue on behalf of science and when asked will say they believe in Atoms.

Even though they're a theory and have never been seen.

Atheism. How much intellect does it take to believe in nothing.

Since there seems to be many atheists on this "Christian" forum I thought of posting this:

youtube.com/watch?v=KqJKOHFB7IU

And it raises good points especially of the fine tuning of the universe.

"But that's the argument from design!"

Which hasn't been refuted. The fine tuning is agreed upon by physicists. The video uses academic sources for its claims too.

 

[variant]

I understand the frustration fully--believe me, I've had my existential crisis. Furthermore, you'd be correct about Christianity not being based squarely on rational arguments. Whatever evidence is there is constituted of things scientists don't have much use for, like: prophecies, revelations, parables (purposely given to evoke/deter further inquiry), partially historical testimonies, theologically biased/structured histories, etc.

With these kinds of things given as 'evidences of faith,' it is no wonder we all can get frustrated when using a modern, scientific praxis.

Peace

I don't think I'm having an existential crisis per say, well, not any more than anyone else is anyway.

I find religion to be interesting, and it reveals interesting things about people, but what I think I learn most from the idea that it is not squarely rational based is that we have these discussions based upon believers trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance between their need to believe and their rational skepticism.

What's wrong with modern scientific understandings eroding core social beliefs developed over thousands of years, is that the needs they were made to address still exist after the beliefs are gone.

So, some try in vain to find fault with the scientific perspective, when, it really didn't do anything except explain some things better.

We'll adjust I think.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think I'm having an existential crisis per say, well, not any more than anyone else is anyway.

I find religion to be interesting, and it reveals interesting things about people, but what I think I learn most from the idea that it is not squarely rational based is that we have these discussions based upon believers trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance between their need to believe and their rational skepticism.

What's wrong with modern scientific understandings eroding core social beliefs developed over thousands of years, is that the needs they were made to address still exist after the beliefs are gone.

So, some try in vain to find fault with the scientific perspective, when, it really didn't do anything except explain some things better.

We'll adjust I think.

Well...I really wasn't trying to imply that you have had an existential crisis, but rather that have been through some 'mental stuff' myself because I've considered the many arguments themselves and, at times, have been almost blown to the non-theistic side. However, the atheist's arguments don't always seem fully worked out to me...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well...I really wasn't trying to imply that you have had an existential crisis, but rather that have been through some 'mental stuff' myself because I've considered the many arguments themselves and, at times, have been almost blown to the non-theistic side. The problem is that the atheist's arguments don't always seem fully worked out to me...

I have the same problem, only with theism. As much as the idea of an afterlife is appealing, I cannot deny the evidence I see that suggests this is the only life we have.

 

[variant]

Well...I really wasn't trying to imply that you have had an existential crisis, but rather that have been through some 'mental stuff' myself because I've considered the many arguments themselves and, at times, have been almost blown to the non-theistic side. However, the atheist's arguments don't always seem fully worked out to me...

It's understandable, as I meant to imply, there is a reason religions exist and that people believe in them. They serve a particular purpose for people if nothing else.

It's hard to be all that mad at someone for disagreeing with you when they are merely acting out a very basic part of their humanity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's understandable, as I meant to imply, there is a reason religions exist and that people believe in them. They serve a particular purpose for people if nothing else.

Yes, it can be somewhat of a pragmatic thing for many.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

However, it is true that atheists argue something from nothing as source for all that exists.

Some do, but that's hardly requisite.

Basically, they hold faith in the, "anything as long as it isn't called God" principle of creation.

Is it necessary that something be called "God?" If there is an unmoved mover, but it is not personal, not omniscient, not omnipotent, and has no bearing on morality, should it be called God?

Railing against God as something that is based strictly on faith, but doesn't exist, claiming it's never been proven to exist, and therefore isn't reasonable as source for all that does.

And all the while those same atheists will argue on behalf of science and when asked will say they believe in Atoms.

Even though they're a theory and have never been seen.

You do know that there are other ways of finding something other than by sight, yes? And saying that something is a "theory" when speaking in a scientific sense is not disparaging in any way. There is a world of difference between believing a scientific theory and accepting something on faith in the religious sense.

Atheism. How much intellect does it take to believe in nothing.

No idea. What does believing in nothing have to do with atheism?

 

[Cearbhall]

Basically, they hold faith in the, "anything as long as it isn't called God" principle of creation.

That makes more sense to me than the "anything as long as it doesn't want you to touch or do these thousand other things" principle.

 

[Davian]

Well...I really wasn't trying to imply that you have had an existential crisis, but rather that have been through some 'mental stuff' myself because I've considered the many arguments themselves and, at times, have been almost blown to the non-theistic side. However, the atheist's arguments don't always seem fully worked out to me...

What would an "atheist argument" need to have worked out?